TheCat

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have to admit, although neutral on whether > Scotland should ne independent or not, I'm > enjoying seeing Brexit voters like Cat citing > economic data as a reason why Scotland shouldn't > leave the Union... I'm glad I can make you happy. I am similarly neutral, and simialrly enjoying seeing remainers talking about how despite an economic hit, it's justifiable on principle for Scots to want to get away from an English majority on political principle.... While similar - Brexit and Scexit/screjoin are very different in many fundamental ways, and to draw too many simplistic parallels as we both have above (I believe) is a fundamental mistake.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sure, it was more in response to Meds first > sentence, besides it's not a done deal that > Scotland would be able to join the EU. Regardless, > Sturgeon should at least be having an honest > conversation about the prospect of a border if > they did rejoin. > I'm not sure what she's frightened of, the > anecdotal feedback I'm getting from friends up > there is that a lot of people see independence > just as much about escaping the clutches of an > increasingly right wing english > nationalist/populist government, as well as a > means to rejoin the EU, and if that means ending > up with a border, so be it... Thats all fair enough....I hope they're also prepared for the crippling austerity which will need to be imposed to hit the EU's required Deficit to GDP ratios......even if the EU allows Scotland a transition period to achieve this....the pre-covid level was nearly 3x what the EU requires.... The EU let croatia in with a 5.3% current deficit to GDP ratio in 2013...and let them work it down to the 3% threshold.... But with scotland at ~8-9% pre-covid (and acutally about 22% in covid times - but thats not a sustainable number to be fair) thats quite a change in govt spending and/or taxation to hit the required levels.....

Yes yes. This govt is sh!t.... And you don't like brexit Noted.

@ Sephiroth Good comment. The increasing tribalism (of all colours, as you say) means that supporters of any tribe are increasingly overlooking shortcomings on their 'team' in favour of partisanship. I think we're all guilty of this on occasion to be fair. Well...look at that....if sephiroth and I are agreeing on something.....maybe there is hope for the world yet:)

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > The real challenge is one expanding the career > option of MP beyond the top 10 percent, half of > whom are told they are born to it! This is opening up a whole new can of worms....but here goes.... Totally agree. But while being an MP does indeed pay more than most people will earn. How many 'ordinary' people would choose/be able to take time off from their existing jobs to campaign, then (if they get elected), quit their job and totally change careers for one (while paying more than they might make today) which highly likely to have them tossed out of their job in 5 years (or less).... Sure, maybe the answer is not as simple as 'more money', but adding incentive to run as an MP surely is key to attracting a broader range of people to do so.....??

?If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.? ? David Cameron addressing parliament in February 2016 Deceitful or not?

I don't think its entirely crazy to use the word 'wrong' when characterizing some of the apocalyptic projections/commentary made by some remain supporters at the time of the referendum and in the year's subsequent. 3 months in, there's an impact, no doubt, but surely you can agree nowhere near as bad as some of the more hysterical outriders were suggesting? 'Deceitful'....well that all depends on ones perspective I suppose. Were either of the claims that we would require an "Emergency Budget" where public services would be slashed and taxes would be raised immediately after a leave vote was returned, or the claim that every household would be would be ?4,300pa worse off meaningfully less 'deceitful' than "?350m for the NHS"??...all three statements were inaccurate/misleading/based on cherry picked data, but it seems most people's concern with any of them is largely governed by the way they voted....

Ha...yep...I think I would have used words like'partially' or 'largely', rather than 'fully'....

