|
|
11
« Last post by Oldmanmatt on Today at 12:31:27 pm »
Well, colour me surprised.
Despite being born in Torquay, enthusiastically watching Margret Rutherford bully her way around in black and white on wet Saturday afternoons (BBC 2) through the ‘70s, enjoying all the TV adaptations, along with the recent movies, and being an avid reader of almost any genre…
I’d never read a single Agatha Christie.
Then I watched Lucy Worsley on Agatha (actually the entire BBC catalogue of Worsley, in a few days. I might be a little bit smitten. Probably colour up and look at my feet if I ever actually met her).
Anyway, realised Christie was a far more interesting person than I’d thought, wondered about the much less frivolous tone of the new movies and bought a couple of the better know novels and…
So, one month and three days and 17 books later (when “the reading” descends upon me, something odd happens with time and an early night; in bed by 21:30 is suddenly 02:00 and angry realisation on work in the morning).
She’s really rather good. Patchy. But Five Little Pigs (amongst others) is a remarkable study in human nature.
I’d always imagined her to be wistful of the upper classes and trite.
Oh boy! She does not like them at all.
Sharp, observant. Hidden perhaps by her language, to modern ears, but once you learn the cadence, follow her dance, you can tell when she is mocking society.
Anyway, I have another book to read.
12
« Last post by Oldmanmatt on Today at 11:32:52 am »
Apologies for what seemed a melodramatic post, I think the point I was trying to make was misunderstood. I like Stone's ideas about public transport, and other social changes. The point I was making is that it isn't possible without a dramatic change to the system as a whole, this is because the 'power elite' that govern - transnational corporations, banks, etc will only decide to implement a policy like that if it fits in with their goals. Politicians serve their interests and not the interests of 'the people'. In this sense liberal democracy - i.e. the idea that casting a vote makes any difference whatsoever - unless by luck or chance your ideology or wishes are shared in that moment - is an illusion.
I don't believe there is any hope whatsoever of a 'peoples revolution', what I was asking (which I don't know the answer to), is how the Labour party appeals to the bottom 70%? As if it doesn't then in the long run this paves the way for alternative elites who might have less liberal values to mobilise the population against whatever foe they choose.
'Thomas Dye, a political scientist, and his students have been studying the upper echelons of leadership in America since 1972. These "top positions" encompassed the posts with the authority to run programs and activities of major political, economic, legal, educational, cultural, scientific, and civic institutions. The occupants of these offices, Dye's investigators found, control half of the nation's industrial, communications, transportation, and banking assets, and two-thirds of all insurance assets. In addition, they direct about 40 percent of the resources of private foundations and 50 percent of university endowments. Furthermore, less than 250 people hold the most influential posts in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, while approximately 200 men and women run the three major television networks and most of the national newspaper chains.
Facts like these, which have been duplicated in countless other studies, suggest to many observers that power in the United States is concentrated in the hands of a single power elite. Scores of versions of this idea exist, probably one for each person who holds it, but they all interpret government and politics very differently than pluralists. Instead of seeing hundreds of competing groups hammering out policy, the elite model perceives a pyramid of power. At the top, a tiny elite makes all of the most important decisions for everyone below. A relatively small middle level consists of the types of individuals one normally thinks of when discussing American government: senators, representatives, mayors, governors, judges, lobbyists, and party leaders. The masses occupy the bottom. They are the average men and women in the country who are powerless to hold the top level accountable.'
'
Hmmm… How many people should be in control? How should they (and how do they really, now) get there? What was that bit about casting a vote being meaningless? Well, if the sheep are being herded along the lane, one deciding to stop and graze or walk the other way, might be unnoticed by the herd, mildly irritate the shepherd, but is soon chased back into line by the sheep dog. I have, however, watched herds defy the best dogs. Once, there was an Adder in the pen. Stubborn buggers, sheep and not half as dumb as most people think. Anyway, people aren’t sheep, they really aren’t as dumb as they look. Being a Shepherd means, somehow, you must want to be a Shepherd. Stacking shelves in a Supermarket will give much less stress and probably pay more. Sometimes, I have to remind myself that politicians must have chosen this. Whatever their motivations. For sure, many like the idea of fleecing the flock and light indoor work that doesn’t seem too demanding. But, actually, the flock needs feeding, needs care, needs responsibility on the part of the Shepherd. The dogs don’t get it all their own way either, and angry ewe with a lamb will give the best dog one hell of a fight, if she thinks her lamb is threatened. Where the Shepherd is negligent, the flock becomes restless and uncooperative, unmanageable. You’ve just watched that happen in real time to an apparently unassailable Tory government. They could not have been more the chosen stooges of your “Elite”, what ever you think of the current Parliamentary Labour party. This government were given every bit of support, positive press, financial inducement, nudges, winks and outright love, from your “Elite”. Yet… Authoritarian regimes have rarely lasted very long. Soviet Union, once the greatest bogeyman in human history, worse than Genghis and Hitler rolled into one; didn’t even bowl a century. Do you think Xi doesn’t know he can push his people too far? Do you think his hold is unassailable? Don’t you think Putin is wobbling? Or think about how oddly timed helicopter crashes lead to fireworks on the streets of Theran?
