[seankenny]

Hancock is discussing his actions and defending himself in front of a bunch of second rate celebs

Bit harsh on Mike Tindall and Jill Scott

Had to google them both so point proved! Though to be fair I am not the person to ask.

As an aside from all this Hangcock nonsense, I do enjoy reading the odd conservative blogger to see what throughtful right wingers are into. If the two that landed in my inbox this morning are anything to go by, they have noticed that 12 years of conservative government have been (a) shit and (b) left them incredibly unpopular with the young (ie anyone under 55) and they are now worried about it:

https://edwest.substack.com/p/what-should-small-c-conservatives

https://joxleywrites.substack.com/p/turning-the-swifties-tory

The first is, in my view, weak sauce, and is perhaps downstream of being stuck in a FPTP internal coalition, but more broadly doesn't seem to want to engage with the problems being the results of what its voters really, really love (high house prices and high rentsm, dislike of environmentalism, car love etc). The second is better by virtue of being more focused, but there's nothing particularly conservative about a functioning police and making family life viable.

Anyhow, I'm enjoyed the schadenfreude.

[Bradders]

You have to wonder how much of this is him trying to get ahead of the inquiry and set the narrative (“he seemed like a decent guy on the telly and he was just trying his best” yada yada).

That's the obvious conclusion. Distasteful as it is.

For the bit in bold - what are you suggesting? That fundamentally he *isn't* a decent but flawed human like the rest of us? And that he wanted to do his worst?

Decency is not an excuse for incompetence. We have a gross negligence manslaughter law when it comes to death in the course of someone's employment, this doesn't strike me as being all that different; as in a manager who causes the death of an employee through incompetence and / or negligence can be prosecuted and jailed, regardless of the decency of their intentions. If it were proven that Matt Hancock's actions were the cause of covid deaths (and an ITV reality show is clearly not the forum through which that can be judged), then he should face the same fate in my view.

I'm doubtful that any incompetence will cross the threshold of gross negligence. We'll learn more during the inquiry, but there will have been times when the government didn't have any good options and were forced to try the least bad option. The full impact of those decisions, positive or negative, won't always have been possible to know at the time. For instance, if you look on social media you'll see lots of people complaining that Hancock enforced a lockdown or that he prevented them from seeing their dying relatives - all measures which would have saved lives but which had consequences of their own.

I'm not saying they should get a free pass but I doubt any criminal behaviour leading to deaths will be found.

Edit: what Paul said.

Yeah totally, I did say "if it were proven", and I'm thinking of the more clear cut decisions like discharging patients from hospital to care homes than general lockdowns etc.

Either way, "I'm a Nobody Get Me Out of Here" is not the place.

[TobyD]

There is no chance whatsoever of Hancock facing prosecution for his covid policies,  look at what has been revealed about Arconic et al in the Grenfell inquiry,  and the difficulties in securing any prosecution there. They were literally exchanging emails saying they knew how flammable the cladding was,  how to conceal it,  and that they weren't bothered; but linking it to specific charges is apparently pretty difficult. 

I remain unbothered by Hancock,  he is likely to become a non entity and occasional TV celebrity,  I think Johnson is far more offensive, and he probably did make decisions with no regard for people's lives,  whilst thinking only about himself.  Hancock was always just not cut out for the health department, he'd probably have been alright if hed continued being DCMS secretary. He was just loyal to Johnson and rewarded with promotion. 

[Moo]

Surprisingly big statement from starmer about the House of Lords.

I assume they’ve done enough focus groups to feel confident about making such a huge announcement as this safely.

[TobyD]

Surprisingly big statement from starmer about the House of Lords.

I assume they’ve done enough focus groups to feel confident about making such a huge announcement as this safely.

You would think so, yes, however it was part of Starmers leadership campaign.
I'd certainly agree that the Lords needs reform, but the good ones are valuable in scrutinizing legislation. The Johnson appointments are terrible though; they should beef up the lords appointment body and allow them to refuse prime ministerial candidates for the house.

