Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Challenges, challenges

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited January 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Challenges, challenges

It is perhaps too easy to assume that Western democracy, capitalism and liberalism will continue to thrive and prosper, certainly in the West, and that they will continue to act as a model for countries elsewhere. To counter any complacency, here are two long-term challenges which the Western model faces.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,359
    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 61
    Although vague the comments in the last few paragraphs seem to be partially about Jezza, although some of the complaints seem odd. In regards to defending democracy and freedom surely Corbyn is above many rivals in voting down excessive anti terror legislation and protecting our actual rights, rather than the more Tory or New Labour approach of sounding tough to make people feel safe. You may disagree with his approach but it doesn't seem to be less human rights... to go a step further some of the biggest complaints about him seem to be his attempts to further democratise the Labour party.

    As for the discrimination this is the man who attended a pro refugee demonstration in his first act as Labour leader and had a pretty substantial lead outside of white people in the election, not that white people can't be discriminated against.

    Surely these charges would be better laid at the Conservative party? Assuming that is that they were vaguely made at the Labour party...

    As a left winger myself I have never been more enthused by democracy, I imagine many on the left feel similar it is often those who are losing who start to feel less enthused about democracy, although the election wasn't actually lost for the Tories it felt like a loss for many and the comments about raising the voting age and young people being too stupid/bribed did not come from the left.

    If freedom, democracy and anti discrimination is your worries then Corbyn's Labour are a better bet than what we have had before and what we have in government currently.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,267
    The lead starts out promisingly and then drifts into waffle, with little to say about topical events in Iran. Free speech is important, but big geo-political issues cannot be reduced to a little rehearsal of the author's well-known hobby horse on safe spaces and the like.

    The bigger picture in terms of threat to western democracy is from the Chinese model of long-term central planning coupled with relative economic but not political freedom for individuals. Depending on which economist you turn to, this is either progressively closing on the Americans or heading for collapse under its own contradictions. Yet with clear attractions for many smaller nations.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,190
    edited January 3
    Debate? Battle of ideas? Are you mad?

    This is the post-truth era; the age of half-truths and blatant lies. Debate is to be ducked (see TMay and DCameron in the last two elections). Go negative, stay negative, whether project fear or plain insults. BBC "balance" means your lies will get as much coverage as your opponents' lies. That's how elections are fought and won, and just as often lost but never mind.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 250
    I think this post conflates the very real threat to Western liberal democracy, with a hobby horse being pushed by certain people on the right having a ridiculous tantrum. On the university lecture thing, as I understand it the academics concerned weren't trying to ban his views but questioning Nigel Biggar's suitability to lead a research project into empire with aims they see as dubious (the research description makes it look like he's already decided imperialism is ethical) because he's a theology professor whose views on empire are opposed by the vast majority of scholars. He's then thrown a wobbly because hundreds of academics have said they think his views are daft, unsupported by evidence. It's a case of an somone who's upset because people aren't being deferential to him. There are some problems with free speech issues on the activist left - notably on transgender issues - but they're not opinions shared across even the left, let alone liberals from other traditions.

    Where there may be a real danger is that authoritarianism of the left and right appears to be becoming more popular as nation states struggle to keep up with globalisation. There has been a strong liberal response to this - It's just been conducted in French by Emmanuel Macron. In Britain, our electoral system and two parties' takeover by their authoritarian wings means It's more of a struggle - but that's more of a political problem rather than an intellectual one.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 61
    I can't see how the Blairite's are anything but the authoritarian wing of the Labour party, albeit authoritarians without any real power at the moment. Unless we are only conflating right wing economic policy with anti authoritarianism and ignoring things like human rights, which is an interesting take on it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    edited January 3
    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'

    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    I’m in the middle of listening to a course of lectures (on the web) on Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Prof. Yuval Noah Harari of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He makes the point that ideas such as ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité ‘, democracy, and ‘life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness’ are western constructs and not essential components of humanity, or for its continued existance. Other constructs are available, may be perfectly valid and indeed enable humans to live ‘happily’.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,911
    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,607
    Is there any convincing argument that the West is not in decline?

    The cycle that pushed it into dominance is on the wane and other combinations of political, religious, economic and social models are on the rise. They will subsume and dominate a collapsed, bloated, complacent and introspective West.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 89
    Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313
    edited January 3
    I am not convinced by @Cyclefree thesis that democracy is in decline, nor free speech. The reality is that worldwide democracy has never been so popular:

    https://ourworldindata.org/democracy/

    Well within my lifetime there was not a democracy in South America, now there is only one dictatorship. Half of africa is democratic, something unknown in its history. While some are imperfect democracies in Europe, the only truly authoritarian country is Belarus.

    Iran, for all its foibles, has one of the more democratic regimes in the middle east, far more so than the pro western absolute monarchies across the Persian Gulf.

    In terms of debate, all sorts of political ideas that once were unspeakable are now openly discussed, such as white supremacism in the US and expelling Muslims from the UK and Europe.

