jaywalker

Sky news running story tonight of latest Times poll (headline in The Times tomorrow) predicting hung parliament. May is toast. Poll makes the point that rendelH made tonight on other thread - huge differential voting patterns expected. So Tories may get largest share of vote by some distance (a la Clinton) and yet get way fewer seats not only than avalanche expected, but fewer than those they already have. Basically, they can accrue as many UKIP/fox-hunting voters as they shamelessly can outside the Cosmopolis: but that is not how the makeup of Parliament will be decided in a world where (with the dementia tax) they have attacked their own core vote. Hurrah! That would mean Brexit is dead and we can return to sanity.

I am not so sure. Because Admin monitors posts (and that is a good thing) she/he has some legal liability him/herself for what appears here. The laws on causing religious and other offence are not at all stable (as in the 'your horse is gay' fiasco).

Green Goose, I am seriously interested. As a successful businessperson, if you could borrow via 50 year gilts at less than 3% to expand your business what would be 'over-borrowing', given UK plc GDP average future growth forecasts - please feel free to give an approximate figure, no need to be exact :-)

No, it is alienated. That is not the same thing, and in this context it is entirely justified.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TM last night recited all the numbers without > hesitation. Well, I wish you good luck in your business with discerning observations of this quality. Mrs May recited the size of the dementia tax cap (and its costings), the specific businesses that will be exempt from the immigration cap (and what those caps will be for those who are not going to be exempt), the quantitative effects on university funding of including students (WHAT?) in the immigration cap, the likely size of tax increases to pursue her stupid quasi-monetarist belief in balancing the fiscal books, the probable extent of National Insurance rises after she has sacked Hammond, the true cost of Trident (which she is too Christian, thank God, to ever use), the likely rise in the number of homeless in her Tory administration, the size of the numerical imbalance between the housing supply we need and what we will get etc etc. Oh, and she was good enough, and honest enough (because it is only Corbyn, as the song does (not) have it, who lies) to include an explicit contrast in the projected cost between the only two policies she is offering us of A. A hard Brexit (well, shall we say 10% of GDP per annum, probably continuing for rather a long time?) B. Paying off the EU (the downpayment alone is ?100bn). Of course she was very happy to discuss this, as its vital to the future of our nation: and people should be apprised of the facts before they vote. Sorry about the rant, but really Goose you do sometimes say some extraordinary things.

I think its great to put up posters and support a campaign you believe in. That's why my windows are blank this election.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But read the bible and you see similar things as > the original aim of Christianity - as the new > religion tries to break away from the old so the > old religion is demonized. > > For example the tale of Jesus & Barabas in Pilates > court as a blood curse (Mathew 27:24-25) - notice > after Christianity is up and running it doesn't > need demonization of the Jewish religion. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_curse No, but it did get a bit internecine instead, I fear. With respect to Christianity (which was force fed me as a child, not only at Sunday School, and a primary school where we had to sing All Things Bright and Beautiful "the Lord God made them all" - not exactly, I fear) and even into my teens in the form of compulsory Chapel where we were told such niceties as no sex before marriage as its a sin, we were strangely protected from any real mention of this. That Catholics burned Protestants, and Protestants pressed Catholics to death (see John Carey's wonderful book on John Donne) was strangely not interrogated. There are always a few things to say about the composition of a particular religion (some have contents more clearly out of joint with the norms of the times) but this is always 'this variant of this religion' as any successful institutionalisation has bifurcated into multiple kinds (Islam is a good example of this great multiplicity!) - but we (us here now) would do well to focus on the disastrous legacy of Christianity in our own world-views (from which it is hugely difficult to escape). Here, Nietzsche was absolutely right, and if someone hasn't read what he had to say about it they are pretty much flying blind.

The obvious nightmare is that (as the polls suggest) she will now only gets a small majority (if she loses her majority she will be finished). She will then continue, but be beholden to her own right wing: and Brexit will mean hard Brexit: catastrophic. The union will of course then break up entirely, led by N Ireland and Scotland who will not vote for closed borders and terminal economic decline. I see that house prices near Dublin are still quite reasonable, and their government seems quite enlightened .... and I'm still hoping the EU might make a unilateral offer of citizenship to the cosmopolis.

