Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

You're conflating remarks I've made about distinct issues. I stated that having achieved X in the past does not mean that the UK will achieve Y In the future. That is not the same as saying X does not inform how the UK and those who live in it understand themselves, their contemporary context, or their future.

Unless one is a determinist, Y is an entirely unknowable outcome to begin with in a strict sense. .

Indeed. It wasn't me making that fallacy.

Which, as I have argued, and continue to argue, is not the case. I believe it has a very pertinent influence on whether or not Y will occur, due to the related impact and legacy of X occurring. So to speak. Consequently, I'm not quite seeing how you're cutting the metaphorical cheese here. Either you accept that X occurring does have an impact on whether or not Y will occur, or you don't. Could you clarify one way or the other please? A simple yes or no will do. Then I know whether or not I should be debating this!

I have a problem with the term 'impact'. All events in the past inform all events in the future because they form how persons, both individually and collectively understand their world and their place in it. I don't aceppt they necesarily have any direct causal relationship. We're getting rather away from the point, though. I simply refuted DINLT's assertion that there was no reason to think that the UKs attitutdes towards human rights would regress because we had been prioneers in some great social achievements, because our governments have been actively working to do so.

I'm not 100% on what you mean by 'historical training', but given the context I'm guessing you mean theoretical and interpretative methodologies? Those aren't something I readily associate with historians but then I mostly encounter Assyriologists and biblical historians! If that is what you mean, then it's highly variable between institutions and fields. If you're a neolithicist studying for an advanced degree at Glasgow you probably have a comprehensive theoretical background. If you're a Near Easternist at UCL you probably have almost none - I'm extremely theoretcal in approach and I get a lot of blank faces at Near Eastern Archaeology conferences . At Glasgow we teach all the big name anthropological and sociological names most often employed in archaeology from 2nd year undergrad and have compulsory third year courses that delve deeply into epistomology. I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on attempting to utilise Deleuzo-Guattarianphilosophy to develop approaches to religion in the ancient world.

As a (very!) general rule, Northwestern European institutions lean towards the interpretative whilst everywhere else is more positivist. This ebbs and flows, though, and some of the theoretical leaders are at US schools.

That's very interesting. Historical methodology is distinct from sociological and anthropological, although as with all things at the upper levels of humanities, approaches and philosophers occasionally get borrowed in a rather variable pick and mix approach. Some historians don't even bother with the whole affair (being able to adopt a qualitative narrative approach is remarkably concealing). I can't say I read much archaeology, but I'd assumed that sufficient professional archaeologists write history books in their own right on their own fields that there'd be more of an overlap. Fascinating stuff indeed! I might have to go and see if I can poke some archaeologists for a more extended discussion on the subject. Thanks for the info.

 Ketara wrote:


It's of little use being one cog in a greater whole if doing so brings you less in the way of benefits specific to you in a trade deal than being able to negotiate independently would do. Being part of a free trade zone helps to equalise that equation to an extent, but it doesn't necessarily balance it. Note that I'm not necessarily arguing that Britain is in a better position via trade outside Europe rather than in it, or even the other way around (that would be dumb, I've nowhere near enough data to form an opinion worth having on the matter). I'm simply saying that being part of a larger whole does not automatically result in being in a better position.

The pie will be bigger, though it might not be exactly the flavour you want.

However, and looking at previous FTAs between the EU and third countries they seem to favour precisely the kind of goods the UK excels at: vehicles (including aircraft and parts) and other machinery, pharma stuff and financial and consulting services.

Personally I think the UK is likely to do worse at trade outside the EU in the medium term, perhaps in the long term too.

It stands to reason that the UK by itself can be more agile in making agreements. Things might work out all right if we can quickly make deals with places like Brazil, Indonesia and India, that are growing rapidly. But it needs to be remembered that India and Brazil combined are smaller than Japan, whose just concluded deal with the EU we are backing out of.