    Populism is a threat, in its depiction of the "Will of the People" over "Elites", often where the populist movement is financed by millionaires pursuing a hobby horse.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313
    Metatron said:

    Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?

    Yes, not least because political opinions are not discussed at interview!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,911
    The challenge of making and keeping the tech giants and financial giants accountable is real both in terms of their power (particularly Google) and their economic vampirism.

    At the moment there is something like $1,200 bn of pretty much untaxed profits sitting waiting for a deal with Trump that will allow it to be repatriated with minimal tax to the US. If that deal is done he may well be re-elected given the boost it will give the US economy but it is worth reflecting where that unimaginable sum of money came from. It very largely came from profits in Europe that were hidden away by frankly fictitious fees, IP rights and other devices from the Treasuries of Europe so that the profits of activities in our country were technically accrued in a place where they would not pay tax.

    On a GDP basis 16% of that sum, approximately $192bn, was made and excluded from tax in the UK. Even at current rates of CT that means that $40bn of that sum should have been paid to HMRC, or, more colloquially, us. It wouldn't have solved all of our problems, not by a long shot, but it would have helped.

    The challenge for our government and the governments of Europe is to ensure that the next $1,200bn of profits is taxed on a fair and even basis with the other profits generated in our economy. At the moment the non tax paying Amazon and Uber are being allowed to exploit their special status to destroy the parts of our economy that do pay taxes. This will not end well.

    We have been exploited in the same way that third world countries were all so often exploited by the Oil giants in the 20th Century where the profits of their activities were hidden away from where the resource was exploited. The reasons that they have got away from this are similar. Our political systems have been corrupted and influence has been bought by political donations and PR spin. This makes changing this a real challenge for our politicians. So far their steps up to the plate have been tentative at best.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Good morning, everyone.

    Much to agree with there, Miss Cyclefree. The use of "I'm offended, so this opinion must be silenced, after the mandatory penance of repudiation and apology" to close down a debate rather than have an argument to see whose ideas are best is rather depressing.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,509
    A long, carefully argued piece. Contrasting hugely with today's reality.

    It's not the quality of ideas thst matters, it's the size of your button.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 1,898
    @Cyclefree

    After watching the paper review on Sky this morning and reading the oped above, I have come to the conclusion that ms cyclefree is actually Michael Daubney :grin:
  • Happy MiFID II day everybody.
  • DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

    The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    edited January 3
    Of course even in the UK we are neither a purely capitalist or democratic nation.

    For example over 40% of gdp is spent by the state and 35% of gdp taken by the state in taxes while both the Head of State and the Upper House of Parliament are unelected.

    In China as the middle class grows so it is increasingly likely they will want a greater choice over their leaders than that made by the Communist Party Congress.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    Metatron said:

    Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?

    Such questions are unlikely to be asked in a job interview outside of a post in academia or teaching history in a school
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,190
    Metatron said:

    Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?

    Probably most employers would run a mile from any applicant who started banging on about irrelevant matters like the empire, global warming or even Brexit in the middle of an interview for borough treasurer, social worker or refuse collector.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    DavidL said:

    The challenge of making and keeping the tech giants and financial giants accountable is real both in terms of their power (particularly Google) and their economic vampirism.

    At the moment there is something like $1,200 bn of pretty much untaxed profits sitting waiting for a deal with Trump that will allow it to be repatriated with minimal tax to the US. If that deal is done he may well be re-elected given the boost it will give the US economy but it is worth reflecting where that unimaginable sum of money came from. It very largely came from profits in Europe that were hidden away by frankly fictitious fees, IP rights and other devices from the Treasuries of Europe so that the profits of activities in our country were technically accrued in a place where they would not pay tax.

    On a GDP basis 16% of that sum, approximately $192bn, was made and excluded from tax in the UK. Even at current rates of CT that means that $40bn of that sum should have been paid to HMRC, or, more colloquially, us. It wouldn't have solved all of our problems, not by a long shot, but it would have helped.

    The challenge for our government and the governments of Europe is to ensure that the next $1,200bn of profits is taxed on a fair and even basis with the other profits generated in our economy. At the moment the non tax paying Amazon and Uber are being allowed to exploit their special status to destroy the parts of our economy that do pay taxes. This will not end well.

    We have been exploited in the same way that third world countries were all so often exploited by the Oil giants in the 20th Century where the profits of their activities were hidden away from where the resource was exploited. The reasons that they have got away from this are similar. Our political systems have been corrupted and influence has been bought by political donations and PR spin. This makes changing this a real challenge for our politicians. So far their steps up to the plate have been tentative at best.

    I'm afraid that much of that argument is completely fallacious. While it's true that companies like Apple avoided large amounts of tax, the idea that the profits on (for example U.K. sales) should have been accrued here is just wrong. All that distinguished Apple from its competitors is its IP, and that is overwhelmingly generated in the US (in the same way that our pharmaceutical companies generate profit in the UK on their US sales). If any treasury has been cheated then it is the US treasury.

