Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 05:59:07 AM

That seems to be the rule, any economic activity in which Britain is actually good is to denigrated... we should be making washing machines instead 

We are lucky, the economic activities the country is good at are hard to emulate by emerging countries. We should play to those strengths.

#2

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Crazy_Ivan80 - Today at 05:57:48 AM

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.

You often hear the same sort of thing from certain people when it comes to slavery; "What about the Muslim slave trade! It enslaved far more people! And the Africans sold slaves to the Euros!".
And to this... yes.
But when we're talking about British or American history that's not really relevant. That's something Algeria, Nigeria, etc... need to come to terms with. It is the crimes of white people that are ours to own.

It's an anti western powerplay so better to ignore their whining. It's not their morality systems that ended slavery, or colonization, so we already gave.

#3

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Josquius - Today at 05:56:22 AM

It's interesting that I wasn't sold on Starmer and thought Nandy would be the better option primarily because I thought she'd be more reformist while Starmer was running as "Corbynism without Corbyn", while you were convinced with him.

Now there's this long read on the Mandelson to Starmer's Blair and I think their analysis and approach is right, while you have doubts.

I suppose it points to the criticism of Starmer made by the left - which is sort of fair (although I'm not sure how fair) - that he basically lied. If we're talking about dishonesty/lies in public life, Starmer running for leader on a 10 point list and basically dumping all of them within 2-3 years is up there. I get the Truss disaster gives a good alibi for getting rid of spending pledges but it is striking. Also striking, people don't care if you're winning and I see it as refreshingly ruthless

But it's one of those things where I think there's a bit of truth at the heart of that. If he becomes PM there will be scandals, there will be questions of dishonesty and I think when his poll numbers are down, what's currently perceived as ruthlessness/realism will become cynicism/dishonesty. I could be wrong, but I suspect that'll end up being a complaint about Starmer as PM.

It definitely hurts that Starmer tossed out desperately needed things. But I wouldn't say this is lying so much as adapting to a changing situation.
Certainly I have no time for the internal infighting stuff when the Tories are actively destroying the country day by day. That only becomes acceptable once the party is in power.
Fingers crossed that as the first term draws to a close and things are looking up Starmer can get back to bringing free movement in and other good stuff. But priority has to be steadying the ship before we can even think of moving forward.

m a bit of a heretic on free museum entry because I'm not sold on the value of free entry to "national" museums (often in London) which have huge visitor numbers including from tourists while small and local museums across the country are struggling.

A lot of museums around the world will offer different entry prices for citizens and visitors- usually cheaper for citizens though in Japan I recall seeing some where foreigners were cheaper, weirdly.
I recall seeing a museum in Brighton where if you live in Brighton you got cheaper entry but otherwise we don't do it.
That should be the way to go with the big national museums IMO. Free for Brits and students, others pay up. This could actually be a Brexit benefit in Europeans being clustered under the rest rather than getting the British price.

#4

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Valmy - Today at 05:46:12 AM

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.

Well yeah because it is about European colonization in Africa, the Americas, and Pacific Islands.

Japanese stuff in Korea or Turkey doing stuff to Kurds or whatever is a little different.

#5

Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic

Last post by grumbler - Today at 05:40:53 AM

What country is Brian Colunio in?  Argentina?  It certainly isn't the US, because the very first statement is that "the state of the economy is poor (at best)" and that certainly does not apply to the US, where the economy is showing record-low levels of unemployment and the biggest problem is wage growth.

#6

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 05:01:02 AM

It's interesting that I wasn't sold on Starmer and thought Nandy would be the better option primarily because I thought she'd be more reformist while Starmer was running as "Corbynism without Corbyn", while you were convinced with him.

Now there's this long read on the Mandelson to Starmer's Blair and I think their analysis and approach is right, while you have doubts.

I suppose it points to the criticism of Starmer made by the left - which is sort of fair (although I'm not sure how fair) - that he basically lied. If we're talking about dishonesty/lies in public life, Starmer running for leader on a 10 point list and basically dumping all of them within 2-3 years is up there. I get the Truss disaster gives a good alibi for getting rid of spending pledges but it is striking. Also striking, people don't care if you're winning and I see it as refreshingly ruthless

But it's one of those things where I think there's a bit of truth at the heart of that. If he becomes PM there will be scandals, there will be questions of dishonesty and I think when his poll numbers are down, what's currently perceived as ruthlessness/realism will become cynicism/dishonesty. I could be wrong, but I suspect that'll end up being a complaint about Starmer as PM.