When you look at world GDP, the USA, EU and China account for about 60% of it. There is a disadvantage of scale when dealing with larger economies and economic zones like the EU, North America and China.

The EU is a much larger market than the UK as well as having a wider range of goods and services to offer in return, and therefore is more attractive to trade partners. This offsets the disadvantage of being slower to form agreements.

None of this matters if your primary concern is sovereignty, though in my view sovereignty is not worth much if it can't help the people's standard of living. I believe that curbing immigration will also hit our economy.

The backstabbing of the Chancellor over the weekend confirms in my mind the suggestion that the cabinet is split between hardcore Brexiteers, who want maximum separation from the EU at any cost, and the closet Remainers, who want at least to make a deal that maximises our economic prospects.

Just an FYI, the EU and Japan haven't exactly created a trade deal just yet. They've just agreed to an outline to start working on one:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/eu-japan-trade-deal-real-just-stunt/

But I do agree with some of what you said though. If this is going to work we will need to get the finger out and act fast.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The backstabbing of the Chancellor over the weekend confirms in my mind the suggestion that the cabinet is split between hardcore Brexiteers, who want maximum separation from the EU at any cost, and the closet Remainers, who want at least to make a deal that maximises our economic prospects.

Personally, I see it less in the context of the EU than that of the Tory succession. Remember who we're dealing with here. Their primary concern is to climb to the top of the pile.

At the moment, Davis appears to be the heir apparent, but he's untouchable. He's in charge of Brexit, meaning anything that sabotages him sabotages the entire Brexit project and Britain's immediate future. So the knives are unlikely to come out for him until Brexit is concluded. Hammond is number 2 at the moment though, which means he needs to be deposed/discredited over the next year or so. Then they can start doing the run up for Davis.

By they, I mean Bojo, Gove, Rudd, and Fox of course. I don't believe Hunt or Grayling have any real ambition in that direction, and nobody takes Leadsom seriously.

Mark my words. All this negative press aimed at Hammond right now is leaking primarily straight from Boris. It's why even Osborne is willing to run with it over at the standard, he's got no real beef with Bojo.

I agree with all your points.

I think what will happen is that Brexit very likely will turn into a disaster one way or another and the leadership succession will depend on whether Davis manages to deflect the blame on to someone else.

This is where I think there is an unholy witches cauldron of conflicting ambitions. I don't think David favours a hard Brexit and we know that Hammond does not because it will feth up the economy big time. But Davis faces not only difficult negotiation with Barnier but also the Hard Brexiteers in the cabinet who don't seem to care about the economic implications, only about "sovereignty". From their angle, it doesn't matter if Davis fails to get a good settlement because the UK can exit the EU anyway with a bad one. Also, a lot of them probably don't believe a hard Brexit will all that much damage.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.

It's how I feel too. With a few exceptions, we are different to the rest of Europe and trying to unite us all under one roof was never going to work.

What does this actually mean? Why are we different, what are these dreams, what is our own task?? I've met plenty of people from around the world and, although anecdotal, I've never found anyone that has different dreams or desires for their country that are any different to someone from the UK. The principles are all the same. It implies that the UK is in someway special to the rest of the EU and that simply isn't the case. We are all the same at the general statistical level, there's no difference between one persons dream to another's. In effect these sort of statements are just emotional nonsense with no substance, it's like a bad rendition of "Reach for the stars" by s club 7.

 Whirlwind wrote:
We are all the same at the general statistical level.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Because you could mean....well, anything really. From that we all statistically like to eat, to that we all statistically are likely to go to sleep once a day. Neither of which have much bearing on anything.

Not that I agree with the statement you're countering, but replacing one generalisation with another vague declaration isn't really an improvement.

What I meant was that we in Britain have different attitudes to other eu countries. Attitudes towards authority, freedoms and nationhood. Somebody else here already mentioned the different attitudes towards I.D cards for example; no biggie in most European countries but fiercely rejected here.