    Amazon, notoriously, has made pretty minimal profits worldwide as it has consistently reinvested revenues in its business. Has Uber ever made a profit at all ?

    There are big and complex issues surrounding the increasing dominance of a few technology companies, and there is certainly some tax that has been avoided in Europe, but the figures you postulate are imaginary.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,190
    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Have you forgotten that Trump boast during one of the primaries?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-penis-cpac_us_56d9d2cbe4b0000de4047294
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948

    Happy MiFID II day everybody.

    Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313
    edited January 3

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

    The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.
    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Have you forgotten that Trump boast during one of the primaries?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-penis-cpac_us_56d9d2cbe4b0000de4047294
    Given the size of his gut, how can he tell ... ?

  • Nigelb said:

    Happy MiFID II day everybody.

    Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?
    I’m a traditionalist.

    Plus we’ve been compliant for ages, thanks to our superb Head of Legal and Regulatory Affairs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    I can't see how the Blairite's are anything but the authoritarian wing of the Labour party, albeit authoritarians without any real power at the moment. Unless we are only conflating right wing economic policy with anti authoritarianism and ignoring things like human rights, which is an interesting take on it.

    On that basis Clegg's LDs were the most anti authoritarian party
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Surely that is the point of a nuclear deterrent?
  • Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

    The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.
    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
    Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

    What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132

    Have you forgotten that Trump boast during one of the primaries?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-penis-cpac_us_56d9d2cbe4b0000de4047294

    I'd say that's conclusive. It must be the shortest since Napoleon!
    HYUFD said:

    Surely that is the point of a nuclear deterrent?

    The point of a nuclear deterrent is to make up for phallic inadequacy? I hadn't realised!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?

    Such questions are unlikely to be asked in a job interview outside of a post in academia or teaching history in a school
    I've had a great many interviews in both fields. I have only ever once been asked about my political and/or religious views, and that was when being interviewed for a post in a Catholic school when they were asking if I would also be willing to act as organist for the local Catholic Church.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,607

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

    The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.
    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
    Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

    What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?
    If the BBC is a business why is it state funded?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    DavidL said:

    The challenge of making and keeping the tech giants and financial giants accountable is real both in terms of their power (particularly Google) and their economic vampirism.

    At the moment there is something like $1,200 bn of pretty much untaxed profits sitting waiting for a deal with Trump that will allow it to be repatriated with minimal tax to the US. If that deal is done he may well be re-elected given the boost it will give the US economy but it is worth reflecting where that unimaginable sum of money came from. It very largely came from profits in Europe that were hidden away by frankly fictitious fees, IP rights and other devices from the Treasuries of Europe so that the profits of activities in our country were technically accrued in a place where they would not pay tax.

    On a GDP basis 16% of that sum, approximately $192bn, was made and excluded from tax in the UK. Even at current rates of CT that means that $40bn of that sum should have been paid to HMRC, or, more colloquially, us. It wouldn't have solved all of our problems, not by a long shot, but it would have helped.

    The challenge for our government and the governments of Europe is to ensure that the next $1,200bn of profits is taxed on a fair and even basis with the other profits generated in our economy. At the moment the non tax paying Amazon and Uber are being allowed to exploit their special status to destroy the parts of our economy that do pay taxes. This will not end well.

    We have been exploited in the same way that third world countries were all so often exploited by the Oil giants in the 20th Century where the profits of their activities were hidden away from where the resource was exploited. The reasons that they have got away from this are similar. Our political systems have been corrupted and influence has been bought by political donations and PR spin. This makes changing this a real challenge for our politicians. So far their steps up to the plate have been tentative at best.

    Agreed.

    I would point the finger at one politician in particular, but given his current role that would probably derail an interesting thread.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

    The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.
    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
    Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

    What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?
    Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

    I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.
  • This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

  • philiph said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

    The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.
    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
    Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

    What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?
    If the BBC is a business why is it state funded?
    So what makes something a business? Genuine question, I’m not trying to make a point this time.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207

    Nigelb said:

    Happy MiFID II day everybody.

    Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?
    I’m a traditionalist.

    Plus we’ve been compliant for ages, thanks to our superb Head of Legal and Regulatory Affairs.
    Your counterpart over here was looking incredibly relaxed when I caught up with him yesterday afternoon...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,392
    edited January 3
    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

    The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.
    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
    Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

    What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?
    The issue is the deals that Luxembourg, in particular, did where there is no economic substance but simply book-keeping resulting in minimal income taxes. That's just diversion of income. By contrast, many (but not all) of Ireland's deals were essentially tax incentives for putting manufacturing into Ireland so much more justifiable.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 539
    edited January 3
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if ing and keeping that true for those excluded.

    The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.
    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
    Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

    What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?
    Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

    I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.
    The competitive advantage argument is a good point.