I'd argue it has always been about technology.
The third industrial revolution which we're still seeing now started off way back in the mid 20th century. Harold Wilson and his white hot heat of technology speech and all that.
Globalisation was merely a way in which the core technology change issue showed itself- other countries doing a better job of embracing modern technology than we did, the massive drop in number of workers needed for the same jobs meaning just a few companies in the world could do their job for everyone, etc...

I think there are similarities and differences with Blair's view of technology and Wilson's. In both cases I think there's a degree of political advantage-seeking - to claim "science" and modernity and progress for Labour. I also think in Wilson's case the Labour Party at the time was quite divided between the right and the left (plus ca change) and technology was useful for a leadership that was trying to straddle that divide. But it was technology at the service of the country - to modernise the economy, to improve life of workers etc.

Blair's current obsessions are AI, digital IDs and digitisation of health. Everyone notes that Larry Ellison who has major investments in all of these areas is also a big funder of the Tony Blair Institute. I don't think that's cynical, but I think there is a conflict of interests particularly in TBI seconding entire teams into African governments as "delivery units" (based on Blair's own "delivery unit" in Number 10).

I don't think Blair sees technology (or globalisation before it) as a tool to fix the country. I think he sees them as one way, inevitable historical forces that you can't really control, alter or mitigate - the best you can do is re-distribute the proceeds (I think this might be part of the problem, in retrospect). I think for Blair it is more teleological and determinist. The question isn't what they can do for the country. But how can you put the country at the cutting edge of these forces because they are inevitable and the future so that is the "progressive" thing to do and your country will reap the benefits more.

Running with the Canute analogy I'd introduce one of my own we should seek to embrace: Holland.

Didn't expect you to back Johnson's idea of reclaiming Doggerland as a centre for off-shore wind power. I mean I'm game but...

The left also won the leadership in 1983 and had an awful lot of power 74-76 with Wilson effectively leaving a gaping hole in place of a leader.

Fair but Kinnock was on the soft left - he'd opposed Benn's deputy leadership run and was less open to the non-parliamentary left, while Corbyn ran Benn's campaign and his bit of the party was always for a "no enemies to the left" approach.

Also it's true on 74-76 but Wilson's cabinet was a balancing act. You had Benn who was very much on his journey - but you also had Healey, Jenkins etc with Callaghan, like Wilson, as someone who could work with both sides.

I didn't really understand the article. Obviously the international openness of the Labour Government of 1997 onwards is not and could not be replicable. We have acompletely different world now - tariffs, Trump, Xi, Brexit. Who on earth is saying otherwise?

I think there's lots of people who basically just want the 90s back and the politics of it. I think Blair is an extreme example (though, as I say, I think he's moved from globalisation to tech), but I think you see it in quite a lot of commentary. And also I think you still see a lot of framing for Starmer around Blair and 97 (in a way I don't think happened with Blair and Wilson).

The US has moved on totally so it's not just Trump but also Biden. I think there's a new consensus on trade and openness as national security issues in competition with China in the US that in Europe we're still catching up with.

There is a lot to learn from Labour's domestic policies in the Blair government largely pursued by Brown in terms of progressive policies where spending was severely restrained - minimum wage; sure start, free museum entry, smoking ban, human rights act. 

Obviously not in style but I think they could also do worse than look at Gove in education and to a lesser extent justice for what you can do in terms of reform without necessarily having to increase spending significantly.

I'm a bit of a heretic on free museum entry because I'm not sold on the value of free entry to "national" museums (often in London) which have huge visitor numbers including from tourists while small and local museums across the country are struggling.

But as you say the focus has to be productivity and growth - as Starmer and Reeves bang on about, but that's going to be tough. I think planning is a good example of something that would have an impact but not necessarily cost much money, I also think they should look at Brown's policies to film and TV because that's an example of industrial policy in the UK that has really worked. And possibly at whether there's areas we can usefully diverge from Europe (on AI we definitely should, for example). I also just hope they kind of embrace the country we are and the strengths we have economically: services (especially financial and professional services), higher education, culture and, to an extent, tech. I think for a lot of the last 8 years especially the key areas of the UK economy where we have an advantage and do well have been denigrated - either because everyone hates them (bankers) or because they're too culturally lefty/woke/remainy (higher education and culture). Just starting from trying to work with what we've got rather than aspiring to simply be Germany would be helpful.

#7

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Josquius - Today at 04:28:05 AM

I didn't really understand the article. Obviously the international openness of the Labour Government of 1997 onwards is not and could not be replicable. We have acompletely different world now - tariffs, Trump, Xi, Brexit. Who on earth is saying otherwise?