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not sure why people want to watch in on the > funeral of a person they?ve never met and didn?t > know. Probably for the same reason people watch (and cry and laugh) films about people that arent even real....and perhaps made even more poignant for some, because they know that it is real...and there is a real family feeling that pain I guess

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This prob won't be a popular suggestion....but > > what about paying politicians more? > > > > Further....incentive payments for doing a good > > job. And given that almost any metric one could > > choose as a KPI would likely be open to > > abuse...how about the ultimate KPI of winning > your > > seat again at the next GE...I.e. Each time you > > retain your seat at a general election, you > salary > > goes up significantly...so if you're a 5 termer > > you might get paid a multiple of a first > > termer....so you are financially incentivised > to > > look after your constituents, not to look after > > yourself.... > > > > Obviously combining this with a robust set of > CoI > > disclosures and restrictions. > > > > Anyway.. Plenty of reasons not to like that > > suggestion as well.....just thinking out > > loud/outside the box.... > > My friend is an alcoholic, in recovery. > > 1 drink is too many, 1000 drinks are not enough. Sure..maybe that's not the exact right idea. But as some of the posts above begin to illustrate, it is very difficult (almost practically impossible) to regulate away all possibility of conflict if interest. So if the 'stick' cant do it alone, the concept Im exploring is what 'carrot' can also be provided to disincentivise the needs or desire to pursue these sorts of options. As I mention ("Obviously combining this with a robust set of CoI disclosures and restrictions"), a strong combination of both may provide the best system/defence.....

This prob won't be a popular suggestion....but what about paying politicians more? Further....incentive payments for doing a good job. And given that almost any metric one could choose as a KPI would likely be open to abuse...how about the ultimate KPI of winning your seat again at the next GE...I.e. Each time you retain your seat at a general election, you salary goes up significantly...so if you're a 5 termer you might get paid a multiple of a first termer....so you are financially incentivised to look after your constituents, not to look after yourself.... Obviously combining this with a robust set of CoI disclosures and restrictions. Anyway.. Plenty of reasons not to like that suggestion as well.....just thinking out loud/outside the box....

There are obviously still outstanding issues with regards to northern Irish situation, and potential for broader breakup of the UK...and I personally would prefer to wait a little longer before declaring brexit a 'macroeconomic non-event'....but an interesting take on the macro economic impact of brexit... https://www.eurointelligence.com/column/brexit-revisited He also seems to agree with what I've been saying for years, that the success or otherwise is not written in stone because of brexit itself. But will be determined by the policy and regulatory decisions taken by governments over the next 5-10 years...as to whether some of the regular flexibility and 'nimbleness' can translate into tangible economic benefit. A snippet if you can't be bothered reading the whole thing.... "I am not making the argument that Brexit will be an economic success. I don't think it will. The best economic argument against Brexit is the one that was never made: that a UK government under either Labour or the Conservatives is unlikely to make best out of the opportunities for regulatory divergence. The forecasts of unmitigated gloom, however, have been wrong and deceitful. When economists failed to predict the global financial crisis, they did not so out of malice or political bias. But their Brexit forecasts were not an innocent mistake - nor will they be remembered as such"

Anyone else having issues this morning? I can't even get through to their website on mobile data to check status....

Bit pricier than some other options. But basically zero loss of speed as compared to other repeater type options. And also...can keep adding as many nodes as you like to create a 'mesh'.... https://www.linksys.com/us/velop/

This should point you in the right direction Bob... https://sports.bwin.com/en/news/other-sports/six-nations-wooden-spoon/

Does anyone else think that Shaun Bailey's campaign logo looks like it's been lifted off some cheap laundry powder box?? I suspect that's the point, with the 'fresh' start line....but it's hard to take it seriously....