    I’m still not comfortable with the demonisation of companies who provide huge benefits to consumers just because the take advantage of the rules to minimise their taxes as if the only benefit they produce were their contribution to the treasury.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628

    Happy MiFID II day everybody.

    Indeed!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
    That is true.

    If I were the governor of any given province in Manchuria I would right now be panicking. I wonder if that will filter through to Xi in Beijing? To judge from his recent actions he's already getting quite nervous.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    edited January 3
    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
    Trump is just pointing out to KJU that if he struck the US with a missile the US would obliterate North Korea. As the man in charge of US defence nothing wrong with that
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    edited January 3
    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    The problem for Labour is that after Campbell and Adonis they are hardly in a position to criticise.

    Quangos have always been a jobs for the boys joke - there is an entire Yes Minister episode on it from 1981 - and if ever a system needed reform it's that one. The problem is coming up with a more an effective system to replace it.

    Edited because on reflection my earlier post implied the quangocracy does work.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Metatron said:

    Will someone get a job nowadays in a professional public sector job if they make it clear they think the British Empire had some good points or if they are sceptical about `man made global warming`?

    Such questions are unlikely to be asked in a job interview outside of a post in academia or teaching history in a school
    I've had a great many interviews in both fields. I have only ever once been asked about my political and/or religious views, and that was when being interviewed for a post in a Catholic school when they were asking if I would also be willing to act as organist for the local Catholic Church.
    Yes such questions are unlikely to ever come up in interviews
  • Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,443
    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
    Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
    Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.
    A point made by Lewis Page as long ago as 2006.

    I have to go. Have a good day.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,721

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:


    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if ing and keeping that true for those excluded.

    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
    Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

    What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?
    Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

    I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.
    The competitive advantage argument is a good point.

    I’m still not comfortable with the demonisation of companies who provide huge benefits to consumers just because the take advantage of the rules to minimise their taxes as if the only benefit they produce were their contribution to the treasury.
    Problem is we have a 20th, (and a early 20th) century tax system which is unfit for the 21st Century. We need to be taxing not profits, which can be moved around and manipulated, but activity.

    What actually should happen is a much smarter sales tax system than VAT currently is. Remove Corporation Tax and bin it completely, but tax sales and activity.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    It is a nakedly political crony Quango appointment, and as such criticism of the appointment is the stuff of free political debate.

    The people trying to shut down discussion of his suitability are rightwing snowflakes wanting safe spaces, not left wing ones :)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    edited January 3
    Nigelb said:

    Happy MiFID II day everybody.

    Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?
    No.

    Edit: apart from the LEI carve out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Happy MiFID II day everybody.

    Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?
    No.

    Edit: apart from the LEI carve out.
    The 'us' being the poor clients who have to make their way through yet another set of tedious paperwork of no obvious benefit to us... so, yes ?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
    Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.
    For all his bluster, though, Kim can't seriously threaten the US (he can threaten Japan or South Korea). The danger is that Kim actually believes his own propaganda, and initiates a nuclear conflict.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    edited January 3
    Incidentally, if you laid Merkel at 1.07 or so, she's now out to 1.15 if you feel like hedging.

    Edited extra bit: that's for Next Chancellor on Betfair.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    Happy MiFID II day everybody.

    Isn't there a six month grace period on wishing us that ?
    No.

    Edit: apart from the LEI carve out.
    The 'us' being the poor clients who have to make their way through yet another set of tedious paperwork of no obvious benefit to us... so, yes ?
    haha well the best description I heard of M*F*D II was that it was a solution in search of a problem.

    That said, the road to hell, etc...

    Rest assured, however, that whoever you have your investments with is having to work a bit harder to ensure that they are doing the right thing, no matter how tedious hearing about MTFs and RTS 28 reporting might be to hear or read about.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,042
    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    Young's appointment was another self-inflicted wound by the government. Surely there's someone out there who is supremely qualified, keen and would be respected by all sides. Instead Theresa decides to appoint a controversialist partisan hack. With luck Young won't do any damage, but it feeds the growing narrative of Theresa's cronies.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,234
    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
    Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.
    For all his bluster, though, Kim can't seriously threaten the US (he can threaten Japan or South Korea). The danger is that Kim actually believes his own propaganda, and initiates a nuclear conflict.
    Really?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html
  • Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,095
    A bit late to this but I have to say, it's an excellent opinion piece by Cyclefree that's ruthless (but right) in its analysis and asks a lot of hard questions. It doesn't really answer them other than in calling (again, rightly) for wider debate and greater tolerance of opinion but that's only a starting point.

    There is a problem when so many are locked out of the benefits of the system and particularly so if - as is increasingly the case - they see no means of changing it from within. At that point, 'smash the bastards' becomes an attractive mantra, no matter how self-defeating it might be: the joy of the action and of the retribution it brings would seem worth it, for a while. It took a long time for the Russian revolution to pay dividends.