Yes, I wanted to see Faisal in that interviewer's chair - he would have done a much better job. Apart from the rather conspicuously minority Brexit camp, the audience's reaction to May was very telling. Not often you hear people laughing at a Prime Minister.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "unfairness: the predispositions and world-views > of judges, the pantomime of the trial, the > ill-educated nature of juries, the refusal to see > social determination of crime (ressentiment and > revenge, all the time)." > > 1 Why do you think those prejudices only lead to > unduly harsh sentences? > > 2 Why do you think it harms the independence of the > judiciary when one part of the judiciary reviews > the conduct of another part? > > 3 Why do you think juries are inferior to you? 1 We have one of the harshest criminal justice systems in the world (and the harshest outside of Turkey in Europe). We pay attention only to retribution, and only lip-service to rehabilitation. This is partly due (there are more important factors) to the socio-economic-gender background of the judiciary (obviously not all the judiciary): public school, Oxbridge, male. 2 Because the determination of sentencing is best done in the light of the testimonies of the Crown Court, rather than in reaction to a review ordered by the AG. Again, this is by no means the major issue: rather tariffs as determined by Parliament are the problem. 3 I am in favour of the jury system. I think it should be protected. But I also think juries should be better educated (to be sure my sample size is only three, so perhaps I was just unlucky).

Has Paxman lost it? His hectoring style is a bit over the top with Corbyn - who seems to be having a very good night.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > well. unfortunately, it's a negative vote - ie > strategic voting against who you most don't want > to win. > > Personally, I;d like the green party to have more > seats but in terms of the main parties, that vote > would be lost and better used. Which is really > pants. Yes, this is a particularly worrying election because the usual imaginary veneer of 'making the right choice' has well and truly been erased by the crushing realisation that 'there is no good choice to make'. The best outcome in this circumstance would be a hung parliament. May would have to resign immediately. The new centre-left would be large enough to form a new party with centre-right Tories (Clarke as PM probably given that the Lib Dems seem to be about to be annihilated). The Brexiteers can then be sent back to the periphery of politics where they belong. Let's hope there is enough tactical voting to secure this.

TE44 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jaywalker Do you believe the judiciary should > also > have autonomy when reviews have have been too > harsh. How long have the public had to go through > AG office for review, i can't find anything > regarding the crown telling May she's exceeding > powers. Can you give a link please. Think of it this way: why can't a jury's decision be appealed? Governments are always flirting with the idea of abolishing juries, and at the margin they already have. But only in a very few cases (so far). Generally it is better that someone is found not guilty when guilty than the reverse: the system should uphold this. And the same goes for sentences. I agree that the judicial system is unfair. But there are many aspects to this unfairness: the predispositions and world-views of judges, the pantomime of the trial, the ill-educated nature of juries, the refusal to see social determination of crime (ressentiment and revenge, all the time). As for the judiciary independent under the Crown, the Supreme Court is: it can and does tell the government that to act in a certain way exceeds its powers (as it did over Article 50 for example).

yes, I believe he is interviewing Corbyn and May LIVE tomorrow on a joint Sky/C4 programme (with the excellent Faisal Islam doing a live audience follow-up (although they are being interviewed separately :-) ).

Excellent Nick Robinson TV round table yesterday - so many people saying they'd been initially attracted to May's 'strength and stability' message, but not now. Beware the voter who has had their gullibility exposed. Also, she is now stupidly trying to re-launch her campaign with the message 'I'm the only one you can trust to get a good Brexit deal' - err, I think that is not quite any longer the perception. By the way, if her majority is less than her current one she will be 'resigned' immediately by her own (now absolutely furious) party. So over to Paxman tomorrow to make get the truth into plain sight.