Interesting articles Mal. Certainly highlights the quite tumultuous and often downright chaotic path we have been on in getting to where we are today. I've said many times, the government didn't make the process look easy by any stretch, and these articles certainly lend weight to that. Clearly still plenty of water to flow under the brexit bridge as well, not least of all the northern Irish situation, which is a clear concern. All that said....it appears sentiment towards the whole thing is shifting somewhat as well, and seemingly not solely down to the vaccine bounce... From the DT today..... Was this the week the country finally accepted Brexit? Between the vaccine rollout, the likely economic recovery and the calming of trade frictions, public perception has improved significantly JULIAN JESSOP 13 April 2021 ? 12:30pm Brexit is not yet done and there are plenty of problems that still need fixing, especially in Northern Ireland. Nonetheless, public perceptions of Brexit have improved significantly, business concerns are fading, and now we have some hard evidence of a quick rebound in UK-EU trade too. According to the latest Ipsos MORI poll, more Britons now think the decision to leave the EU has had a positive impact on the UK (39 per cent) than negative (38 per cent). Of course, this is well within the margin of error, but it reflects an 8-point increase in positive sentiment in just one month. In addition, a new poll by JL Partners for Bloomberg suggests that if there were a referendum tomorrow, 56 per cent would vote to stay out of the EU and only 44 per cent to rejoin (excluding 'don?t knows' and 'won?t says'). This can largely be attributed to the mess that the EU is making of the response to Covid. Some will continue to argue that the UK could have developed, approved, and rolled out the vaccines more quickly even if still subject to the EU?s rules. But it is surely no coincidence that ?Brexit Britain? was the only country to go its own way. ADVERTISING The EU?s vaccine failures and the Commission's over-reach also illustrate many of the fundamental weaknesses of the bloc; the difficulty of coordinating policies and funding across so many nations (the EU?s larger size has counted for nothing), excessive and inefficient bureaucracy, and an overly-cautious approach to regulation. The divergence between the UK and the EU on the vaccine rollout and lockdowns is already having a marked impact on the outlooks for their respective economies. For example, both the OECD and IMF have recently revised up their forecasts for global and UK growth, while barely changing their numbers for the euro area. The many ways in which the Commission and national governments have escalated contract disputes, threatened to block exports ? and even raided factories ? is also likely to do lasting damage to the attractiveness of the EU as a place to invest and run a business. Obviously, it is not all ?bright sunlit uplands?. Many UK companies ? especially smaller enterprises and individuals ? are still struggling with the increases in barriers to trade between the UK and the EU. The additional checks between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain are clearly one of several factors behind the renewed unrest in Belfast too. Advertisement ADVERTISING But recent surveys at least provide some reassurance about the impact on the UK economy as a whole. In particular, the latest Deloitte poll of CFOs shows that concerns about Brexit have dropped sharply down the risk list, having been top for long periods since 2016. Indeed, ?deflation and economic weakness in the euro area and the possibility of a renewed euro crisis? is now seen as bigger risk. The Deloitte survey also suggested that most (mainly larger) businesses have faced only mild or no Brexit disruption. Just under 10 per cent of CFOs have experienced ?significant? or ?severe? problems, but this proportion is expected to drop to 3 per cent in a year?s time. Some other surveys are more pessimistic. One by EY and London First found three-quarters of respondents faced some degree of disruption following the end of the transition period, and half of those expect it to continue over the long term. This may be more representative of the experiences of smaller companies. However, the EY/London First polling was conducted earlier (16-22 February, compared to 17-29 March for the Deloitte survey), and so may not be as up to date. Advertisement In the meantime, the latest data on international trade, published today by the Office for National Statistics, are reassuring. They showed a decent rebound in UK exports to the EU (up 47 per cent) between January and February, after the rocky start at the end of the transition period. Exports (both to the EU and the rest of the world) were still lower than the pre-Covid levels a year earlier, but this measure should turn positive from March. Preliminary estimates from French customs are already signalling a further improvement. According to the French, ?trade in goods between France and the UK, both exports and imports, has been rising steadily since January and by March was close to normal, allowing for the persistence of the economic consequences of the pandemic?. In short, sentiment towards Brexit has already taken a sharp turn for the better. A relatively strong economic recovery in the UK and the quick bounce back in trade with the EU can only help.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And to be clear, here is a clear example of how > problematic the report is. It acknowledges that > black people are over represented in all areas of > criminal justice. That black people are more > likely to be stopped and searched, more likely to > be jailed than white counterparts for similar > offenses, and more likely to be given longer > sentences than white counterparts at that. It also > says juries are not the problem, as conviction > rates are similar for all ethnic groups. > > So that only leaves one explanation - judges > showing racial bias in sentencing. As glaringly > obvious as that should be, the report can't bring > itself to say that however, because that would be > an admission of institutional racism, and let's > remember that key figures writing this report > start from and maintain a position that > institutional racism doesn't exist. It doesn't try > to explain why the sentencing disparities exist, > launching instead into a long section on stop and > search, to no doubt make sure any reader has > forgotten about the sentencing by the time they > get to the end of that long section. THAT is what > is wrong with this report. I agree. This area, is 'problematic'. And is for me a clear area of disparity. I think everyone agrees this an area of focus. Worth coming back to page 33 and language, as to how this is defined...but semantics..... But to be very, very clear. This is a problem.