 Ketara wrote:


Mark my words. All this negative press aimed at Hammond right now is leaking primarily straight from Boris. It's why even Osborne is willing to run with it over at the standard, he's got no real beef with Bojo.

Gove is far more likely as a source IMO.

he knows he's unlikely to ever get the top job and has safe Murdoch connections -- and it seems that Murdoch ha given up on May.

Plus..well when he wasn't in the cabinet a remarkable lack of leaks .....

.. he was the whip before so he knows who can be "trusted" to not keep their mouth shut and his Missus is famously indiscreet too.

 reds8n wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


Mark my words. All this negative press aimed at Hammond right now is leaking primarily straight from Boris. It's why even Osborne is willing to run with it over at the standard, he's got no real beef with Bojo.

Gove is far more likely as a source IMO.

he knows he's unlikely to ever get the top job and has safe Murdoch connections -- and it seems that Murdoch ha given up on May.

Plus..well when he wasn't in the cabinet a remarkable lack of leaks .....

.. he was the whip before so he knows who can be "trusted" to not keep their mouth shut and his Missus is famously indiscreet too.

Well said

I've said it before, but Tim Shipman's book about June 23rd, 'All out war,' is a bloody good read, and blows the lid on all the people involved: Dave, Osborne, Bojo etc etc

Gove comes across as the weasel I always suspected him to be. He's not to be trusted

Something we agree on. Also an indicator of Call Me Dave's spineless leadership.

When Gove came out as a Brexiteer he should have been instantly sacked as a minister of the Crown for going against official government policy. Instead Call Me Dave went, "Mew, mew mew, you can be a government minister and Brexiteer because demokrazi or something, wee, wee, wee..."

What a useless gakker.

At least I never voted for him or his party.

In common with 2/3rds of the UK public.

What price democracy, eh?

Future War Cultist wrote:What I meant was that we in Britain have different attitudes to other eu countries. Attitudes towards authority, freedoms and nationhood. Somebody else here already mentioned the different attitudes towards I.D cards for example; no biggie in most European countries but fiercely rejected here.

On the other hand the UK has a CCTV blanket that would be unthinkable here, the same goes for some privacy invasive stuff that the UK doesn't care much for while Germany feels like it needs to slap Google every now and then to make them comply with privacy laws.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
We are all the same at the general statistical level.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Because you could mean....well, anything really. From that we all statistically like to eat, to that we all statistically are likely to go to sleep once a day. Neither of which have much bearing on anything.

Not that I agree with the statement you're countering, but replacing one generalisation with another vague declaration isn't really an improvement.

It's highlighting that if you take a large population sample and then asked what they want out of life, what they want from the government and so on then you will find that at a broad level and distribution those views will all be similar. At a local level they are likely to be different because that will depend on the demographics of the area. However if you ask some broad ranging questions you are unlikely likely to get much of a statistical difference. This is simply because we are the same base creature with the same evolved drivers (there's no difference between a Chinese, a Britain, a German or a South African in this regard). It's the same as if you surveyed chimpanzees. At the family level they will act differently, but take a large population if one area and compare to another then the broader drivers and goals will be the same. Hence saying there is a UK vision for the future is largely nonsense because at a general level that same vision will be the same across the world, it's rather our (evolved) trait to make us think we are in some way 'special' and have a unique aim in the world.

Mario wrote:

Future War Cultist wrote:What I meant was that we in Britain have different attitudes to other eu countries. Attitudes towards authority, freedoms and nationhood. Somebody else here already mentioned the different attitudes towards I.D cards for example; no biggie in most European countries but fiercely rejected here.

On the other hand the UK has a CCTV blanket that would be unthinkable here, the same goes for some privacy invasive stuff that the UK doesn't care much for while Germany feels like it needs to slap Google every now and then to make them comply with privacy laws.

I think both points are related - we object to things like ID cards because we have right-leaning governments that usually seek to stretch powers and abuse things, resulting in things like huge CCTV coverage. A lot of Europe is a lot more wary about right-ish actions and are (presumably) better trusted to use the powers for what they need without trying to overstep into totalitarianism.

