Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
Do you gave any compelling evidence of that, or is it just an opinion ?
Institutional Racism is the belief that if the output is inequality in race, the system is racist.
It’s interesting to apply the methodology to other areas. The Green Belt policy is Institutionally Racist, for example.
It's institutionally stupid, that's for sure.
Change "output" to "net contribution" and "inequality" to "increasing inequality" and it stops being so stupid.
Antony Beevor’s “Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921”
Extraordinary, lurid, vivid and brutal. I thought I basically knew the story. Turns out I knew 5%
The cruelty is mind-boggling, on both sides
One of the best books Ive read lately
The sheer mindless brutality and pointless slaughter are what stick with me. A war with no good guys.
It’s fascinating to read it - as I am - on the then-bloody periphery of the Russian Empire/USSR
I see it got sniffy reviews from some Russia specialists. ie they are jealous that Beevor has the novelist’s gift for telling detail and gripping narrative and thus makes v nice money. One reviewer complains that Beevor “ignores detail in favour of accessibility”
Ive read other histories of the Russian Civil War, they mostly skip over the massacres and sadistic torture of innocent civilians. Beevor brings them all to light and in a way explain the screwed up mess which is the Soviet Union and modern Russia. The Nazis were treading a well worn path..
The Cheka (Ч К - for Extraordinary Commission - Чрезвычайная Комиссия) were efficient for sure, including in the psychology of calling themselves by that acronym. Does anyone know of an earlier example of similar acronym use in any country??
This is the first Soviet animated film, Soviet Toys, shot by Dziga Vertov in 1924, after the civil war but still - get the plinky plonky music with the hanging as well as the obvious influence on Terry Gilliam of Monty Python:
Rather lazy first day by my holiday standards, only 18 miles walked today
I really wanted to stay a night in Saint Jean Pied de Port, so decided to split the journey there in two. I’m at quite a nice hotel in Atxissou (which I presume is pronounced something like a sneeze)
I’m right at the edge of the Pyrenees now, the picture is from the hotel car park
Looks like the GR10 but that doesn't go through Lourdes and you've got a left turn to Montpellier at the end. Is this an actual GR route or your own confection. Hope the weather is kind to you on the higher levels.
Did the Grand St Bernard last year and hit the perfect week to do it. Good weather makes all the difference.
Snow in the hollows, lowering skies, and stories of a pilgrim eaten by vultures.
Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
Nope. Voters have agency. No one is responsible for Trump apart from those who voted for him. The same goes for Starmer.
We are all responsible for choices offered to us in the society in which we live.
With all due respect that is bollocks.
No. It isn't bollocks.
The actions of hyperliberals are creating resentment which is absolutely creating a ready constituency for Trump. The resistance to this plain and simple fact I find fascinating: you are helping create the very monster you despise. Probably because you don't want to fact up to it.
If you listened to people more and dropped the dogmatic policy his ravings would have no currency.
I'm nothing like a hyperliberal. I don't believe Edward Colston should be thrown into Bristol Docks or Cecil Rhodes pulled from Oxford University buildings. I am not calling for Whiteladies Road or Blackboy Hill to be cleansed of their colours. I don't want to give reparations to Africa or the West Indies (if they deserve reparations so do I for my forefathers who worked in the coal mines of South Wales for poverty wages).
On the other hand I accept I have benefitted from white priviledge, simply for being left alone by the police whilst walking or driving on the highways and byways of Britain. I don't belive history should be rewritten in either direction, should Trump be removing all traces of Colin Powell from the Pentagon because he was black? On a visit to English Harbour I asked an Antiguan guide why she never mentioned slavery, she responded by saying "why would I generate an argument with my American customers who believe slaves were merely indentured servants, I need the tips".
So the stuff you don't like ( and neither do I) about unfair positive discrimination, and rewriting history to make "white British" (or white Americans) look guilty also works in the other direction. Roll all the playing fields flat and I am cool with that. But my liberalism didn't make Trump beatup on black and coloured people. He does that because he's a racist like his father and probably always was.
The very concept of "hyperliberalism" is a great example of begging the question.
Gray - and Casino I think - simply assume its existence, and the fact that it's a widespread political philosophy, axiomatically.
They do little or none of the hard work that would be involved in delineating its real extent, and then build a series of conclusions and calls to action on the back of it.
The "hyper" in "hyperliberalism" is the giveaway. It implies, by definition, that liberalism has gone too far.
And yes, like anything else, too much of a good thing is likely to be a bad thing. But that's not an especially interesting statement.
Actually, I think the fundamental problem with the Gray thesis is he sees it as:
Locke -> Mill -> Hyperlibralism*, and thinks them all as being in the same family.
But Gray's Hyperliberalism is the absolute antethesis of Mill's liberalism. Mill's liberalism, as described in On Liberty is fundamentally based on the sovereignty of the individual over groups.
It's much more accurate to describe Hyperliberalism as a descendent of other political theories that put the group above the individual: original Marxism being the most obvious example.
Ultimately, Gray is a Hobbesian, and therefore doesn't like Locke and Mill, and he tries therefore to tie Hyperliberalism to them, and it's... frankly... bullshit. I think it's by far his weakest book.
* With the word "Hyperliberalism" being a stand in for "woke" and "identity politics"
John Gray could bore the paint off a wall. He has absolutely no clue about what's going on in society, other than having detected that something is - big deal! And if it wasn't so sad that he thinks of himself as a deep thinker it would be funny. Give him a wide berth and everything will be okay. It wouldn't even be worth bothering working out how one might try to wake the moron up a little, because the effort would be futile. The thought that some people at dinner parties discuss his scribblings...makes me glad I don't go to dinner parties.
Your comment suggests you get invited to dinner parties, which is ridiculous to start with. No one has dinner parties anymore anyway
Going to one tomorrow night. Debating the future of democracy (admittedly a rather dull subject, but there we are).
What will you discuss when you have finished discussing Trump?
I know, its a dull topic and we usually do better. But people involved in both the WomenforScotland case and the Peggie case are going to be there so hopefully we will move onto better issues. The host is a superb cook and there is a lot of banter. Dinner parties remain a great way of spending an evening with the right crowd.
I go to suppers organised by Saul David, where military historians speak, and then we discuss it over dinner. They’re immense fun.
I went to a dinner at Buck's Club where Andrew Roberts was the guest of honour (this was about 10 years ago), and it was absolutely fabulous.
I'm offering to wager £10 on Michael Czerny as next pope at a price of 150 at Smarkets. Down from 200. Perhaps some are frit at the possibility that the Jesuits will make it a double?
(Why I think this is a value if fun bet is just think of the strings that must have been yanked to get Ratzinger out. Talk about tearing up the rulebook.)
Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
And then rips society apart, and leads to Trump.
Nope. Voters have agency. No one is responsible for Trump apart from those who voted for him. The same goes for Starmer.
We are all responsible for choices offered to us in the society in which we live.
With all due respect that is bollocks.
No. It isn't bollocks.
The actions of hyperliberals are creating resentment which is absolutely creating a ready constituency for Trump. The resistance to this plain and simple fact I find fascinating: you are helping create the very monster you despise. Probably because you don't want to fact up to it.
If you listened to people more and dropped the dogmatic policy his ravings would have no currency.