    What it comes back to is global governance. Transnational corporations and geographically mobile billionaires with no innate loyalty to a given country or type of country, make it hard to regulate wealth, which easily flies to safe havens. To some extent, the West - with its rule of law and safety from arbitrary government - still has an advantage as a safe haven there but it's one that can't be guaranteed indefinitely not least because those with vast wealth risk of starving the tiger they're riding. Getting to grips with low-tax microstates that free ride off the security provided by larger countries would be a start.

    But internally, there needs to be a recognition that there is a generational unfairness in the way that wealth is created and distributed, something reflected in the changes in party support. As the party of government, the Conservatives have the best opportunity to do something about that - though the experience of the Dementia Tax shows the political danger of doing so (though it has to be said, the political stupidity there was the timing rather than the policy itself). Even so, it must try a great deal harder or else the rather brittle economic and political system that Cyclefree identifies could crack a lot faster than many think possible.
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    It is a nakedly political crony Quango appointment, and as such criticism of the appointment is the stuff of free political debate.

    The people trying to shut down discussion of his suitability are rightwing snowflakes wanting safe spaces, not left wing ones :)
    That is just rubbish and perfectly illustrates Cyclefree's point.

    People are fed up with these constant attempts to smear people who don't subscribe to left0-wing orthodoxies.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model....

    The “multinational tech giants” you decry are useful to society because of the goods and services they provide, not the taxes they collect. Leaching implies taking without giving anything back, as does economic vampirism. You mention Uber for instance: it doesn’t pay corporation tax because it isn’t making a profit.
    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
    Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

    What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?
    Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

    I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.
    In Amazon's case it's little to do with corporation tax, as up until now they would have paid very little wherever they were domiciled. The avoidance of sales tax, perhaps - but more to do with the overwhelming efficiency of selling online compared to paying high street rent and rates.

    And the monopoly thing is of course a significant issue, but again has little to do with tax. The new online behemoths have become virtual monopolies in their particular spheres for reasons quite other than tax - and history has shown how difficult and time consuming and fraught with unintended consequences it is to grapple with the problems of new monopolies.

    The likelihood of the Trump administration doing anything useful in this respect must be somewhere around zero. And we just abandoned the other institution with the economic heft to address the problem...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
    Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.
    For all his bluster, though, Kim can't seriously threaten the US (he can threaten Japan or South Korea). The danger is that Kim actually believes his own propaganda, and initiates a nuclear conflict.
    Really?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html
    The likelihood that Kim could successfully detonate a nuclear warhead on the US mainland is very remote. But, he might well decide to have a go.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,042

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,252
    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

    Problem is David that it is hard to see the problems being sorted by Tories or Labour , both are solely interested only in their own interests and don't give a fig for the public. Two sets of lying cheating toerags.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,217

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    I agree with you.

    The outrage at his appointment is pure and predictable hypocrisy considering the numbers of leftish quango appointments in recent years.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,403
    Foxy said:

    Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

    I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.

    What is a tax dodging billionaire?

    Is it:

    a) somebody who employs smarter minds than our current (any?) crop of legislators; or

    b) somebody you KNOW is indulging in illegal tax evasion practices - and can stand that up in a court of law?

    Have you indulged in a new name to better show off your unthinking class warrior credentials? Is Foxy now like the Tooting Popular Front's Wolfie?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
    His academic record is pretty impressive.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,190

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,234
    Sean_F said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
    Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.
    For all his bluster, though, Kim can't seriously threaten the US (he can threaten Japan or South Korea). The danger is that Kim actually believes his own propaganda, and initiates a nuclear conflict.
    Really?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html
    The likelihood that Kim could successfully detonate a nuclear warhead on the US mainland is very remote. But, he might well decide to have a go.
    If he can't do it already, there are only small incremental steps till he can.

    What we don't know is how effective US missile defence is. It may be that you have to send 20 rockets to have a chance that one will get through, and that although he has all the technology he just can't afford enough of them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    edited January 3

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
    To be fair it isn’t TY’s fault that his father pulled strings. Rather, it reflects badly on his father.The lad himself may have nagged his father sick to do something, but that doesn’t mean he should have done it!

    However his career to date and his published work doesn’t suggest that the sentence 'He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles' is justified.

    Edited for clarity.
  • Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.
    Being let in after missing your offer by one grade isn’t conning your way in. As he left with a first (admittedly in PPE) it seems to have been the right desicion.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,095

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    No-one's asking him to run a university are they?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,403
    TYs appointment shows The Blob is alive and well....
  • Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    No-one's asking him to run a university are they?
    Quite.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,095
    Sean_F said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic - Trump says 'my nuclear weapon is bigger than your nuclear weapon.'


    If we ordered Kim and Trump to both strip naked (horrible thought I know give the mountains of flesh on display) would we find that they both had very small ones?