May is just the last in a long line of them, but seems to be the worst in terms of how little oversight she wants over her actions.

Mario wrote:

Future War Cultist wrote:What I meant was that we in Britain have different attitudes to other eu countries. Attitudes towards authority, freedoms and nationhood. Somebody else here already mentioned the different attitudes towards I.D cards for example; no biggie in most European countries but fiercely rejected here.

On the other hand the UK has a CCTV blanket that would be unthinkable here, the same goes for some privacy invasive stuff that the UK doesn't care much for while Germany feels like it needs to slap Google every now and then to make them comply with privacy laws.

And this shows the point I was trying to make. Both of these come from a desire for a Country to be 'safe' at a general level, there is no difference here between the UK and Germany. The detail is different but the principles are the same.

Oh and to correct on the privacy point. The UK has some of the most intrusive spying powers than any other western nation. For example our Internet service providers have to keep records of all our websites we browse so that the UK can access them whenever they want (and May wants to bring in almost live spying as well).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


Mark my words. All this negative press aimed at Hammond right now is leaking primarily straight from Boris. It's why even Osborne is willing to run with it over at the standard, he's got no real beef with Bojo.

Gove is far more likely as a source IMO.

he knows he's unlikely to ever get the top job and has safe Murdoch connections -- and it seems that Murdoch ha given up on May.

Plus..well when he wasn't in the cabinet a remarkable lack of leaks .....

.. he was the whip before so he knows who can be "trusted" to not keep their mouth shut and his Missus is famously indiscreet too.

I wouldn't count out Gove. No one would have given May a chance. We also have to remember that there will be a vote this time I think for the next leader. Boris I think has been shown to be enough of a clown not to be ever given a chance; Liam Fox is likely to have been tarnished by his previous actions giving his friends inside access. That probably leaves David Davis, Hammond on the soft Brexit side and Gove on the hard Brexit side. I would assume we will a soft and hard Brexit candidate get through to the last two as the two sides split. That will leave Tory members to vote and my understanding that this group is quite elderly and heavily anti-EU. That could then favour Gove being made PM and we will all be doomed....Gove also has one advantage that he has direct access to newslesspapers (which is perhaps Osborne though it was a good idea to try and get his own to try and combat this?).

 Whirlwind wrote:

Oh and to correct on the privacy point. The UK has some of the most intrusive spying powers than any other western nation. For example our Internet service providers have to keep records of all our websites we browse so that the UK can access them whenever they want (and May wants to bring in almost live spying as well).

And let's not forget one of our Prime Ministers major preoccupations, hell, her only real concern aside from grammar schools, is clamping down on internet freedom further. She used a post-COBRA announcement after a terrorist atrocity specifically to pin blame on ISPs and demand the end of end-to-end encryption (displaying a spectacular lack of knowledge to boot), for goodness sake.

nfe wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Oh and to correct on the privacy point. The UK has some of the most intrusive spying powers than any other western nation. For example our Internet service providers have to keep records of all our websites we browse so that the UK can access them whenever they want (and May wants to bring in almost live spying as well).

And let's not forget one of our Prime Ministers major preoccupations, hell, her only real concern aside from grammar schools, is clamping down on internet freedom further. She used a post-COBRA announcement after a terrorist atrocity specifically to pin blame on ISPs and demand the end of end-to-end encryption (displaying a spectacular lack of knowledge to boot), for goodness sake.

Not to mention her governments endless need to go after our online hanky-panky

On the subject of current leaks, I don't see Gove being responsible. Why? Because he literally only just managed to eel his way back into Cabinet, and that was solely on May's good graces. He's a pariah in there at the moment, I don't see Bojo and co. wanting anything to do with him after their big public spat. Which indeed, will be why May brought him back. Much like how she resurrected Fox. It's standard Machiavellian tactics, because they're generally isolated and unliked, it makes them easier to control. 'I brought you back, I can put you back down again just as fast', and suchlike. That's usually only good for a certain time period, politicians build power bases and ally networks like a bird feathers its nest. The point remains though that it is unlikely to be Gove seriously hacking her off with extensive leaks when he's only been back five minutes thanks to her.