Thanks Blah Blah. You've quite expertly illustrated my original point. We can all wheel out figures from the right and left of all colours, shapes and sizes who will either support the report or dismiss the report depending on their pre-existing beliefs. I started this whole convsersation, by suggesting people actually 'read' the report....for themselves... Whether or not you agree with the conclusion. There is undoubtedly a shedload of data in there which bears discussion. But is seems some people aren't interested in that sort of thing. Apparently it's (near) fascist to suggest people read/analyse differing views, perspectives or data....of course to people saying that, the first thing I'd suggest they should read is a dictionary...where they can brush up on the definition of the word 'fascism....

Since my own words are being characterised as (near) racist and fascist by those apparently calling spades bloody shovels....let's see if someone else's words are more objectively read.... The article is saying basically the same things I have said, but, helpfully, is written by a man of colour, which should apparently give the words more meaning for my critics on this forum. There is no excuse for the hypocritical Left's appalling campaign of abuse The ad hominem attacks directed at Tony Sewell and others have highlighted the divisive agenda of many who claim to be 'anti-racist' CALVIN ROBINSON 2 April 2021 ? 6:00am Calvin Robinson The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) report isn't particularly controversial. The commission has clearly spent a lot of time and effort researching the numerous disparities present in the UK, and have put together some reasonable, practical solutions. Racial disparities don't necessarily mean racial discrimination seems to me straightforward, but that benign idea is causing quite a stir. When we look into the issues faced by disadvantaged Brits, it would be easy to assume racism is the primary cause, but when we look deeper we see there are far more socio-economic factors at play. Where one lives, what class one belongs to, how much money one earns, what culture or religion one is a member of all play a part in one's outcomes in life. There are many areas for improvement, and this report not only recognises them but offers solutions. Advertisement Advertisement : 3 sec The commission sets out to promote four straight-forward suggestions: to build better trust between agents of the state and communities and to promote fairness. The report also suggests there has to be an element of increased agency. For example, removing the term BAME gives people agency of their own. Most importantly, there's an aim to achieve inclusivity. Unfortunately for some, taking a more evidence-based approach to addressing racial disparities does mean setting aside unhelpful rhetoric. For example, the commission found no evidence of institutional racism in the UK. That's not to say racism doesn't exist and isn't an area that needs improving, but that racism tends to occur at an individual level rather than institutional. There will always be bigoted individuals offering a warped perspective, but we have made incredible progress in the UK and provide an equal opportunities environment to people of all races. That's something to be celebrated. This conclusion seems to have upset a small number of very vocal politicians and activists who would rather we all go along with their anecdotal "lived experiences" than the evidence backed up by data. What's upsetting is the level of hypocrisy being demonstrated by the so-called anti-racist crowd. The outright racism being directed toward members of the commission is astounding. Clive Lewis MP tweeted a picture of the KKK in response to the report being published, offensive hyperbole that ought to be beneath a parliamentarian. Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal drew parallels between the commission's chairman Dr Tony Sewell and Joseph Goebbels, a disgusting and entirely inappropriate response. Advertisement ADVERTISING At a time when we have the most ethnically diverse Government Cabinet in history, it is bonkers to suggest this country is institutionally racist and it's a shame that activists on the hard-Left can't seem to get past this sticking point. If they truly wanted to improve race relations they'd be better off supporting the measures in this report and ensuring the Government follows through and implements the recommended changes. Character assassinations and ad hominem attacks on individual commissioners only highlight the toxic, divisive attitudes of people stirring up racial tensions. Will there ever be enough to satisfy those who make a living from pushing the perception that our society is divided? They've got unconscious bias training courses and white-hating books to sell, after all. We'd be better off uniting behind this independent report, championing the progress we've made this far and working together on closing the remaining gaps.