I'm nothing like a hyperliberal. I don't believe Edward Colston should be thrown into Bristol Docks or Cecil Rhodes pulled from Oxford University buildings. I am not calling for Whiteladies Road or Blackboy Hill to be cleansed of their colours. I don't want to give reparations to Africa or the West Indies (if they deserve reparations so do I for my forefathers who worked in the coal mines of South Wales for poverty wages).
On the other hand I accept I have benefitted from white priviledge, simply for being left alone by the police whilst walking or driving on the highways and byways of Britain. I don't belive history should be rewritten in either direction, should Trump be removing all traces of Colin Powell from the Pentagon because he was black? On a visit to English Harbour I asked an Antiguan guide why she never mentioned slavery, she responded by saying "why would I generate an argument with my American customers who believe slaves were merely indentured servants, I need the tips".
So the stuff you don't like ( and neither do I) about unfair positive discrimination, and rewriting history to make "white British" (or white Americans) look guilty also works in the other direction. Roll all the playing fields flat and I am cool with that. But my liberalism didn't make Trump beatup on black and coloured people. He does that because he's a racist like his father and probably always was.
The very concept of "hyperliberalism" is a great example of begging the question.
Gray - and Casino I think - simply assume its existence, and the fact that it's a widespread political philosophy, axiomatically.
They do little or none of the hard work that would be involved in delineating its real extent, and then build a series of conclusions and calls to action on the back of it.
The "hyper" in "hyperliberalism" is the giveaway. It implies, by definition, that liberalism has gone too far.
And yes, like anything else, too much of a good thing is likely to be a bad thing. But that's not an especially interesting statement.
Actually, I think the fundamental problem with the Gray thesis is he sees it as:
Locke -> Mill -> Hyperlibralism*, and thinks them all as being in the same family.
But Gray's Hyperliberalism is the absolute antethesis of Mill's liberalism. Mill's liberalism, as described in On Liberty is fundamentally based on the sovereignty of the individual over groups.
It's much more accurate to describe Hyperliberalism as a descendent of other political theories that put the group above the individual: original Marxism being the most obvious example.
Ultimately, Gray is a Hobbesian, and therefore doesn't like Locke and Mill, and he tries therefore to tie Hyperliberalism to them, and it's... frankly... bullshit. I think it's by far his weakest book.
* With the word "Hyperliberalism" being a stand in for "woke" and "identity politics"
I'm reading Tom Sharpe's Indecent Exposure for the first time in 30 years, and for some reason it feels very appropriate for 2025 USA, Stephen Miller as Verkramp.
I haven't read that since the 80s, library book as well. I was unemployed for 2 years unfortunately.
Antony Beevor’s “Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921”
Extraordinary, lurid, vivid and brutal. I thought I basically knew the story. Turns out I knew 5%
The cruelty is mind-boggling, on both sides
One of the best books Ive read lately
The sheer mindless brutality and pointless slaughter are what stick with me. A war with no good guys.
It’s fascinating to read it - as I am - on the then-bloody periphery of the Russian Empire/USSR
I see it got sniffy reviews from some Russia specialists. ie they are jealous that Beevor has the novelist’s gift for telling detail and gripping narrative and thus makes v nice money. One reviewer complains that Beevor “ignores detail in favour of accessibility”
Ive read other histories of the Russian Civil War, they mostly skip over the massacres and sadistic torture of innocent civilians. Beevor brings them all to light and in a way explain the screwed up mess which is the Soviet Union and modern Russia. The Nazis were treading a well worn path..
The Cheka (Ч К - for Extraordinary Commission - Чрезвычайная Комиссия) were efficient for sure, including in the psychology of calling themselves by that acronym. Does anyone know of an earlier example of similar acronym use in any country??
This is the first Soviet animated film, Soviet Toys, shot by Dziga Vertov in 1924, after the civil war but still - get the plinky plonky music with the hanging as well as the obvious influence on Terry Gilliam of Monty Python:
Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
Do you gave any compelling evidence of that, or is it just an opinion ?
It must be a very high brow intellectual post because I haven't a clue what any of it means.
John Gray could bore the paint off a wall. He has absolutely no clue about what's going on in society, other than having detected that something is - big deal! And if it wasn't so sad that he thinks of himself as a deep thinker it would be funny. Give him a wide berth and everything will be okay. It wouldn't even be worth bothering working out how one might try to wake the moron up a little, because the effort would be futile. The thought that some people at dinner parties discuss his scribblings...makes me glad I don't go to dinner parties.
Your comment suggests you get invited to dinner parties, which is ridiculous to start with. No one has dinner parties anymore anyway
Going to one tomorrow night. Debating the future of democracy (admittedly a rather dull subject, but there we are).
What will you discuss when you have finished discussing Trump?
I know, its a dull topic and we usually do better. But people involved in both the WomenforScotland case and the Peggie case are going to be there so hopefully we will move onto better issues. The host is a superb cook and there is a lot of banter. Dinner parties remain a great way of spending an evening with the right crowd.
I go to suppers organised by Saul David, where military historians speak, and then we discuss it over dinner. They’re immense fun.
I went to a dinner at Buck's Club where Andrew Roberts was the guest of honour (this was about 10 years ago), and it was absolutely fabulous.
Antony Beevor’s “Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921”
Extraordinary, lurid, vivid and brutal. I thought I basically knew the story. Turns out I knew 5%
The cruelty is mind-boggling, on both sides
One of the best books Ive read lately
The sheer mindless brutality and pointless slaughter are what stick with me. A war with no good guys.
It’s fascinating to read it - as I am - on the then-bloody periphery of the Russian Empire/USSR
I see it got sniffy reviews from some Russia specialists. ie they are jealous that Beevor has the novelist’s gift for telling detail and gripping narrative and thus makes v nice money. One reviewer complains that Beevor “ignores detail in favour of accessibility”
Ive read other histories of the Russian Civil War, they mostly skip over the massacres and sadistic torture of innocent civilians. Beevor brings them all to light and in a way explain the screwed up mess which is the Soviet Union and modern Russia. The Nazis were treading a well worn path..
The Cheka (Ч К - for Extraordinary Commission - Чрезвычайная Комиссия) were efficient for sure, including in the psychology of calling themselves by that acronym. Does anyone know of an earlier example of similar acronym use in any country??
This is the first Soviet animated film, Soviet Toys, shot by Dziga Vertov in 1924, after the civil war but still - get the plinky plonky music with the hanging as well as the obvious influence on Terry Gilliam of Monty Python:
Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
Do you gave any compelling evidence of that, or is it just an opinion ?
It must be a very high brow intellectual post because I haven't a clue what any of it means.
Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
Do you gave any compelling evidence of that, or is it just an opinion ?
It must be a very high brow intellectual post because I haven't a clue what any of it means.
Far be it from me to explain it. I'll leave that to william.
Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.
He's less obviously departed from traditional Labour values - help for poorer people, higher taxes to finance the help, etc. While there's a market for Starmerist thinking - in particular, taxes unchanged as an article of faith - it's not where most members are.
Burnham ran for the leadership, had a lacklustre campaign devoid of ideas, and lost to Corbyn.
Enough said.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair, it was a example of assuming that the last war is the same as the current war and not realising that the electorate wanted something new.