Likewise, we know it isn't Hammond (because it's about him). It's also unlikely to be Davis, purely because there's little gain for him right now in picking fights with the Chancellor. In a year or so, things might be different, but not right now. That leaves Bojo and all the other third rankers trying to clear him our of the way as part of the runup to seize leadership.

nfe wrote:And let's not forget one of our Prime Ministers major preoccupations, hell, her only real concern aside from grammar schools, is clamping down on internet freedom further. She used a post-COBRA announcement after a terrorist atrocity specifically to pin blame on ISPs and demand the end of end-to-end encryption (displaying a spectacular lack of knowledge to boot), for goodness sake.

I remain convinced that the internet surveillance measures are more down to old people not quite grasping it than any form of draconian facism. May is about 60, I personally don't know a single 60 year old woman who uses the net for anything but basic email, or understands anything about the technical workings of computers. Even assuming she knows five times as much as that (being PM and having access to detailed reports she no doubt briefly skims), I reckon for her, it's conceptually like letters and telephones. She thinks that if the government needs to take a peek/listen, it should be able to. Which was the prevailing intelligence philosophy during the Cold War (when she grew up). All she sees is that terrorists have a way of communicating the Government can't listen to and she's accountable when they successfully strike without being intercepted. So she automatically moves to try and clamp down/listen in.

I don't agree with it, but I can understand her likely motivation/perspective on the matter.

With regards to people talking about surveillance culture and the British meanwhile, it should be recognised that this is driven by society itself. The Government isn't exactly running around throwing up all the cameras, it tends to be the case that every shop puts a few up as standard, ATM's build them in as default, public services put them in so they can film any abuse for later prosecution, etc. Not quite the same as if they were a huge centrally controlled government run network (like say, ID cards). It's why nobody really comments much on it; because no-one is particularly to blame, nobody watches them unless there's a very specific need, and it virtually never gets misused despite the sheer quantity of cameras. Accordingly, nobody really feels that it's breaching their human rights (unless they're a severely affronted mugger in court about to be convicted).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

It's highlighting that if you take a large population sample and then asked what they want out of life, what they want from the government and so on then you will find that at a broad level and distribution those views will all be similar. At a local level they are likely to be different because that will depend on the demographics of the area. However if you ask some broad ranging questions you are unlikely likely to get much of a statistical difference. This is simply because we are the same base creature with the same evolved drivers (there's no difference between a Chinese, a Britain, a German or a South African in this regard). It's the same as if you surveyed chimpanzees. At the family level they will act differently, but take a large population if one area and compare to another then the broader drivers and goals will be the same. Hence saying there is a UK vision for the future is largely nonsense because at a general level that same vision will be the same across the world, it's rather our (evolved) trait to make us think we are in some way 'special' and have a unique aim in the world.

Could I get a source on this? Genuinely interested, and wouldn't know where to look. I'm fascinated to know what kind of methodology one would try and use to compare entire cultures in such a fashion.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

It's highlighting that if you take a large population sample and then asked what they want out of life, what they want from the government and so on then you will find that at a broad level and distribution those views will all be similar. At a local level they are likely to be different because that will depend on the demographics of the area. However if you ask some broad ranging questions you are unlikely likely to get much of a statistical difference. This is simply because we are the same base creature with the same evolved drivers (there's no difference between a Chinese, a Britain, a German or a South African in this regard). It's the same as if you surveyed chimpanzees. At the family level they will act differently, but take a large population if one area and compare to another then the broader drivers and goals will be the same. Hence saying there is a UK vision for the future is largely nonsense because at a general level that same vision will be the same across the world, it's rather our (evolved) trait to make us think we are in some way 'special' and have a unique aim in the world.