[TobyD]

It's really depressing that there are obviously members of the Sunak government who want a more sensible relationship with the EU,  but the moment its even a rumour,  the Daily Mail,  Express and the ERG throw all their toys out of the pram.

BBC News - Newspaper headlines: 'Lions of Arabia' and 'soft Brexit warnings'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-63697978

It's as though they're only happy if the UK is at war with Europe,  and we have a PM who talks as though Britain still has an empire.  Pea brained jingoism. 

[J_duds]

It's not progressive is it!

[largeruk]

It's really depressing that there are obviously members of the Sunak government who want a more sensible relationship with the EU,  but the moment its even a rumour,  the Daily Mail,  Express and the ERG throw all their toys out of the pram.

BBC News - Newspaper headlines: 'Lions of Arabia' and 'soft Brexit warnings'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-63697978

It's as though they're only happy if the UK is at war with Europe,  and we have a PM who talks as though Britain still has an empire.  Pea brained jingoism.

This Matthew d'Ancona piece on the elephant traps of the economy and Europe facing Starmer & Labour is worth a read - https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2022/11/21/dont-walk-into-the-brexit-elephant-trap-mr-starmer/

[TobyD]

It's really depressing that there are obviously members of the Sunak government who want a more sensible relationship with the EU,  but the moment its even a rumour,  the Daily Mail,  Express and the ERG throw all their toys out of the pram.

BBC News - Newspaper headlines: 'Lions of Arabia' and 'soft Brexit warnings'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-63697978

It's as though they're only happy if the UK is at war with Europe,  and we have a PM who talks as though Britain still has an empire.  Pea brained jingoism.

This Matthew d'Ancona piece on the elephant traps of the economy and Europe facing Starmer & Labour is worth a read - https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2022/11/21/dont-walk-into-the-brexit-elephant-trap-mr-starmer/

As William Hague writes in The Times today, the true Brexiteers should stop fretting about someone stealing their prize and get on with trying to make the current situation work, as something like 56% of people now think leaving was a bad idea , Vs 32% who think it was a good idea. If they're not careful by the late 2020s, the public may have changed their mind en masse and they won't have a choice.

[seankenny]

The problem with that argument is that Brexit is always going to be rubbish, and it’s mostly supported by older people and hated by a majority of under 50s. So what are their options?

[TobyD]

The problem with that argument is that Brexit is always going to be rubbish, and it’s mostly supported by older people and hated by a majority of under 50s. So what are their options?

They could start voting in elections? I know noone is talking about it at the moment, it's too volatile an issue still, but they will, and Labour is currently more likely to seek a better relationship with the EU

[seankenny]

I mean, what are the Brexiters' options?! Some under 50s do vote already...

[Fultonius]

While chatting with some friends about the voting tendencies of older voters (constant drift right) and the fact that they have less invested in the longer term (probably care more about pensions, house prices, care provision and policing etc..) I proposed an inverse weighted voting system whereby the "value" of each vote is weighted by the number of years left to "average life expectancy". 

Obviously, this would benefit the left and therefore will be accused of being just for age based gerrymandering, but I think it has potential.

That said, the only proponent I have seen is William MacAskill of Effective Altruism fame and hence it's maybe problematic?

What's the script with Effective Altruism anyway? I listened to a long podcast with him while driving in Canada on Lex Fridman. I liked some aspects, but felt that it was too geared to a specific outcome (optimally saving human lives) which therefore seemed to ignore that we live in an ecosystem and not alongside it, and therefore the outcome might be that lots more humans live lower quality lives?

I've heard other mutterings about AE but not with much detail. Maybe worth a whole thread?

[petejh]

Some good discussions about it recently in connection with Sam Bankman Fraud's err.. massive fraud. SBF being an advocate for Effective Altruism. Seems, like most moral philosophies, like it can be taken to the extreme or practised in moderation - weak longtermism to extreme longtermism. Appears that EA's maths-centric framework appeals to wealthy silicon valley types who might not be... the most emotionally intelligent people on the spectrum.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23298870/effective-altruism-longtermism-will-macaskill-future

[TobyD]

I mean, what are the Brexiters' options?! Some under 50s do vote already...