As Kendall was in the "Blair on steroids" lane and Cooper in the "Brownite" lane Burnham aimed for a sort of Blair 1st team idealism. The idea that he would get transfers from Corbyn and then beat Cooper in the final round. He was correct that there was more votes on the left than in the right, but he didn't realise how much. I feel like it was doomed, his position was as left as he could convincingly portray*.
An interesting alt-history is if the rules hadn't been changed by Miliband. I would suggest it would have been like this
MPs: Burnham 35% , Cooper 32%, Kendall 21%, Corbyn 12% Members: Corbyn 50%, Burnham 23%, Cooper 22%, Kendall 5% Affiliated: Corbyn 57%, Burnham 26%, Cooper 13%, Kendall 4% Total: Corbyn 40%, Burnham 28%, Cooper 22%, Kendall 10%
There would be a narrow path for Cooper to win the vast majority of Kendall's transfers and Corbyn would have beaten her on Burnham transfers. But if Cooper didn't get enough to knock our Burnham then her transfers would have given Burnham the win.
* There was the joke - I went to the bar and there was a Blairite, a Brownite and an old Labour guy already there. I sat next to him and said "Hi Andy"
Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
Do you gave any compelling evidence of that, or is it just an opinion ?
It must be a very high brow intellectual post because I haven't a clue what any of it means.
Far be it from me to explain it. I'll leave that to william.
There was a good example at the recent Washington STEM Summit:
Can somebody explain the appeal of Andy Burnham? He just seems like an even worse Keir Starmer in every way.
He's less obviously departed from traditional Labour values - help for poorer people, higher taxes to finance the help, etc. While there's a market for Starmerist thinking - in particular, taxes unchanged as an article of faith - it's not where most members are.
Burnham ran for the leadership, had a lacklustre campaign devoid of ideas, and lost to Corbyn.
Enough said.
I'm not sure that's entirely fair, it was a example of assuming that the last war is the same as the current war and not realising that the electorate wanted something new.
As Kendall was in the "Blair on steroids" lane and Cooper in the "Brownite" lane Burnham aimed for a sort of Blair 1st team idealism. The idea that he would get transfers from Corbyn and then beat Cooper in the final round. He was correct that there was more votes on the left than in the right, but he didn't realise how much. I feel like it was doomed, his position was as left as he could convincingly portray*.
An interesting alt-history is if the rules hadn't been changed by Miliband. I would suggest it would have been like this
MPs: Burnham 35% , Cooper 32%, Kendall 21%, Corbyn 12% Members: Corbyn 50%, Burnham 23%, Cooper 22%, Kendall 5% Affiliated: Corbyn 57%, Burnham 26%, Cooper 13%, Kendall 4% Total: Corbyn 40%, Burnham 28%, Cooper 22%, Kendall 10%
There would be a narrow path for Cooper to win the vast majority of Kendall's transfers and Corbyn would have beaten her on Burnham transfers. But if Cooper didn't get enough to knock our Burnham then her transfers would have given Burnham the win.
* There was the joke - I went to the bar and there was a Blairite, a Brownite and an old Labour guy already there. I sat next to him and said "Hi Andy"
Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
That's why discussion in such terms is so pointless. Everyone makes up their own definition.
All political discourse is like that. It's not unique to wokeness.
I'd say "hyperliberalism" is mainly a label to try and make X seem reasnoable by demanding that "Y" are "hyperliberal". There may be a smide of valid analysis in the term.
It's not unlike someone on PB calling Ed Davey "hard left" recently.
Given that I still consider "liberal" to be at core about individual liberty, I'm not too keen on this particular trope.
Antony Beevor’s “Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921”
Extraordinary, lurid, vivid and brutal. I thought I basically knew the story. Turns out I knew 5%
The cruelty is mind-boggling, on both sides
One of the best books Ive read lately
The sheer mindless brutality and pointless slaughter are what stick with me. A war with no good guys.
It’s fascinating to read it - as I am - on the then-bloody periphery of the Russian Empire/USSR
I see it got sniffy reviews from some Russia specialists. ie they are jealous that Beevor has the novelist’s gift for telling detail and gripping narrative and thus makes v nice money. One reviewer complains that Beevor “ignores detail in favour of accessibility”
Ive read other histories of the Russian Civil War, they mostly skip over the massacres and sadistic torture of innocent civilians. Beevor brings them all to light and in a way explain the screwed up mess which is the Soviet Union and modern Russia. The Nazis were treading a well worn path..
The Cheka (Ч К - for Extraordinary Commission - Чрезвычайная Комиссия) were efficient for sure, including in the psychology of calling themselves by that acronym. Does anyone know of an earlier example of similar acronym use in any country??
This is the first Soviet animated film, Soviet Toys, shot by Dziga Vertov in 1924, after the civil war but still - get the plinky plonky music with the hanging as well as the obvious influence on Terry Gilliam of Monty Python:
Antony Beevor’s “Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921”
Extraordinary, lurid, vivid and brutal. I thought I basically knew the story. Turns out I knew 5%
The cruelty is mind-boggling, on both sides
One of the best books Ive read lately
The sheer mindless brutality and pointless slaughter are what stick with me. A war with no good guys.
It’s fascinating to read it - as I am - on the then-bloody periphery of the Russian Empire/USSR
I see it got sniffy reviews from some Russia specialists. ie they are jealous that Beevor has the novelist’s gift for telling detail and gripping narrative and thus makes v nice money. One reviewer complains that Beevor “ignores detail in favour of accessibility”
Ive read other histories of the Russian Civil War, they mostly skip over the massacres and sadistic torture of innocent civilians. Beevor brings them all to light and in a way explain the screwed up mess which is the Soviet Union and modern Russia. The Nazis were treading a well worn path..
The Cheka (Ч К - for Extraordinary Commission - Чрезвычайная Комиссия) were efficient for sure, including in the psychology of calling themselves by that acronym. Does anyone know of an earlier example of similar acronym use in any country??
This is the first Soviet animated film, Soviet Toys, shot by Dziga Vertov in 1924, after the civil war but still - get the plinky plonky music with the hanging as well as the obvious influence on Terry Gilliam of Monty Python:
If he’s not woke by this time on a Sunday night maybe someone should go and check on him, something bad might have happened.
Does one become more woke as the day goes on?
Wokeness is a complex function of time & G&T absorption?
I don't think the Pope was a big drinker.
The final honor guard for Pope Francis included migrants, prisoners, transgender people, the homeless and others selected by the Vicariate of Rome as a symbol of the late pope’s mission of inclusion and outreach. Trump would sneer at this as woke and DEI and smash it if he could. https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1916440659910681060
This whole analysis of “woke” as being hyperliberal seems entirely at odds with the proponents of “woke”, who would have eschewed traditional liberalism and were working in a more socialist or Marxist tradition, or within Garveyism.
Marx was entirely focused on class-based equality and thought identity politics was a trick to keep people arguing amongst themselves, which looking at the current setup is a very neat prediction. He wouldn't have liked "woke" at all.
Quite possibly true, but that doesn't contradict what I said.
This whole analysis of “woke” as being hyperliberal seems entirely at odds with the proponents of “woke”, who would have eschewed traditional liberalism and were working in a more socialist or Marxist tradition, or within Garveyism.