Could I get a source on this? Genuinely interested, and wouldn't know where to look. I'm fascinated to know what kind of methodology one would try and use to compare entire cultures in such a fashion.

OK, here's an example. The bottom plot shows countries attitudes to foreign aid aspects of the world we live in.

https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/4-findings-attitudes-towards-foreign-aid-17-donor-countries

The important to thing to note is the overall trend. There are differences in the details (specific questions), but when you look at it statistically, there is a normal statistical distribution with similar trends across all the countries which can be easily be predicted with the median and the statistical deviation; in effect it just implies that statistics is the only thing at work rather than any special factor for a country. There are differences in peoples perception on individual items but they all show the overall general trend (which in this case is the use of foreign aid).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Oh and to correct on the privacy point. The UK has some of the most intrusive spying powers than any other western nation. For example our Internet service providers have to keep records of all our websites we browse so that the UK can access them whenever they want (and May wants to bring in almost live spying as well).

And let's not forget one of our Prime Ministers major preoccupations, hell, her only real concern aside from grammar schools, is clamping down on internet freedom further. She used a post-COBRA announcement after a terrorist atrocity specifically to pin blame on ISPs and demand the end of end-to-end encryption (displaying a spectacular lack of knowledge to boot), for goodness sake.

Not to mention her governments endless need to go after our online hanky-panky

They just want to stop poor people accessing it. They are obviously slowing their download times when they are parliament

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/mp-looking-phone-house-commons/



Seriously though if they think this is going to stop teenagers looking at porn they are very much deluded. In fact I'd argue it's a dangerous thing to do because it simply forces any teenager where the hormones are running riot to search for such things in less secure areas where there are less controls. This puts them at more risk not less. It's almost like they live in some la la land that everyone suddenly comes of age at 16...You've also got to wonder how the UK government intends to control sites not in the UK.

What concerns me most is the precedent that the government believes it should now be peoples thought police.

When I were a lad I had to half-inch jazz mags from the corner shop.

Corner Shop?

What was wrong with discarded scud found at railway soundings and bramble bushes all over the UK?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Corner Shop?

What was wrong with discarded scud found at railway soundings and bramble bushes all over the UK?

The pages couldn't be separated?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Corner Shop?

What was wrong with discarded scud found at railway soundings and bramble bushes all over the UK?

Poly bags in the woods 4 lf!

BBC salaries are in the news again. They really do need to do away with the licence fee.

The interesting part of this is rather than realising that they effectively have public sector workers immune to the pay cap and on more than the PM, they're trying to spin it as a gender pay gap expanse and thus demand more money for their female leads.

Davis accidentally phoned Barnier to ask for support to get a good deal (he thought he was phoning Finland).

Davis committed his own Brexit blunder the day Article 50 was triggered in March, according to EU and British officials, when he placed a call to Timo Soini, Finland’s foreign minister and a critic of the EU. Having been told he was speaking to Soini, Davis announced down the phone in enthusiastic terms that Brexit had begun, and that he needed the Finn’s support to secure a good deal from the EU.

Only when he heard the voice at the other end of the line did Davis realize he was in fact speaking to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator.

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/y8xukDRicGKHvZBt7AhMTI/Britains-Brexit-chaos-leaves-EU-friends-and-foes-bemused.html


Have we had any evidence so far that's he's competent?

Or, or, hear me out here, they're attempting to pre empt the inevitable look at the pay gap complaints by telling everyone they've identfied the issue and are working on it.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Or, or, hear me out here, they're attempting to pre empt the inevitable look at the pay gap complaints by telling everyone they've identfied the issue and are working on it.

So will they dishing out pay cuts round?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Or, or, hear me out here, they're attempting to pre empt the inevitable look at the pay gap complaints by telling everyone they've identfied the issue and are working on it.

So will they dishing out pay cuts round?

My first thought is it's just lip service and nothing will actually change other than a few higher profile names.

Yep, I think so too.