13
« Last post by danm on Today at 11:23:12 am »
Had quite the discussion about who to vote for this week, with a group of climbing friends who are all very left leaning. Some of them live in a swing constituency and were grappling with not wanting to vote for Labour (not left enough) but not risking the Tory keeping their seat.
I campaigned for Labour in 2017, when under Corbyn they scared the living daylights out of the existing power structures by coming worryingly close to winning with a very progressive manifesto. It was pretty clear over the next 2 years that the entire apparatus was geared towards expunging any threat from that source (not helped by the utter lack of pragmatism and political nous displayed by the Corbynistas) and the relentless propagandizing duly manifested in the slaughterhouse that was 2019.
I think what we have now in Labour is probably about the best that we're going to be allowed to vote for that stands a realistic chance of forming a government. It sucks but it is what it is.
My main area of concern right now is how broken the institutions and services of the country are; are they even fixable, and if so at what cost? Worryingly, there doesn't seem to be much if anything on climate change and access to the countryside/green space in Labours pre-election talk, and how they intend to position us on China is unclear. Worrying signs this week that we are still keen to cozy up to them because our economy is too weak to allow disengagement . If that is the case, then they have us right where they want us.
Interested to hear other folks take on this, especially those of a less left leaning persuasion than myself.
14
« Last post by seankenny on Today at 11:07:31 am »
The free public transport point is interesting, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I'd recommend giving Freakonomics Ep 513 a listen as they covered this in detail. It's been seriously considered by some US cities.
This is a great podcast! (Though thank goodness for transcripts.) It’s really a discussion of trade offs, which is exactly what I’d expect when one economist interviews another economist, because economists love thinking about trade offs. And aside from any conclusions they may or may not come to in the show, it really illustrates my broader point, that populist viewpoints such as that espoused by Stone do not consider trade offs - and that is why they are bullshit. “I wish a thing, and it will be amazing”. Uh huhhhhhh. Sure. Then when amazing things don’t occur, there has to be a nefarious “they” stopping it. This is of course entirely obvious when it’s Brexit or Trump, less so when it’s fundamentally for aims one might share.
One of the main purported benefits is enhanced social mobility and economic opportunity - the jobs are often not close to where the poorest people live, who also don't have personal transport. The time and cost of public transport can make a lot of jobs unviable.
Then there's the massive improvements in efficiency by public transport being widespread and well used, as well as fewer vehicles on the road, environmental benefits etc.
I can't see how it would be done in a rural setting, and there's definitely flaws - but it also has its merits.
One important point in the show - so important that it was the only paper they linked to - is that metro usage in the cities they studied was much more responsive to improvements in service than in cost. This is not counter intuitive, right? And it’s the heart of the point I made originally when I said that in most British cities public transport use is not a demand issue. It’s not like people want to use Manchester’s incredible tube system but can’t because it’s too expensive. Manchester’s incredible tube system does not exist - it’s a supply problem. There is just not an adequate supply of transportation services across many parts of the U.K. So I don’t want to see public money spent on solving what I see as a second order problem when the first order problem - really terrible public transport outside London - remains very pertinent. There is a broader point here too. American jobs tend to be highly productive and can be well paid. Eg: https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1728946831567003868 (I’m not arguing in-work poverty doesn’t exist in the US. I’m merely saying it has a much, much stronger labour market than the U.K.) So yes, getting to those jobs can make a big difference. In the U.K. we don’t have that option, in my view because a lot of cities simply aren’t dense enough and with good enough transport links to create the large enough labour markets that help enable productivity improvements (and hence wage improvements). So for me, expanding access to good labour markets in non-metropolitan Britain is really, really important. In fact, I think it’s also important in London, and I’d like to see a second Crossrail and the current one extended. That should be the focus of investment, not free fares for all. Which would also be a massive subsidy to well off travellers who don’t need it (a point also made in the show). Yes, I get that fares are not an enormous proportion of metro funding (don’t know the figures for TfL), but again, budget constraints are a thing. We have a huge under-investment problem. Spending that money on things we know work, like improving services instead of ticket cost reduction, has to be the priority. Once you’ve got that great public transport then car reduction becomes so much easier. There is no freedom argument to be made for me for any visit to central London when, thanks to the new Elizabeth Line, I can get there in half an hour on a quick, clean, air conditioned train. As for the psychology of environmentally beneficial change, this is a short read on how the most pro-fossil fuel state in the US is now a leader in renewables: https://archive.ph/2024.05.25-012621/https://www.ft.com/content/ef2f6f8e-60df-4ccd-8c4f-ef5cd0eb3176
15
I’ve read the Dune books, Steve - would probably be good as
Audio books but I find with listening to things I’m too easily distracted- worth sticking with the book if you can!!