    Kim Jongun will always out-crazy Donald Trump. Trump doesn't realise his kind of aggression, which saw off squeamish establishment politicians in the US, cuts no ice with a dictator whose country's existence depends on his absolute willingness to do something catastrophically bonkers.
    Both mad of course, but North Korea having an H-Bomb does make it less likely that the US will attack. Kim saw what happened to Gaddafi and Saddam.
    For all his bluster, though, Kim can't seriously threaten the US (he can threaten Japan or South Korea). The danger is that Kim actually believes his own propaganda, and initiates a nuclear conflict.
    Really?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html
    The likelihood that Kim could successfully detonate a nuclear warhead on the US mainland is very remote. But, he might well decide to have a go.
    For all his bluster, Kim's nuclear program is about a second-strike capability - or at least, the capacity to respond to an imminent US attack and hence, deter it. I don't believe he really wants to launch an unprovoked attack on the US, which would inevitably utterly destroy his country and regime. If he did, he'd be better off delivering it in a Transit and blaming ISIS.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,217

    TYs appointment shows The Blob is alive and well....

    As we can hear from its squeals. Well done Jo Johnson.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,911

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    The point of these vast cash piles is that they have been created by companies that on paper do not make a profit, or at least one in a jurisdiction where it is taxed. The money moves as part of a licensing agreement off shore etc.

    These are the vampires of the modern world.
    Vampires don’t normally leave you with goods or services in return.

    What I am arguing against here is the idea that a business is only of use to society based on the amount of tax it pays: does that mean that the BBC is also a vampire?
    Sure, and I use Amazon too, but we have long known that monopolies drive out competition, and these ones are doing it by offshoring profits. This gives competitive advantage over indiginous companies paying corporation tax.

    I am sure that the waiters serving tax dodging billionaires their lunch get something from the day too, but dont expect them to do it unquestioningly forever.
    The competitive advantage argument is a good point.

    I’m still not comfortable with the demonisation of companies who provide huge benefits to consumers just because the take advantage of the rules to minimise their taxes as if the only benefit they produce were their contribution to the treasury.
    I am not seeking to demonise the tech companies and agree that they are successful because they offer useful products or services, even Apple. What I am criticising is their method of exploiting the weaknesses in our systems at a cost to our society and the unfair advantages that this gives them against those who do play by the rules and contribute tax for the services that our society needs.

    What they do is legal. This is the fault of our politicians. That is the challenge that they must address. I have mentioned this because for me it is a specific example of the sorts of challenges that @Cyclefree is talking about in her piece. How do we control such powerful monopolies and near monopolies who have the capacity to take such advantage? Is western, liberal democracy really up to that challenge? How will it respond to the power of big data that these companies are developing? The most serious challenges to our democracy do not come from crazies with various sizes of buttons. They come from legal, permitted companies operating in the way that we allow them to operate and in what they deem to be their own best interests.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    He has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, and Buckingham Universities.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    He has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, and Buckingham Universities.
    But not as a member of their faculties.

    (I am all in favour of the appointment, that said - these boards need a cross-section of society for balanced input.)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,911
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    Hmm...We undoubtedly have problems with our economic model and @Cyclefree identifies them well. The fruits of our model are too narrowly shared; too many are excluded and left without opportunity. But let's keep a sense of proportion. We have had a Tory led government since 2010. They came in to a horrendous deficit after what was arguably the largest economic shock in history. And health spending has continued to grow in real terms, even if it has been at a slower rate than previously, government spending overall has increased modestly and the deficit is now less that 1/3 of what it was and still falling.

    We need to renew our commitment to equality of opportunity, we need to be more vigorous about demanding excellence from our public services, we need to break away from the bureaucratic mindset that thinks problems can be solved with enough tick boxes and forms and we need to tackle the multinational tech giants that leach off our society without paying back much needed taxes.

    But I don't perceive the overall crisis of confidence or any real doubt that our model is the correct one, even if there is not a consensus on how it should be tweaked going forward. For most of us this is economically the best time to be alive in history. We need to focus on making and keeping that true for those excluded.

    Problem is David that it is hard to see the problems being sorted by Tories or Labour , both are solely interested only in their own interests and don't give a fig for the public. Two sets of lying cheating toerags.
    I have a better view of both the main parties than you Malcolm. I believe they both mean well but there is no doubt that they have both made their compromises with the vested interests and powers that control our economy and society. To the extent that @Cyclefree complains about the lack of range of discourse that is the problem. I am much more concerned about the ability of the megacorps to control attacks on their vested interests than I am about some snowflake stopping someone from speaking to the sort of sad people who attend political events at student unions.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.


    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    He has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, and Buckingham Universities.
    According to the Guardian, quoting him, “I taught undergrads at Harvard and Cambridge and was paid to do so but these weren’t academic ‘posts’ and I’ve never made that claim,” he told the Guardian.

    I can claim I’ve taught at two universities, but that doesn’t mean I was on the academic staff. Nor does it mean that I was teaching in the academic sense. At one I was instructing in a fairly narrow field, at the other (a foregn one) I was talking about the practice of a particular subject in the UK.
  • PeterMannionPeterMannion Posts: 210
    Decisive Theresa finished her reshuffle yet?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.