Marx was entirely focused on class-based equality and thought identity politics was a trick to keep people arguing amongst themselves, which looking at the current setup is a very neat prediction. He wouldn't have liked "woke" at all.
Quite possibly true, but that doesn't contradict what I said.
That people have so vastly departed from an original idea, that they are now preaching the exact opposite is not unknown.
Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
Do you gave any compelling evidence of that, or is it just an opinion ?
It must be a very high brow intellectual post because I haven't a clue what any of it means.
Far be it from me to explain it. I'll leave that to william.
There was a good example at the recent Washington STEM Summit:
I suppose that's just saying that if you don't believe that 'outcome differences' are the result of 'structures' then you're into the realms of biological determination.
Antony Beevor’s “Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921”
Extraordinary, lurid, vivid and brutal. I thought I basically knew the story. Turns out I knew 5%
The cruelty is mind-boggling, on both sides
One of the best books Ive read lately
The sheer mindless brutality and pointless slaughter are what stick with me. A war with no good guys.
It’s fascinating to read it - as I am - on the then-bloody periphery of the Russian Empire/USSR
I see it got sniffy reviews from some Russia specialists. ie they are jealous that Beevor has the novelist’s gift for telling detail and gripping narrative and thus makes v nice money. One reviewer complains that Beevor “ignores detail in favour of accessibility”
Ive read other histories of the Russian Civil War, they mostly skip over the massacres and sadistic torture of innocent civilians. Beevor brings them all to light and in a way explain the screwed up mess which is the Soviet Union and modern Russia. The Nazis were treading a well worn path..
The Cheka (Ч К - for Extraordinary Commission - Чрезвычайная Комиссия) were efficient for sure, including in the psychology of calling themselves by that acronym. Does anyone know of an earlier example of similar acronym use in any country??
This is the first Soviet animated film, Soviet Toys, shot by Dziga Vertov in 1924, after the civil war but still - get the plinky plonky music with the hanging as well as the obvious influence on Terry Gilliam of Monty Python:
If he’s not woke by this time on a Sunday night maybe someone should go and check on him, something bad might have happened.
Does one become more woke as the day goes on?
Wokeness is a complex function of time & G&T absorption?
I don't think the Pope was a big drinker.
The final honor guard for Pope Francis included migrants, prisoners, transgender people, the homeless and others selected by the Vicariate of Rome as a symbol of the late pope’s mission of inclusion and outreach. Trump would sneer at this as woke and DEI and smash it if he could. https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1916440659910681060
How do you know? - it could be that he floated his papacy on a lake of Pisco Sours…
Antony Beevor’s “Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921”
Extraordinary, lurid, vivid and brutal. I thought I basically knew the story. Turns out I knew 5%
The cruelty is mind-boggling, on both sides
One of the best books Ive read lately
The sheer mindless brutality and pointless slaughter are what stick with me. A war with no good guys.
It’s fascinating to read it - as I am - on the then-bloody periphery of the Russian Empire/USSR
I see it got sniffy reviews from some Russia specialists. ie they are jealous that Beevor has the novelist’s gift for telling detail and gripping narrative and thus makes v nice money. One reviewer complains that Beevor “ignores detail in favour of accessibility”
Ive read other histories of the Russian Civil War, they mostly skip over the massacres and sadistic torture of innocent civilians. Beevor brings them all to light and in a way explain the screwed up mess which is the Soviet Union and modern Russia. The Nazis were treading a well worn path..
The Cheka (Ч К - for Extraordinary Commission - Чрезвычайная Комиссия) were efficient for sure, including in the psychology of calling themselves by that acronym. Does anyone know of an earlier example of similar acronym use in any country??
This is the first Soviet animated film, Soviet Toys, shot by Dziga Vertov in 1924, after the civil war but still - get the plinky plonky music with the hanging as well as the obvious influence on Terry Gilliam of Monty Python:
If he’s not woke by this time on a Sunday night maybe someone should go and check on him, something bad might have happened.
Does one become more woke as the day goes on?
Wokeness is a complex function of time & G&T absorption?
I don't think the Pope was a big drinker.
The final honor guard for Pope Francis included migrants, prisoners, transgender people, the homeless and others selected by the Vicariate of Rome as a symbol of the late pope’s mission of inclusion and outreach. Trump would sneer at this as woke and DEI and smash it if he could. https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1916440659910681060
Trump can do one. His choice for the papal throne would be Cardinal Vigano who was excommunicated FFS.... Good luck to Trump if he thinks he can get his lawyers to argue successfully that excommunication is no bar so long as a male was baptised into the church.
I have no qualms with people working for a living getting paid more.
Take it from the benefits bill. Cut the amounts going to those who aren't working for a living. Benefits should be capped so that they never increase by more than wages - instead we do the polar opposite where we triple lock benefits to rise faster than wages . . . then wonder why the economy is broken and unproductive.
Antony Beevor’s “Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917-1921”
Extraordinary, lurid, vivid and brutal. I thought I basically knew the story. Turns out I knew 5%
The cruelty is mind-boggling, on both sides
One of the best books Ive read lately
The sheer mindless brutality and pointless slaughter are what stick with me. A war with no good guys.
It’s fascinating to read it - as I am - on the then-bloody periphery of the Russian Empire/USSR
I see it got sniffy reviews from some Russia specialists. ie they are jealous that Beevor has the novelist’s gift for telling detail and gripping narrative and thus makes v nice money. One reviewer complains that Beevor “ignores detail in favour of accessibility”
Ive read other histories of the Russian Civil War, they mostly skip over the massacres and sadistic torture of innocent civilians. Beevor brings them all to light and in a way explain the screwed up mess which is the Soviet Union and modern Russia. The Nazis were treading a well worn path..
The Cheka (Ч К - for Extraordinary Commission - Чрезвычайная Комиссия) were efficient for sure, including in the psychology of calling themselves by that acronym. Does anyone know of an earlier example of similar acronym use in any country??
This is the first Soviet animated film, Soviet Toys, shot by Dziga Vertov in 1924, after the civil war but still - get the plinky plonky music with the hanging as well as the obvious influence on Terry Gilliam of Monty Python:
If he’s not woke by this time on a Sunday night maybe someone should go and check on him, something bad might have happened.
Does one become more woke as the day goes on?
Wokeness is a complex function of time & G&T absorption?
I don't think the Pope was a big drinker.
The final honor guard for Pope Francis included migrants, prisoners, transgender people, the homeless and others selected by the Vicariate of Rome as a symbol of the late pope’s mission of inclusion and outreach. Trump would sneer at this as woke and DEI and smash it if he could. https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1916440659910681060
Someone has to have drunk all that Chateauneuf du Pape.
OT. Louis Theroux visiting the Israeli settlement movement and interviewing Danielle Weiss. Not only are they brutal but borderline insane and on any definition racist A must watch fot those who stilll think Israel has any justification for their actions. Theroux is as ever very good indeed though the circumstances are difficult
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
I have no qualms with people working for a living getting paid more.
Take it from the benefits bill. Cut the amounts going to those who aren't working for a living. Benefits should be capped so that they never increase by more than wages - instead we do the polar opposite where we triple lock benefits to rise faster than wages . . . then wonder why the economy is broken and unproductive.