On a side note - imagine most here will have read it but just finished A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini… an incredible heartbreaking tale of two women in Afghanistan around the time before, during and after the first Taliban dictatorship. (If that’s what you would call it… government seems to democratic for what it was).
Lent to me by a friend but I never thought it looked like my thing, but very much enjoyed it and could barely put it down by the end.
16
Apologies for what seemed a melodramatic post, I think the point I was trying to make was misunderstood. I like Stone's ideas about public transport, and other social changes. The point I was making is that it isn't possible without a dramatic change to the system as a whole, this is because the 'power elite' that govern - transnational corporations, banks, etc will only decide to implement a policy like that if it fits in with their goals. Politicians serve their interests and not the interests of 'the people'. In this sense liberal democracy - i.e. the idea that casting a vote makes any difference whatsoever - unless by luck or chance your ideology or wishes are shared in that moment - is an illusion.
I don't believe there is any hope whatsoever of a 'peoples revolution', what I was asking (which I don't know the answer to), is how the Labour party appeals to the bottom 70%? As if it doesn't then in the long run this paves the way for alternative elites who might have less liberal values to mobilise the population against whatever foe they choose.
'Thomas Dye, a political scientist, and his students have been studying the upper echelons of leadership in America since 1972. These "top positions" encompassed the posts with the authority to run programs and activities of major political, economic, legal, educational, cultural, scientific, and civic institutions. The occupants of these offices, Dye's investigators found, control half of the nation's industrial, communications, transportation, and banking assets, and two-thirds of all insurance assets. In addition, they direct about 40 percent of the resources of private foundations and 50 percent of university endowments. Furthermore, less than 250 people hold the most influential posts in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, while approximately 200 men and women run the three major television networks and most of the national newspaper chains.
Facts like these, which have been duplicated in countless other studies, suggest to many observers that power in the United States is concentrated in the hands of a single power elite. Scores of versions of this idea exist, probably one for each person who holds it, but they all interpret government and politics very differently than pluralists. Instead of seeing hundreds of competing groups hammering out policy, the elite model perceives a pyramid of power. At the top, a tiny elite makes all of the most important decisions for everyone below. A relatively small middle level consists of the types of individuals one normally thinks of when discussing American government: senators, representatives, mayors, governors, judges, lobbyists, and party leaders. The masses occupy the bottom. They are the average men and women in the country who are powerless to hold the top level accountable.'
'
17
« Last post by Oldmanmatt on Today at 09:51:56 am »
A history professor and an engineer. All we need now is an economist and a psychiatrist and we'd have a perfect think tank.
I believe Sean is an Economist. Pete, of course, is a remote working “Gentleman of the City” and… Isn’t Bradders senior in the insurance/underwriting world? Will is deeply involved in utilities, at least as far as water goes and certainly seems to speak from a senior viewpoint. Someone else is clearly quite involved in the renewables sector, but I forget who right now. I’m often struck by the depth of knowledge and experience bandying about this little backwater of the internet. Certainly several medical professionals and many quite qualified to speak with authority on mental health issues. Academics of all stripes and not a few Chairs and senior faculty. Now, who’s the parasite, sorry, Lawyer? Edit: …and all because we share an unnatural fascination for obscure lumps of geology and plastic blobs bolted to walls…
18
« Last post by Hoseyb on Today at 09:42:44 am »
A history professor and an engineer. All we need now is an economist and a psychiatrist and we'd have a perfect think tank.
19
« Last post by andy popp on Today at 08:30:27 am »
Rather more amusingly, the rats - Redwood, Gove, Leadsom among them - are fleeing a sinking ship with amazing rapidity. And, somewhat incredibly, Sunak is taking today off from active campaigning to huddle in private with advisors. Denials that the campaign already requires a reset are not wholly convincing.
20
« Last post by andy popp on Today at 08:26:37 am »
I'm not sure your debunking is quite as thorough as you believe it to Sean. We all pay (through taxes) for lots of things we don't use or derive direct benefit from, though we will very often derive some indirect benefit. Anyone absolutely dependent on a private car will benefit from reduced congestion and pollution the more passenger miles are shifted to public transport. Of course, a political argument always has to be made, but that's not the same as saying it would be impossible. In any case, Stone made it very clear that was a wish list, not an expectation. A more honest engagement would be to take a more qualified proposition: e.g. public buses should be free in major metropolitan areas. As others have pointed out several European cities already do this and more are considering it. Yes, they present different contexts and contexts matter, but they are not immutable givens. They can be changed, even if that is not easy. Thus, I don't think anyone, including Stone, is arguing that the scale of change the UK needs could ever happen overnight, but all too often the default reaction seems to be to throw our hands in the air, proclaim that it's too difficult, can't be done, and there's no point in trying. Perhaps I'm being unfair, and as I said before, I know people are frustrated and exhausted, but I think I detect elements of that reaction in this thread. I’m at least in part dismissive of him having a very limited range of sources; a position I’d expect a history professor to heartily endorse.
Amazingly, I don't actually apply the same evidential standards to a post on a climbing forum as I do to the papers submitted to the journal I edit.
|
|
Recent Posts