    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    He has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, and Buckingham Universities.
    According to the Guardian, quoting him, “I taught undergrads at Harvard and Cambridge and was paid to do so but these weren’t academic ‘posts’ and I’ve never made that claim,” he told the Guardian.

    I can claim I’ve taught at two universities, but that doesn’t mean I was on the academic staff. Nor does it mean that I was teaching in the academic sense. At one I was instructing in a fairly narrow field, at the other (a foregn one) I was talking about the practice of a particular subject in the UK.
    Sure, but contrary to the points that were being made upthread, his intellectual credentials are pretty strong.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112

    Although vague the comments in the last few paragraphs seem to be partially about Jezza, although some of the complaints seem odd. In regards to defending democracy and freedom surely Corbyn is above many rivals in voting down excessive anti terror legislation and protecting our actual rights, rather than the more Tory or New Labour approach of sounding tough to make people feel safe. You may disagree with his approach but it doesn't seem to be less human rights... to go a step further some of the biggest complaints about him seem to be his attempts to further democratise the Labour party.

    As for the discrimination this is the man who attended a pro refugee demonstration in his first act as Labour leader and had a pretty substantial lead outside of white people in the election, not that white people can't be discriminated against.

    Surely these charges would be better laid at the Conservative party? Assuming that is that they were vaguely made at the Labour party...

    As a left winger myself I have never been more enthused by democracy, I imagine many on the left feel similar it is often those who are losing who start to feel less enthused about democracy, although the election wasn't actually lost for the Tories it felt like a loss for many and the comments about raising the voting age and young people being too stupid/bribed did not come from the left.

    If freedom, democracy and anti discrimination is your worries then Corbyn's Labour are a better bet than what we have had before and what we have in government currently.

    My comments were not aimed at Corbyn. If anything the questions he has asked about the fairness of the current system are exactly the sorts of questions which should be asked and which haven’t been effectively answered.

    And in part they haven’t been bcause I think that we are at risk of losing the art of debate. There is too much assertion not enough argument. Too much complacency - largely by those who benefit. And the Left has hardly been at the forefront of encouraging a diversity of opinion. Free speech is not some optional extra. It’s at the heart of our culture - or should be.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,042

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    Yes, Young is a mate of the Johnson family and blubbed on national TV when Theresa lost her majority - what other qualifications are necessary?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,040
    edited January 3
    Jo Johnson thinks qualified to become a board member advising on higher education means

    A man who once described working class students as "universally unattractive" and "vaguely deformed"
    Who Tweeted "Actually mate I had my Dick up her Arse" referring to a fellow judge on Top Chef.
    Who feels that feminism is a “wonderful insight into the joyless, sanctimonious weltanschauung of the censorious left” not sure if his fe;;ow judge felt either of those emotions during the Top Chef photoshoot

    Who described the Suicide of Tory activist Elliott Johnson after an alleged campaign of bullying as “Not exactly page one stuff”.

    Busy day yesterday deleting Tweets!!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    edited January 3
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.


    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.

    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    He has taught at Harvard, Cambridge, and Buckingham Universities.
    According to the Guardian, quoting him, “I taught undergrads at Harvard and Cambridge and was paid to do so but these weren’t academic ‘posts’ and I’ve never made that claim,” he told the Guardian.

    I can claim I’ve taught at two universities, but that doesn’t mean I was on the academic staff. Nor does it mean that I was teaching in the academic sense. At one I was instructing in a fairly narrow field, at the other (a foregn one) I was talking about the practice of a particular subject in the UK.
    Sure, but contrary to the points that were being made upthread, his intellectual credentials are pretty strong.
    Hmm.I’ve got to say I’d be pushed to use the word ‘pretty'. I suspect he’s made the very most of his connections, and his first book, 'How to Loose Friends etc’ showed him .... yes I know it was autobiographical.... in a poor light.

    Edited for clarity.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,359
    Cyclefree said:

    Although vague the comments in the last few paragraphs seem to be partially about Jezza, although some of the complaints seem odd. In regards to defending democracy and freedom surely Corbyn is above many rivals in voting down excessive anti terror legislation and protecting our actual rights, rather than the more Tory or New Labour approach of sounding tough to make people feel safe. You may disagree with his approach but it doesn't seem to be less human rights... to go a step further some of the biggest complaints about him seem to be his attempts to further democratise the Labour party.

    As for the discrimination this is the man who attended a pro refugee demonstration in his first act as Labour leader and had a pretty substantial lead outside of white people in the election, not that white people can't be discriminated against.

    Surely these charges would be better laid at the Conservative party? Assuming that is that they were vaguely made at the Labour party...

    As a left winger myself I have never been more enthused by democracy, I imagine many on the left feel similar it is often those who are losing who start to feel less enthused about democracy, although the election wasn't actually lost for the Tories it felt like a loss for many and the comments about raising the voting age and young people being too stupid/bribed did not come from the left.