Benefits, apart from State Pension, rise by the September inflation rate
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
OT. Louis Theroux visiting the Israeli settlement movement and interviewing Danielle Weiss. Not only are they brutal but borderline insane and on any definition racist A must watch fot those who stilll think Israel has any justification for their actions. Theroux is as ever very good indeed though the circumstances are difficult
BBC2 On now
Good, but depressing. I found myself wondering if it was possible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically. I suspect they’ve forgotten how to empathise with people not them, or stopped caring. The most troubling thing is that this view is seeping through Israel proper.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
OT. Louis Theroux visiting the Israeli settlement movement and interviewing Danielle Weiss. Not only are they brutal but borderline insane and on any definition racist A must watch fot those who stilll think Israel has any justification for their actions. Theroux is as ever very good indeed though the circumstances are difficult
BBC2 On now
Good, but depressing. I found myself wondering if it was possible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically. I suspect they’ve forgotten how to empathise with people not them, or stopped caring. The most troubling thing is that this view is seeping through Israel proper.
I think it’s impossible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically, because so many are spiteful racists.
OT. Louis Theroux visiting the Israeli settlement movement and interviewing Danielle Weiss. Not only are they brutal but borderline insane and on any definition racist A must watch fot those who stilll think Israel has any justification for their actions. Theroux is as ever very good indeed though the circumstances are difficult
BBC2 On now
Good, but depressing. I found myself wondering if it was possible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically. I suspect they’ve forgotten how to empathise with people not them, or stopped caring. The most troubling thing is that this view is seeping through Israel proper.
OT. Louis Theroux visiting the Israeli settlement movement and interviewing Danielle Weiss. Not only are they brutal but borderline insane and on any definition racist A must watch fot those who stilll think Israel has any justification for their actions. Theroux is as ever very good indeed though the circumstances are difficult
BBC2 On now
Good, but depressing. I found myself wondering if it was possible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically. I suspect they’ve forgotten how to empathise with people not them, or stopped caring. The most troubling thing is that this view is seeping through Israel proper.
Increasingly the problem in the world is that people are unwilling to empathise with people unlike themselves.
Theroux's objectivity is his unique talent but I can't help but feel almost physically sick after seeing his program about the Settlers. It is not apartheid as practiced in South Africa. It's worse than that. Apartheid South Africa style was designed as a practical solution to what they saw as a problem. Israel's apartheid is based on being Gods chosen people. How terrifying is that?
Thank you for writing this header. I've not read a description of Hyperliberalism before. It seems that like Neoliberalism, Hyperliberalism has got nothing to do with Liberty, or "Liberalism". Liberalism is about liberty of course, but not just my liberty, or the 'our' liberty of an in group. It is the belief in the liberty even of those we disagree with.
I liked the description of Classical Liberalism as "agreeing to disagree". It is born from the idea that everyone should have the liberty to their own belief, even if I disagree. Apply Voltare's maxim on free speech to liberty, then contrast with Woke ideology. 'I may disagree profoundly with what you believe, but I will defend your liberty to believe it, act on it, and express it' vs 'You can't believe that, you can only believe this, or we'll call you a hater, a bigot and a phobe'. If Woke is genuinely an expression of Hyperliberalism, then Hyperliberalism just isn't Liberal.
That isn't what "Woke" means.
"Woke" means being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly in relation to characteristics such as ethnicity.
I think "Hyperliberalism" is an equally useless term as it also is made up as a straw man. So I don't think it a useful concept.
"Woke" goes beyond an awareness of structural inequalities. It's thinking that all inequalities are caused by structural discrimination, even if you can't explain how. This perceived structural discrimination is then used to justify genuine structural discrimination in the other direction in order to level the playing field.
Do you gave any compelling evidence of that, or is it just an opinion ?
It must be a very high brow intellectual post because I haven't a clue what any of it means.
It's just William.
Did Richmal Crompton write @williamglenn's posts then?
OT. Louis Theroux visiting the Israeli settlement movement and interviewing Danielle Weiss. Not only are they brutal but borderline insane and on any definition racist A must watch fot those who stilll think Israel has any justification for their actions. Theroux is as ever very good indeed though the circumstances are difficult
BBC2 On now
Good, but depressing. I found myself wondering if it was possible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically. I suspect they’ve forgotten how to empathise with people not them, or stopped caring. The most troubling thing is that this view is seeping through Israel proper.
I think it’s impossible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically, because so many are spiteful racists.
It is hard to be nice to your neighbours when some of them genuinely want to kill you. The real racists are the politicians safe in Israel that have decided to carve up Palestine into smaller and smaller parts. In the main settlers are just ordinary people that want to give their families a good life and by design they don't know anyone on the other side of the fence. It's classic divide and rule tactics, Likud can then say, "We're the only ones that will keep you safe from them."
I have no qualms with people working for a living getting paid more.
Take it from the benefits bill. Cut the amounts going to those who aren't working for a living. Benefits should be capped so that they never increase by more than wages - instead we do the polar opposite where we triple lock benefits to rise faster than wages . . . then wonder why the economy is broken and unproductive.
Benefits, apart from State Pension, rise by the September inflation rate
That's like saying "education, apart from schools", "health, apart from the NHS", or "transport, apart from cars".
Pension are a form of benefits. It is the number one form of benefits expenditure in this country.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
OT. Louis Theroux visiting the Israeli settlement movement and interviewing Danielle Weiss. Not only are they brutal but borderline insane and on any definition racist A must watch fot those who stilll think Israel has any justification for their actions. Theroux is as ever very good indeed though the circumstances are difficult
BBC2 On now
Good, but depressing. I found myself wondering if it was possible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically. I suspect they’ve forgotten how to empathise with people not them, or stopped caring. The most troubling thing is that this view is seeping through Israel proper.
I think it’s impossible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically, because so many are spiteful racists.
It is hard to be nice to your neighbours when some of them genuinely want to kill you. The real racists are the politicians safe in Israel that have decided to carve up Palestine into smaller and smaller parts. In the main settlers are just ordinary people that want to give their families a good life and by design they don't know anyone on the other side of the fence. It's classic divide and rule tactics, Likud can then say, "We're the only ones that will keep you safe from them."
The "religious Zionists" get more votes than Likud among Jews living on the West Bank east of the wall. Not that this is about parties and elections anyway.
If the government ignores the Independent Pay Review Boards*, then it is the government that has chosen free collective bargaining, not the unions.
* which include strong government representation.
There needs to be full transparency to the taxpayer of the outrageous pensions that are paid to high paid public sector workers, particularly the medical profession. The fact that many are trousering taxpayer funded pensions after they become economically idle that are massively in excess of what many "hardworking working people" earn when in fulltime work is scandalous. Pay rises to the public sector need to be disconnected to their gold plated pensions at the very least. Pension disparity between highly paid public sector "servants" and those in the private sector is the real unfairness in society.
Meanwhile the medical profession continues in it's entitled arrogant belief that they are superior to everyone else.
Does anyone know what the current facts are with regards to the terrible events in Vancouver. If they are ruling out terrorism that would suggest they must be sure it was an accident I assume?
Does anyone know what the current facts are with regards to the terrible events in Vancouver. If they are ruling out terrorism that would suggest they must be sure it was an accident I assume?
No, they're saying that 'mental health' is the "underlying issue".