Sorry! I totally misunderstood

[TobyD]

Watch the footage of Braverman being questioned by a select committee on immigration,  its astonishing just how foolish she is,  in fact its embarrassing someone that incompetent can be home secretary.  There must be dozens of Conservative MPs who could at least sound like they know what they are talking about.
Its the second clip down in this report:
BBC News - Suella Braverman: We have failed to control our borders
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63730054

[MischaHY]

Some good discussions about it recently in connection with Sam Bankman Fraud's err.. massive fraud. SBF being an advocate for Effective Altruism. Seems, like most moral philosophies, like it can be taken to the extreme or practised in moderation - weak longtermism to extreme longtermism. Appears that EA's maths-centric framework appeals to wealthy silicon valley types who might not be... the most emotionally intelligent people on the spectrum.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23298870/effective-altruism-longtermism-will-macaskill-future

I rate a lot of what MacAskil has written and would say he has a very pragmatic mindset towards the collective improvement of human life. That being said I think he labours under the same weight as many great communicators who nonetheless are keen to stay as intellectually rigorous as possible, which is choosing the appropriate level of conversation to suit his audience. No matter how carefully language is chosen there will always be people who leave with a different message than desired.

In my opinion the main issue with Longtermism as a total concept is that it reaches fairly quickly into the abstract. If we look at human life quality and societal robustness as a pyramid, it becomes clear that improving the baseline allows society as a whole to build higher in a stable and sustainable way. With this in mind, it makes sense to lift more people out of poverty because this improves the baseline of life-quality and has the knock-on effect of enabling more abstract goals like keeping children in education for longer. That is then the focus of effective altruism.

Strong Longtermism however pictures future human progress as an inverse pyramid with the upper layers vastly outweighing the lower layers. This leads people into a moral conflict because regardless of how you spin things mathematically, 100 billion lives seems more 'valuable' to us than 1 million lives. The issue with this mindset is that it fails to recognise that those theoretical upper layers can only exist through us broadening and strengthing our real societal pyramid. The Longtermism inverse pyramid is simply a potential reflection of where we might go, with actual progress being grounded in the near term.

Climbers will have a good appreciation of how this works by comparing it to grades and improvement. If someone has climbed a couple of 7c+ and now wants to try an 8a, this seems realistic. Similarly if they become extremely inspired by an incredible 8b and decide to train and project that line to the exception of others, they might be viewed as missing some of the bigger picture but nonetheless still ultimately on the same page as the rest of us.

However if our climber does two 7c+ and then decides they want to go and project an unclimbed potential 10a exclusively for the rest of their climbing career, they'd be laughed out of town. As climbers we know that our ability to reach and comprehend progress is limited by the base we've built under our feet, and the same applies to theoretical human potential. There's no sense in trying to reach the 10a now, but at the same time we don't want to only climb 7c+ forever. Weak Longtermism lays the case for a realistic futuristic mindset where we do the work necessary to allow us to reach higher, generation by generation, instead of plateauing or getting permanently injured and falling off the pyramid altogether.

Obviously this is all my opinion and others may interpret it differently 

[galpinos]

Watch the footage of Braverman being questioned by a select committee on immigration,  its astonishing just how foolish she is,  in fact its embarrassing someone that incompetent can be home secretary.  There must be dozens of Conservative MPs who could at least sound like they know what they are talking about.
Its the second clip down in this report:
BBC News - Suella Braverman: We have failed to control our borders
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63730054

I'd seen the clips from this hearing and it left me feeling pretty depressed. It's even not the ideological differences, it's the total incompetence of her that gets to me. Surely we can drum up some ministers that aren't this shit.