Well, I can only repeat. Why was it previously NOT possible for the AG to appeal against the leniency of a sentence, but then it became possible! A sight of Daily Mail headlines might be a clue. The basic point is twofold. 1. The more autonomy the judiciary have the better - this autonomy is always under threat. The popular press now exert SO much influence on politicians that there need to be institutional checks against it 2. The review process tends to increase prison sentences when these are already completely out of control (see prison numbers as a percentage of the population cf other EU countries). The judiciary is not ipso facto political: it is established as a separate power under the Crown. It can tell Theresa that she is exceeding her powers, and it recently did!

well, Schroedinger's cat was neither existent nor inexistent - so not sure if it was inappropriate to forget, or was it to remember, I am not sure I can figure it out. Yes, cats are of their moment, and we too with them if we lose ourselves in them. But is this the best we can hope for, ourselves with others of our kind?

What cats have to teach us: autonomy (contrary to heteronomy) grace (Lalique, not soviet realism) semiotics (multiple use of signs, overdetermination of sense) tragedy (the expiry of the ninth life) alterity (they territorialise, we share with other humans - we are not 'natural') in-itself (they are, paradigmatically. But we are for-itself paradigmatically (Sartre): we are not them). I have pictures of Foucault with cat, Derrida with cat, Kandinsky with cat, etc: they all were learning.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Guessing you've seen this Quids. > > https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/this-is-the-wo > rst-tory-election-campaign-ever/# Thanks Otta. That says it all. Philip Collins in the Times was on a similar track today: May has been "rumbled". She is second-rate. The Tories hoped they could bounce an election victory before that became clear. And this from The Times for God's sake. Corbyn continues to play a very good game. People will completely understand and agree with his remarks on Blair's wars today. As for defence: could someone who thinks the review of nuclear weapons that Labour promises is wrong provide me with a circumstance in which they would instruct their use? I have yet to hear any such clarification.

In these circumstances collect all information available and do not trust anyone. I am still receiving cold calls about my 'accident' in a county I have never visited because the person whose car was damaged mistakenly recorded my number plate, not that of the car doing the damage. It was ultimately just OK, I could, by chance, prove that I was at home on that day, that my car was not damaged, and that the victim was in error. But this in the mean time involved the cancellation of my no claims bonus (at which point I cancelled my policy with that company) and endless follow-up calls by other (litigation) companies (which two years later i'm still receiving) hoping I would appoint them to handle the 'claim against me'. Now I wonder how they got to know that there was such a claim? I certainly did not tell them.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "I find the relatively new power of the government > to challenge sentences as too lenient (via the > Attorney General) deeply disturbing. No danger of > a growing heteronomy of the judiciary then." > > Hardly new - been around since CJA 1988. And it's > not really govt. - the AG is ultimately > responsible for all prosecutions carried out by > the Crown, and has a number of specified > roles/tasks of which this is one. In practice all > the work is done by the CPS and the hearing > conducted by independent counsel. And the > decision on whether sentence is unduly lenient is > made by the Court of Appeal i.e. part of the > judiciary, so not sure what your point re > heteronomy is. Well, that is indeed how we differ. It is good that we do - and that we can express such differences. My view is that the state (the AG, who is a political appointment) should not be allowed to appeal the sentencing of the Crown Court. This was the case for really some time. I wonder why it was thought then to be a good thing, and now, for you, its opposite is thought just to be part of 'justice'?

Tory lead has halved again now to only 5% in the poll in the Times today - they are projected now to lose seats: poll suggests a majority of only 2. Pound is falling sharply.

This seems to me to be an error. My cat is of course a metaphor (as well as a furry-energy-burst-event-kind-of-thing). So he should be excluded as trouble. Surely he will then learn to behave. Lets get literal (realistic!) about this sort of thing!

I find the relatively new power of the government to challenge sentences as too lenient (via the Attorney General) deeply disturbing. No danger of a growing heteronomy of the judiciary then.

I have decided to let the weekend pass before returning to politics. Seems only right. Yet in a way I wish they had not been abandoned even in the face of such terrible events. And I wish the government had suspended its own involvement entirely: it would be a good thing if, during an election campaign, except in the most dire emergencies in which the nation itself was under threat, we had a technocracy (decisions made, but also announced, only by expert civil servants).