Does anyone know what the current facts are with regards to the terrible events in Vancouver. If they are ruling out terrorism that would suggest they must be sure it was an accident I assume?
Known to police for "numerous mental health interactions" according to the Chief of Police.
Does anyone know what the current facts are with regards to the terrible events in Vancouver. If they are ruling out terrorism that would suggest they must be sure it was an accident I assume?
It’s not an accident given the suspect deliberately drove at high speed through a crowd of people . In terms of terrorism that’s always weird because it seems there’s quite a strict definition as to what and what doesn’t constitute that .
The suggestion is the suspect was suffering from mental health issues . Because he’s not been officially charged yet they’re not releasing his name or any further details re his mental health .
Does anyone know what the current facts are with regards to the terrible events in Vancouver. If they are ruling out terrorism that would suggest they must be sure it was an accident I assume?
According to this evening’s ITV news, the driver had a history of mental health issues.
Does anyone know what the current facts are with regards to the terrible events in Vancouver. If they are ruling out terrorism that would suggest they must be sure it was an accident I assume?
According to this evening’s ITV news, the driver had a history of mental health issues.
If the government ignores the Independent Pay Review Boards*, then it is the government that has chosen free collective bargaining, not the unions.
* which include strong government representation.
There needs to be full transparency to the taxpayer of the outrageous pensions that are paid to high paid public sector workers, particularly the medical profession. The fact that many are trousering taxpayer funded pensions after they become economically idle that are massively in excess of what many "hardworking working people" earn when in fulltime work is scandalous. Pay rises to the public sector need to be disconnected to their gold plated pensions at the very least. Pension disparity between highly paid public sector "servants" and those in the private sector is the real unfairness in society.
Meanwhile the medical profession continues in it's entitled arrogant belief that they are superior to everyone else.
I work in the public sector, and my pension is worth fuck all. I think you might be mistaking 'rich gits who guild the lily' with regular people who earn ends meat. Whether public or private sector.
"Pension disparity between highly paid public sector "servants" and those in the private sector is the real unfairness in society."
Are you saying highly paid private sector "servants" are hard done by? And there's no reward for failure, golden parachutes, etc there too?
I have no problem with saying a lot of public sector 'senior' management posts are way, way over-paid (see for instance the current .ac.uk sackings vs. the enormous salaries of senior management).
It just gets my back up a little when it's suggested that it's the case for everyone who works in the public sector.
OT. Louis Theroux visiting the Israeli settlement movement and interviewing Danielle Weiss. Not only are they brutal but borderline insane and on any definition racist A must watch fot those who stilll think Israel has any justification for their actions. Theroux is as ever very good indeed though the circumstances are difficult
BBC2 On now
Good, but depressing. I found myself wondering if it was possible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically. I suspect they’ve forgotten how to empathise with people not them, or stopped caring. The most troubling thing is that this view is seeping through Israel proper.
I think it’s impossible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically, because so many are spiteful racists.
It is hard to be nice to your neighbours when some of them genuinely want to kill you. The real racists are the politicians safe in Israel that have decided to carve up Palestine into smaller and smaller parts. In the main settlers are just ordinary people that want to give their families a good life and by design they don't know anyone on the other side of the fence. It's classic divide and rule tactics, Likud can then say, "We're the only ones that will keep you safe from them."
The "religious Zionists" get more votes than Likud among Jews living on the West Bank east of the wall. Not that this is about parties and elections anyway.
I am surprised Louis Theroux can get people to allow him to come and do his thing. You woud surely google him and see his act and think this doesn't seems a good idea as he is excellent at using his "i am just a bumbling idiot who knows nothing" (when he is very smart and well researched) to really skewer them with tough / awkward questions.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
From your own link, 30% of atheists and 29% of agnostics have family income over $100k.
Of the mainline protestants it's the following
American Baptist Churches 9%, 1.1m members Episcopal Church 35%, 1.5m members Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 26%, 2.8m members Presbyterian Church USA 32%, 1.1m members United Methodist Church 26%, 5.4m members
I make that a weighted average of 26% so lower incomes than atheists and agnostics.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
From your own link, 30% of atheists and 29% of agnostics have family income over $100k.
Of the mainline protestants it's the following
American Baptist Churches 9%, 1.1m members Episcopal Church 35%, 1.5m members Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 26%, 2.8m members Presbyterian Church USA 32%, 1.1m members United Methodist Church 26%, 5.4m members
I make that a weighted average of 26% so lower incomes than atheists and agnostics.
Baptists are evangelical NOT mainline so your figures are wrong for starters.
Jews, Episcopalians and Presbyterians however all have higher average incomes than atheists and agnostics in the US and also higher birthrates than them too
Canadians are sooooooo due a change election, and the swap leader out at last moment gimmick was never going to work.
Nor will electing liberals be seen as necessary to combat Trump. As we see with UK, people who will never vote Starmer still rally to the flag when under attack from Trump, but rally to government and flag energy, expressing something positive about Starmer, doesn’t transfer to real votes for Starmer or his party.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
From your own link, 30% of atheists and 29% of agnostics have family income over $100k.
Of the mainline protestants it's the following
American Baptist Churches 9%, 1.1m members Episcopal Church 35%, 1.5m members Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 26%, 2.8m members Presbyterian Church USA 32%, 1.1m members United Methodist Church 26%, 5.4m members
I make that a weighted average of 26% so lower incomes than atheists and agnostics.
Baptists are evangelical NOT mainline so your figures are wrong for starters.
Jews, Episcopalians and Presbyterians however all have higher average incomes than atheists and agnostics in the US and also higher birthrates than them too
United Methodist Church (UMC) is the largest mainline Protestant denomination among the "Seven Sisters" with 5.4 million members in the United States in 2022. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is the second largest mainline denomination with approximately 2.8 million members and 8,500 congregations at the end of 2023. Episcopal Church (TEC) is third largest, with 1.6 million active baptized members, of whom 1.4 million members are located in the United States in 2022. Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC-USA) is the fourth largest mainline denomination, with 1.1 million active members in 8,700 congregations (2021). American Baptist Churches USA (ABC-USA) is fifth in size, with approximately 1.1 million members (2017). United Church of Christ (UCC) is the sixth and has about 710,000 members in 2022. Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (DOC) is the seventh and has about 278,000 members as of 2022.
I didn't include the last two as they aren't on some lists of mainline protestant churches and wouldn't have made a difference to the stats anyway.
There’s more about the suspect here . His brother was murdered last year , his mum tried to commit suicide and apparently he was suffering from delusions and paranoia.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
From your own link, 30% of atheists and 29% of agnostics have family income over $100k.
Of the mainline protestants it's the following
American Baptist Churches 9%, 1.1m members Episcopal Church 35%, 1.5m members Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 26%, 2.8m members Presbyterian Church USA 32%, 1.1m members United Methodist Church 26%, 5.4m members
I make that a weighted average of 26% so lower incomes than atheists and agnostics.
Baptists are evangelical NOT mainline so your figures are wrong for starters.