[petejh]

Some good discussions about it recently in connection with Sam Bankman Fraud's err.. massive fraud. SBF being an advocate for Effective Altruism. Seems, like most moral philosophies, like it can be taken to the extreme or practised in moderation - weak longtermism to extreme longtermism. Appears that EA's maths-centric framework appeals to wealthy silicon valley types who might not be... the most emotionally intelligent people on the spectrum.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23298870/effective-altruism-longtermism-will-macaskill-future

I rate a lot of what MacAskil has written and would say he has a very pragmatic mindset towards the collective improvement of human life. That being said I think he labours under the same weight as many great communicators who nonetheless are keen to stay as intellectually rigorous as possible, which is choosing the appropriate level of conversation to suit his audience. No matter how carefully language is chosen there will always be people who leave with a different message than desired.

In my opinion the main issue with Longtermism as a total concept is that it reaches fairly quickly into the abstract. If we look at human life quality and societal robustness as a pyramid, it becomes clear that improving the baseline allows society as a whole to build higher in a stable and sustainable way. With this in mind, it makes sense to lift more people out of poverty because this improves the baseline of life-quality and has the knock-on effect of enabling more abstract goals like keeping children in education for longer. That is then the focus of effective altruism.

Strong Longtermism however pictures future human progress as an inverse pyramid with the upper layers vastly outweighing the lower layers. This leads people into a moral conflict because regardless of how you spin things mathematically, 100 billion lives seems more 'valuable' to us than 1 million lives. The issue with this mindset is that it fails to recognise that those theoretical upper layers can only exist through us broadening and strengthing our real societal pyramid. The Longtermism inverse pyramid is simply a potential reflection of where we might go, with actual progress being grounded in the near term.

Climbers will have a good appreciation of how this works by comparing it to grades and improvement. If someone has climbed a couple of 7c+ and now wants to try an 8a, this seems realistic. Similarly if they become extremely inspired by an incredible 8b and decide to train and project that line to the exception of others, they might be viewed as missing some of the bigger picture but nonetheless still ultimately on the same page as the rest of us.

However if our climber does two 7c+ and then decides they want to go and project an unclimbed potential 10a exclusively for the rest of their climbing career, they'd be laughed out of town. As climbers we know that our ability to reach and comprehend progress is limited by the base we've built under our feet, and the same applies to theoretical human potential. There's no sense in trying to reach the 10a now, but at the same time we don't want to only climb 7c+ forever. Weak Longtermism lays the case for a realistic futuristic mindset where we do the work necessary to allow us to reach higher, generation by generation, instead of plateauing or getting permanently injured and falling off the pyramid altogether.

Obviously this is all my opinion and others may interpret it differently 

Like you, my issue with the longer-term 'longtermism' of the effective altruism movement starts right at the beginning with their belief that a larger population has more value than a steady population. While the maths might make sense in a simplistic way - a system with one person has value therefore a system with many people has more value - the assumptions behind the numbers doesn't seem realistic: I don't see greater value in a larger jar of unhappy beans versus a same size jar of happy beans.
 
It seems to ignore the good case to be made for there being more value in population remaining steady but health/wealth/life satisfaction growing per head. As opposed to population growing which - if the entire history of human behaviour on this planet is any use as a guide for the future - is likely not to lead to widespread increasing levels of health/wealth/satisfaction but instead is likely to see massive inequality, suffering and overconsumption by a minority. If the looked at things in terms of future likelihoods based on the current evidence, rather than simple maths, they might see things differently.

Throw in impact of growing population on the natural world and I don't see the overall value proposition of a growing population.

The group with the greatest interest in population growing appears to be large business that relies on GDP growth for profit growth. See - 'natural world fucked' and 'minority interest'. It isn't most people on the planet imo. The typical individual doesn't find great satisfaction working in the economic system we've built, it's a means to survival. Very few would do their work for free.

I think it would be better to try to make conditions as good as realistically possible for as many people currently alive or about to be alive in the near term, *and* plan for the long term but without those calculations being predicated on some erroneous anthropocentric belief system where 1 billion extra people added to the population = 10x more value than 100 million extra people.

As Keynes said in the long run we're all dead, so to me it seems now matters more than trying to calculate behaviours today mindful of the emergence of billions of people in some very distant future that may never happen.

[jwi]

Come on people, long-term-ism is a scam to get tax breaks for investments. Nothing else.

[teestub]

Throw in impact of growing population on the natural world and I don't see the overall value proposition of a growing population.