Corbynites and the like I guess.
I have seen many of them moaning about Starmer being Blair again.
Which...
1: That would be fine.
2: But he isn't.

#8

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Gups - Today at 04:26:35 AM

Oh you're absolutely right.

But it is unfortunately a fairly often repeated cycle for Labour after it's been in government (in the 30s, 50s, 80s and 2010s) - and right now Starmer has been absolutely ruthless (particularly in selecting candidates) in purging the left.

So, after the next period of Labour government, when the disappointment returns and the left make a comeback I'd expect them to be just as ruthless (though they've only won the leadership once). The main criticism of Corbyn on the left is that they didn't press their advantage enough.

The left also won the leadership in 1983 and had an awful lot of power 74-76 with Wilson effectively leaving a gaping hole in place of a leader.

I didn't really understand the article. Obviously the international openness of the Labour Government of 1997 onwards is not and could not be replicable. We have acompletely different world now - tariffs, Trump, Xi, Brexit. Who on earth is saying otherwise?

There is a lot to learn from Labour's domestic policies in the Blair government largely pursued by Brown in terms of progressive policies where spending was severely restrained - minimum wage; sure start, free museum entry, smoking ban, human rights act. 

We don't know much about the policies that Starmer will pursue but there are good signs on planning and on health. The absolutely no 1 priority has to be increasing productivity. We can't afford to do anything otherwise.

#9

Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023

Last post by Josquius - Today at 03:17:06 AM

My beef with de-colonization, as I've stated before, is that it seems to only apply to white people.

You often hear the same sort of thing from certain people when it comes to slavery; "What about the Muslim slave trade! It enslaved far more people! And the Africans sold slaves to the Euros!".
And to this... yes.
But when we're talking about British or American history that's not really relevant. That's something Algeria, Nigeria, etc... need to come to terms with. It is the crimes of white people that are ours to own.

[Making good, profitable games 'will no longer keep you safe': industry expresses fury and heartbreak over closure of Hi-Fi Rush and Prey studiosGamers and game developers are reeling from yet another wave of layoffs and studio closures.]

#10

Gaming HQ / Re: News from the lovely world...

Last post by Syt - Today at 03:13:55 AM

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/making-good-profitable-games-will-no-longer-keep-you-safe-games-industry-expresses-fury-and-heartbreak-over-closure-of-hi-fi-rush-and-prey-studios/

Making good, profitable games 'will no longer keep you safe': industry expresses fury and heartbreak over closure of Hi-Fi Rush and Prey studios

Gamers and game developers are reeling from yet another wave of layoffs and studio closures.

After laying off thousands of employees over the past couple years, games industry executives appear to be adopting a more efficient method of what they euphemistically call "reprioritization": closing entire studios. Take-Two axed two studios just last week, and now Microsoft has bulldozed four more, including Arkane Austin and Tango Gameworks, which it acquired when it bought Bethesda in 2021.

The dissolution of these talented, well-respected teams has reinforced the feeling among gamers and developers that nothing is good enough to earn security under big publishers today. In one popular tweet, indie developer Maisie Ó Dorchaidhe listed 11 things "that will no longer keep you safe in this industry," including "a good game," "a profitable game," and "long hours and sacrifice."



Indeed, Tango Gameworks' Hi-Fi Rush was deemed by Microsoft to be a "break out hit" in "all key measurements and expectations" last year. And in his email to staff today (acquired by IGN), Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty said that the studio closures "are not a reflection of the creativity and skill of the talented individuals at these teams or the risks they took to try new things." Rather, Microsoft is "prioritizing high-impact titles."

The message being heard is that you can do everything right, but still be deemed 'low-impact' at any point by the suits upstairs, and then it's curtains. In the wake of the announcement, fans and developers have expressed fury, heartbreak, and unease, especially over the future of other Microsoft-owned studios, which include Obsidian, inXile, Double Fine, and Ninja Theory.

"Extremely cool and not devastating at all how even studios and devs who make award winning or best selling games aren't safe from ✨restructuring✨ and ✨divesting resources elsewhere✨," wrote Firaxis writer Emma Kidwell.

"I don't understand the closure of Tango Gameworks," wrote Helldivers 2 studio CEO Johan Pilestedt. "I mean... Why close instead of divest [sell]? Surely the team would easily have been able to find a new home."

"I cannot imagine hearing you're being let go because of prioritisation of *another developer* is especially good for morale," said Larian publishing director Michael Douse, "especially if you're in another regional office of a shuttered sister office 🤦�♂️- imaging reading that and working in Obsidian, or something. Wild."