Jews, Episcopalians and Presbyterians however all have higher average incomes than atheists and agnostics in the US and also higher birthrates than them too
United Methodist Church (UMC) is the largest mainline Protestant denomination among the "Seven Sisters" with 5.4 million members in the United States in 2022. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is the second largest mainline denomination with approximately 2.8 million members and 8,500 congregations at the end of 2023. Episcopal Church (TEC) is third largest, with 1.6 million active baptized members, of whom 1.4 million members are located in the United States in 2022. Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC-USA) is the fourth largest mainline denomination, with 1.1 million active members in 8,700 congregations (2021). American Baptist Churches USA (ABC-USA) is fifth in size, with approximately 1.1 million members (2017). United Church of Christ (UCC) is the sixth and has about 710,000 members in 2022. Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (DOC) is the seventh and has about 278,000 members as of 2022.
I didn't include the last two as they aren't on some lists of mainline protestant churches and wouldn't have made a difference to the stats anyway.
Baptists don't have bishops let alone bishops of apostolic succession like Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists so that is wrong, they are evangelical not mainline Protestant
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
From your own link, 30% of atheists and 29% of agnostics have family income over $100k.
Of the mainline protestants it's the following
American Baptist Churches 9%, 1.1m members Episcopal Church 35%, 1.5m members Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 26%, 2.8m members Presbyterian Church USA 32%, 1.1m members United Methodist Church 26%, 5.4m members
I make that a weighted average of 26% so lower incomes than atheists and agnostics.
Baptists are evangelical NOT mainline so your figures are wrong for starters.
Jews, Episcopalians and Presbyterians however all have higher average incomes than atheists and agnostics in the US and also higher birthrates than them too
United Methodist Church (UMC) is the largest mainline Protestant denomination among the "Seven Sisters" with 5.4 million members in the United States in 2022. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is the second largest mainline denomination with approximately 2.8 million members and 8,500 congregations at the end of 2023. Episcopal Church (TEC) is third largest, with 1.6 million active baptized members, of whom 1.4 million members are located in the United States in 2022. Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC-USA) is the fourth largest mainline denomination, with 1.1 million active members in 8,700 congregations (2021). American Baptist Churches USA (ABC-USA) is fifth in size, with approximately 1.1 million members (2017). United Church of Christ (UCC) is the sixth and has about 710,000 members in 2022. Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (DOC) is the seventh and has about 278,000 members as of 2022.
I didn't include the last two as they aren't on some lists of mainline protestant churches and wouldn't have made a difference to the stats anyway.
Baptists don't have bishops let alone bishops of apostolic succession like Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists so that is wrong, they are evangelical not mainline Protestant
Nor are they descended from a British national church like the Church of Scotland or Church of England
Thank you all for your comments, both pro- and con. I figure the article will stay up until around 8am BST on the 28th April so I'll thank you all by name around then in a more extensive response
The UK economy is set to slow sharply for the next two years as Donald Trump’s global tariff war weighs on consumer spending and business investment, a study by a leading forecaster has predicted. The findings by EY Item Club, which is sponsored by the big four accountancy firm EY, come as a separate survey reported that confidence in Britain’s economy has fallen to the lowest level on record.
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
From your own link, 30% of atheists and 29% of agnostics have family income over $100k.
Of the mainline protestants it's the following
American Baptist Churches 9%, 1.1m members Episcopal Church 35%, 1.5m members Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 26%, 2.8m members Presbyterian Church USA 32%, 1.1m members United Methodist Church 26%, 5.4m members
I make that a weighted average of 26% so lower incomes than atheists and agnostics.
Baptists are evangelical NOT mainline so your figures are wrong for starters.
Jews, Episcopalians and Presbyterians however all have higher average incomes than atheists and agnostics in the US and also higher birthrates than them too
United Methodist Church (UMC) is the largest mainline Protestant denomination among the "Seven Sisters" with 5.4 million members in the United States in 2022. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is the second largest mainline denomination with approximately 2.8 million members and 8,500 congregations at the end of 2023. Episcopal Church (TEC) is third largest, with 1.6 million active baptized members, of whom 1.4 million members are located in the United States in 2022. Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC-USA) is the fourth largest mainline denomination, with 1.1 million active members in 8,700 congregations (2021). American Baptist Churches USA (ABC-USA) is fifth in size, with approximately 1.1 million members (2017). United Church of Christ (UCC) is the sixth and has about 710,000 members in 2022. Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (DOC) is the seventh and has about 278,000 members as of 2022.
I didn't include the last two as they aren't on some lists of mainline protestant churches and wouldn't have made a difference to the stats anyway.
Baptists don't have bishops let alone bishops of apostolic succession like Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists so that is wrong, they are evangelical not mainline Protestant
The term Mainline Protestant has been around for around a hundred years, it's fine if you prefer a stricter definition but it gets confusing if you use a different definition to the one that everyone else uses.
Canadians are sooooooo due a change election, and the swap leader out at last moment gimmick was never going to work.
Nor will electing liberals be seen as necessary to combat Trump. As we see with UK, people who will never vote Starmer still rally to the flag when under attack from Trump, but rally to government and flag energy, expressing something positive about Starmer, doesn’t transfer to real votes for Starmer or his party.
The "change in government" has already happened with a new Prime Minister, who is actively getting rid of unpopular policies such as the Carbon Tax.
In Australia, it is very common, particularly at the State level, for old & unpopular governments to swap out leaders and get one more election victory. For example, in New South Wales, the Bob Carr Labor government had been in power for 10 years and was becoming unpopular by 2005. The Party swapped out the Premier to Morris Iemma, who then changed some of Carr's policies, such as eliminating a vendor tax on properties, and was then able to reverse a polling deficit & win the 2007 State Election.
Another factor related to the Canadian election is that voters in Parliamentary systems (UK, Canada, Australia) behave differently to voters in the USA.
In general, voters in parliamentary systems are a lot less likely to take a chance on giving power to those opposition leaders who promise radical change for the country. This means that successful opposition leaders are the types of people who give off reassuring/centrist vibes and don't give off vibes of being radicals of either left or right.
For example, Tony Blair, David Cameron & Keir Starmer, all give off reassuring vibes of being the types of people who can be trusted to not do anything too extreme once they become Prime Minister.
In the Canadian context, Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau would be type of person who gives off Blair/Cameron vibes.
Pierre Poilievre gives off very different vibes of being a MAGA radical, and he is not the type of opposition leader is generally successful in winning power from opposition.
Comments
He’s not woke.
Couldn’t fault it.
Locke -> Mill -> Hyperlibralism*, and thinks them all as being in the same family.
But Gray's Hyperliberalism is the absolute antethesis of Mill's liberalism. Mill's liberalism, as described in On Liberty is fundamentally based on the sovereignty of the individual over groups.
It's much more accurate to describe Hyperliberalism as a descendent of other political theories that put the group above the individual: original Marxism being the most obvious example.
Ultimately, Gray is a Hobbesian, and therefore doesn't like Locke and Mill, and he tries therefore to tie Hyperliberalism to them, and it's... frankly... bullshit. I think it's by far his weakest book.
* With the word "Hyperliberalism" being a stand in for "woke" and "identity politics"
I.e., don't get wed to a theory or a story, otherwise you'll end up twisting the data to make it fit your thesis.
Perhaps some are frit at the possibility that the Jesuits will make it a double?
(Why I think this is a value if fun bet is just think of the strings that must have been yanked to get Ratzinger out. Talk about tearing up the rulebook.)
I'll leave that to william.