This should make the whole thing a non starter. Plans for this sort of future generally seem to involve high rise mega cities, with the small issue that no one wants to live in fucking massive rabbit warrens, even if they do have a green roof and the occasional plant.

[SA Chris]

We've seen how that plays out for Judge Dredd and Mega City One.

[TobyD]

Watch the footage of Braverman being questioned by a select committee on immigration,  its astonishing just how foolish she is,  in fact its embarrassing someone that incompetent can be home secretary.  There must be dozens of Conservative MPs who could at least sound like they know what they are talking about.
Its the second clip down in this report:
BBC News - Suella Braverman: We have failed to control our borders
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63730054

I'd seen the clips from this hearing and it left me feeling pretty depressed. It's even not the ideological differences, it's the total incompetence of her that gets to me. Surely we can drum up some ministers that aren't this shit.

I know, that's exactly what I thought. It's not the fact I disagree with many, perhaps most of her beliefs, but the fact that she's obviously shit at her job, and can't even pretend to know what she's talking about. Private Eye did a thing ages ago about her creative approach to her CV when she was attorney general, she is not as qualified a lawyer as she'd like to tell people.

[sdm]

If anyone has a spare 2 hours and wants to see just how unsuited she is to the role of Home Secretary, I suggest listening to yesterday's full Home Affairs Select Committee session rather than just the 2 minute viral clips.

Time and time again, she displays a complete lack of understanding of almost every aspect of her brief. She isn't aware of even the most basic details of any of the largest issues facing her department and she proved that she hasn't done the most basic research when it comes to her flagship policies.

Once you take away the xenophobia and the blaming of anybody but her for her department's failings, there is nothing else there. She would be out of her depth in a puddle.

Perhaps more worrying is that Matthew Rycroft was similarly unprepared for almost all of the questions. Although he did manage a rather brutal takedown of Braverman when questioned about the legal advice that she had received (and ignored). It turns out there's only so many times that you can try to publicly throw your colleague under the bus before they retaliate and chuck you under instead.

Edit: link in case anyone hasn't been put off by my description:

[Rocksteady]

Watch the footage of Braverman being questioned by a select committee on immigration,  its astonishing just how foolish she is,  in fact its embarrassing someone that incompetent can be home secretary.  There must be dozens of Conservative MPs who could at least sound like they know what they are talking about.
Its the second clip down in this report:
BBC News - Suella Braverman: We have failed to control our borders
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63730054

I'd seen the clips from this hearing and it left me feeling pretty depressed. It's even not the ideological differences, it's the total incompetence of her that gets to me. Surely we can drum up some ministers that aren't this shit.

I know, that's exactly what I thought. It's not the fact I disagree with many, perhaps most of her beliefs, but the fact that she's obviously shit at her job, and can't even pretend to know what she's talking about. Private Eye did a thing ages ago about her creative approach to her CV when she was attorney general, she is not as qualified a lawyer as she'd like to tell people.

Sorry to split hairs but I don't think that's exactly right. I don't think there is any implication she's not a qualified lawyer with all the relevant exams etc. It's just that she isn't a particularly successful or impressive lawyer, whereas she has held herself out to be. Looks like she's claimed to be a contributor to a leading textbook when she actually just did the photocopying, and claimed to be be involved in the Guantanamo case, when she wasn't.

Quite a damning profile of her here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/12/when-even-the-attorney-general-flouts-the-law-what-hope-does-britain-have-suella-braverman

Depressing that she was elevated to QC as a courtesy when made Attorney General (a political appointment). Somewhat makes a mockery of the QC title being a badge of excellence.

"The application process to become a Queen’s Counsel barrister features a five-stage competency framework. You will need to demonstrate all five competencies in line with a standard of excellence demonstrated in your working and personal life. You will need to submit comprehensive supporting evidence of meeting these standards, which is why your application could take 3 – 5 years.
The five standards competencies are...
- Integrity"
From https://www.thelawyerportal.com/barrister/what-is-a-queens-counsel-barrister-how-to-become-one/