    If freedom, democracy and anti discrimination is your worries then Corbyn's Labour are a better bet than what we have had before and what we have in government currently.

    My comments were not aimed at Corbyn. If anything the questions he has asked about the fairness of the current system are exactly the sorts of questions which should be asked and which haven’t been effectively answered.

    And in part they haven’t been bcause I think that we are at risk of losing the art of debate. There is too much assertion not enough argument. Too much complacency - largely by those who benefit. And the Left has hardly been at the forefront of encouraging a diversity of opinion. Free speech is not some optional extra. It’s at the heart of our culture - or should be.
    You just wrote another two paragraphs in addition to the original eleven and you still haven't told us wtf you're talking about
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 25,269

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    Yes, Young is a mate of the Johnson family and blubbed on national TV when Theresa lost her majority - what other qualifications are necessary?

    The great thing about the Young story is that it shows the people taking power and influence away from the privileged elite post-Brexit. Everything has changed, hasn't it?

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,726
    So, if you had a few hours to spare at Zurich Hauptbahnhof, what would anyone suggest doing/visiting?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112
    IanB2 said:

    The lead starts out promisingly and then drifts into waffle, with little to say about topical events in Iran. Free speech is important, but big geo-political issues cannot be reduced to a little rehearsal of the author's well-known hobby horse on safe spaces and the like.

    The bigger picture in terms of threat to western democracy is from the Chinese model of long-term central planning coupled with relative economic but not political freedom for individuals. Depending on which economist you turn to, this is either progressively closing on the Americans or heading for collapse under its own contradictions. Yet with clear attractions for many smaller nations.

    It wasn’t intended to be about Iran. I know very little about its internal politics.

    Since I wrote it the Chinese government, according to the news, announced that it intends to lift a further 43 million people out of poverty. Meanwhile we can’t even manage to build houses for our population. Unless we can justify and improve our current political and economic set up, we will face problems.

    And one issue which has concerned me is the emptiness of the arguments when people do try and justify what has bern established for a while. I think that is in part because people have not had to hone their arguments, have not had to face debate. Too many - both on the left and right - want to stop the question “why” even being asked, let alone have a debate about what the answer might be.

    A vigorous democracy will not survive, let alone thrive, in such circumstances.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 17,291

    Sorry, but the appointment of someone who conned his way into Oxford because his father knew a don isn't indicative of a government taking the matter seriously.

    He got a First. That rather suggests that Oxford were right to admit him. Taking talented pupils from comprehensives, whose exam results might not reflect their abilities, is what it is supposed to do, is it not?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,095
    Mortimer said:

    So, if you had a few hours to spare at Zurich Hauptbahnhof, what would anyone suggest doing/visiting?

    Trainspotting?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Miss Cyclefree, got to admit, I did wonder when I heard that Chinese announcement whether that would just be the natural uplift given economic development.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952

    Foxy said:

    This is all very vague. Who is denying who a voice? How? Can you be specific?

    No-platforming by left-wing activists at Universities is one example. The faux outrage that Toby Young, who does not subscribe to the left-wing orthodoxies of the teaching establishment, should be appointed to the education watchdog is another.

    Pretty much everywhere you look elements of the far left are trying, and often succeeding, in stifling debate that runs counter to their orthodoxies.

    Surely the problem of Toby is that he is not qualified for the post, and was appointed over people who were qualified, in a nakedly political move? His own repulsive views are merely the cherry on the cake of favouritism. His appointment is the antithesis of meritocracy.
    He is extremely well qualified for the post. As you well know the "problem" is that he is a tory. You may think his views are "repulsive" but that just shows you how intolerant you are of others. He is clearly not a bigot despite the various attempts to paint him as one are political.

    He is a layman with a wide-ranging and informed non-professional experience of the tsector. He has vast experience of education. On the basis that the best regulators are those with relevant experience on both sides of the fence but those not prone to "professional capture" he is an ideal regulator.

    The opposition to him isdriven by the fact that he is not of the Left and certain people don't agree with his views. You are clearly one of those and perfectly illustrate my point.

    I think you are just slightly over-egging hsi pudding.
    Not really. He is well qualified and of independent mind with broad knowledge and experience of the sector from several angles. An ideal choice in my view.


    Toby Young contributed to the minister's sister's book while they were at Oxford together. Beyond that spot of cronyism, there is no obvious sign that Young knows anything about universities. He's been to one; that's it. Well, I've been to the doctor but Foxy's not invited me to run outpatients for him.
    Yes, Young is a mate of the Johnson family and blubbed on national TV when Theresa lost her majority - what other qualifications are necessary?

    The great thing about the Young story is that it shows the people taking power and influence away from the privileged elite post-Brexit. Everything has changed, hasn't it?

    LIKE!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,416
    Mortimer said:

    So, if you had a few hours to spare at Zurich Hauptbahnhof, what would anyone suggest doing/visiting?

    Go to the airport early and have a few beers.
Sign In or Register to comment.