Wow, all this from suggesting people actually read a report. Well it seems that we are talking at some form of cross purposes here..... What many EDF'ers perceive as 'near racsism/sexism etcetc' is actually just a total fundamental disagreement with how the progressive left (woke left?) Is trying to tackle these issues. But by questioning the method, many people seem so unable to think for themselves, that they immediately seem to assume, that I'm 'near racsist/sexist etc'. If you don't submit to critical theory, you are part of the problem, as the theory goes. Well...what if you think critical theory is the problem? I'm just as passionate about these issues as many of my critics would purport to be. Perhaps even more in some cases, as I'm prepared to fight against the popular accepted narrative of how to help us move forward. It would be so much easier to go with the flow, I can assure you. But I categorically object to the solution to racism to being to tell 20percent of the population they are perennial victims, and to tell 80percent that they are privileged and oppressors. I mean how farking divisive is that?!! Does that mean I deny racism is real? Does it mean I deny that it's a problem in modern Britain? Does it mean I scoff at DulwichBornandBred if they relay an anecdote when they have suffered from racist behaviour? The answer to all those questions is a very hard, NO. Quite the opposite in fact. So basically, the critical race theory (the thing that most of you subscribe to) goes that no matter how much someone desperately wants to not be racist, if they are white, or if they question the theory, they just are. Hence why almost everyone reading the second hand reports of the commission report are dismissing it, as guess what theory nearly all prominent race commentators adhere to?...yep, the one where questioning ANYTHING about it makes you a racist. So let's say I agree with the theory (I don't).......what does this achieve? Let's say, I accept that I'm racist, and UK is institutionally racist. I've recognised my privilege. Now what? To quote from the report than seemingly no one criticising my views of it (apart from EDguy89) has actually bothered to read...... "The Commissioners were not impressed by those companies that pointed to their ?unconscious bias? training as proof of their progressive credentials. We were impressed by more conscious attempts to foster talent from a wide range of backgrounds" Well woebetide me!!!....apparently it's 'near rascist' to think there's merit in the idea of conscious/overt effort to improve outcomes for minority groups. What a monster I am. One poster above accused me to being 'set in my ways'. Perhaps a look in the mirror is in order on that front. I don't expect the usual suspects to read this with any form of self-reflection. But for those that maybe think asking questions is not the evil it's made out to be....try these perspectives...... https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-brief-history-of-lived-experience- https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tony-sewell-s-race-report-critics-are-guilty-of-gaslighting (PS: sephiroth, I'll save you some time, yes, both links are to the spectator.....so you can prejudge them and this comment in your customary manner)

You guys really should start that 'we hate TheCat' thread....seemingly it would get more interest than talking about racism....

Blimey. You are a petty little man aren't you. But you continue to project your bile about me (little hint...talking about me AGAIN, is really NOT the 'topic at hand') and celebrate your ignorance, but banging on with such conviction about a document that you haven't even read. Please take a lesson from EDguy89 about how to discuss a topic. There was a risk at one point hat an actual interesting discussion might break out. Until sephiroth and PK chimed in, with the focus of their comments on attacking me for daring to discuss the topic,rather than actually making any attempt at good faith discussion on the report.

The proper thing to do. Would be to own the comment, and just apologise for overstepping the mark. Do humour me though, and let us all know which other pudgy, white, Australian man you were referring to? Or are you now madly googling what other countries wiped our their indigenous populations, so you can claim you weren't talking about Australia..... Hopefully the moderator will let you know directly how that goes.

At least own the comment you decided to make. How disgraceful, you're now trying to pretend you're not referring to me. Any last respect I had for you...now gone with that post