As Kendall was in the "Blair on steroids" lane and Cooper in the "Brownite" lane Burnham aimed for a sort of Blair 1st team idealism. The idea that he would get transfers from Corbyn and then beat Cooper in the final round. He was correct that there was more votes on the left than in the right, but he didn't realise how much. I feel like it was doomed, his position was as left as he could convincingly portray*.
An interesting alt-history is if the rules hadn't been changed by Miliband. I would suggest it would have been like this
MPs: Burnham 35% , Cooper 32%, Kendall 21%, Corbyn 12%
Members: Corbyn 50%, Burnham 23%, Cooper 22%, Kendall 5%
Affiliated: Corbyn 57%, Burnham 26%, Cooper 13%, Kendall 4%
Total: Corbyn 40%, Burnham 28%, Cooper 22%, Kendall 10%
There would be a narrow path for Cooper to win the vast majority of Kendall's transfers and Corbyn would have beaten her on Burnham transfers. But if Cooper didn't get enough to knock our Burnham then her transfers would have given Burnham the win.
* There was the joke - I went to the bar and there was a Blairite, a Brownite and an old Labour guy already there. I sat next to him and said "Hi Andy"
https://x.com/brentawilliams2/status/1915038694311932248
I'd say "hyperliberalism" is mainly a label to try and make X seem reasnoable by demanding that "Y" are "hyperliberal". There may be a smide of valid analysis in the term.
It's not unlike someone on PB calling Ed Davey "hard left" recently.
Given that I still consider "liberal" to be at core about individual liberty, I'm not too keen on this particular trope.
The final honor guard for Pope Francis included migrants, prisoners, transgender people, the homeless and others selected by the Vicariate of Rome as a symbol of the late pope’s mission of inclusion and outreach. Trump would sneer at this as woke and DEI and smash it if he could.
https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1916440659910681060
Strike threats loom if ministers reject NHS and teacher pay deals
Independent body recommendations are set to be higher than the government has budgeted for, adding to pressure on Rachel Reeves
https://www.thetimes.com/article/7f4710ca-4d12-4899-bb02-6782cfc2be7f?shareToken=248dbb60695474a93f19f8a5799fd8cc
Seems slightly unlikely.
Take it from the benefits bill. Cut the amounts going to those who aren't working for a living. Benefits should be capped so that they never increase by more than wages - instead we do the polar opposite where we triple lock benefits to rise faster than wages . . . then wonder why the economy is broken and unproductive.
BBC2 On now
Of course the best way to increase fertility rates is to be Muslim, Muslims globally have a 2.9 fertility rate followed by Christian with 2.6 children per woman.
The worst is to be religiously unaffiliated or Buddhist both of which have below average replacement rates globally of 1.6
https://populationeducation.org/world-population-by-religion-a-global-tapestry-of-faith/
Jews and Hindus just over replacement level at 2.3 and 2.4
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/
* which include strong government representation.
I found myself wondering if it was possible to depict the settlement movement sympathetically. I suspect they’ve forgotten how to empathise with people not them, or stopped caring. The most troubling thing is that this view is seeping through Israel proper.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
Sartre was nearly right: Hell is othering people.
Pension are a form of benefits. It is the number one form of benefits expenditure in this country.
Not that this is about parties and elections anyway.
And Israel *is* a settler movement FFS.
Meanwhile the medical profession continues in it's entitled arrogant belief that they are superior to everyone else.
But they are poisonous. If some of the sheep particularly lambs eat some, they could well die.
So neither an accident, nor terrorism.
The suggestion is the suspect was suffering from mental health issues . Because he’s not been officially charged yet they’re not releasing his name or any further details re his mental health .
"Pension disparity between highly paid public sector "servants" and those in the private sector is the real unfairness in society."
Are you saying highly paid private sector "servants" are hard done by? And there's no reward for failure, golden parachutes, etc there too?
I have no problem with saying a lot of public sector 'senior' management posts are way, way over-paid (see for instance the current .ac.uk sackings vs. the enormous salaries of senior management).
It just gets my back up a little when it's suggested that it's the case for everyone who works in the public sector.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/apr/27/ed-davey-sure-lib-dems-woo-disgruntled-voters
He is never going to win that Oscar for being the best unknown stuntman doing that.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/'
Of the mainline protestants it's the following
American Baptist Churches 9%, 1.1m members
Episcopal Church 35%, 1.5m members
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 26%, 2.8m members
Presbyterian Church USA 32%, 1.1m members
United Methodist Church 26%, 5.4m members
I make that a weighted average of 26% so lower incomes than atheists and agnostics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2025_Canadian_federal_election#National_polls
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/livestory/vancouver-festival-tragedy-suspect-charged-with-8-counts-of-murder-court-records-show-9.6737566
Jews, Episcopalians and Presbyterians however all have higher average incomes than atheists and agnostics in the US and also higher birthrates than them too
Every child referred to a gender clinic will be screened under new guidance following Cass Review
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/27/nhs-to-test-all-gender-questioning-children-for-autism/ (£££)
Nor will electing liberals be seen as necessary to combat Trump. As we see with UK, people who will never vote Starmer still rally to the flag when under attack from Trump, but rally to government and flag energy, expressing something positive about Starmer, doesn’t transfer to real votes for Starmer or his party.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is the second largest mainline denomination with approximately 2.8 million members and 8,500 congregations at the end of 2023.
Episcopal Church (TEC) is third largest, with 1.6 million active baptized members, of whom 1.4 million members are located in the United States in 2022.
Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC-USA) is the fourth largest mainline denomination, with 1.1 million active members in 8,700 congregations (2021).
American Baptist Churches USA (ABC-USA) is fifth in size, with approximately 1.1 million members (2017).
United Church of Christ (UCC) is the sixth and has about 710,000 members in 2022.
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (DOC) is the seventh and has about 278,000 members as of 2022.
I didn't include the last two as they aren't on some lists of mainline protestant churches and wouldn't have made a difference to the stats anyway.
ICE is now threatening to bring charges against anyone who questions their anonymous abductions
https://x.com/RobertSkvarla/status/1916495630333050947
https://vancouversun.com/news/driver-charged-8-counts-murder-vancouver-lapu-lapu-tragedy
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/28/uk-growth-forecast-to-slow-sharply-as-trump-tariffs-push-confidence-to-record-low
In Australia, it is very common, particularly at the State level, for old & unpopular governments to swap out leaders and get one more election victory. For example, in New South Wales, the Bob Carr Labor government had been in power for 10 years and was becoming unpopular by 2005. The Party swapped out the Premier to Morris Iemma, who then changed some of Carr's policies, such as eliminating a vendor tax on properties, and was then able to reverse a polling deficit & win the 2007 State Election.
https://338canada.com/
In general, voters in parliamentary systems are a lot less likely to take a chance on giving power to those opposition leaders who promise radical change for the country. This means that successful opposition leaders are the types of people who give off reassuring/centrist vibes and don't give off vibes of being radicals of either left or right.
For example, Tony Blair, David Cameron & Keir Starmer, all give off reassuring vibes of being the types of people who can be trusted to not do anything too extreme once they become Prime Minister.
In the Canadian context, Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau would be type of person who gives off Blair/Cameron vibes.
Pierre Poilievre gives off very different vibes of being a MAGA radical, and he is not the type of opposition leader is generally successful in winning power from opposition.