Recent posts

#91

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

Last post by Josquius - Today at 04:29:53 AM

yet most foreigners I've ran into speaking about it actively want them.

Why? I can see not being bothered by them but I don't understand why a migrant would want a physical ID? After all, until government went to eVisa, all migrants already had an ID card which was called the biometric residence permit. And I can definitely see why a person would want a BRP over an eVisa as the latter is atrocious.

Peace of mind they've got actual proof they're legally meant to be in the UK, cutting out the fuss of needing to find physical utility bills and crap like that.
I remember getting started was an absolute nightmare when my girlfriend first came here. She couldn't get a bank account without a utility bill but she couldn't get her name on a utility bill without a bank account .

#92

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by garbon - Today at 04:29:06 AM

So anyways, I was thinking that if your opponent's (should be called the enemy by this stage) key strategy is to create chaos, conflict and division so they can dismantle the remnants of democratic institutions, then perhaps shutting down the federal government is not the right counter-strategy to pursue.

But of course this is where the trap is. The fascists shut down the government when you are in power so either you follow suit when they are in, or you make it look like they can govern better.

Okay but we shouldn't forget it is the Republican party that is moving forward with dismantling and firings. The blame for that belongs on them not the Dems.

Unless you are a Republican or listen to Republican media. In which case the blame is squarely on the Democrats.

Yeah because I guess the Republicans must immediately fire people, even though they never have before, because the Democrats are just that powerful.

#93

Off the Record / Are we allowed to be happy?

Last post by garbon - Today at 04:28:18 AM

In a Jos-like manner (), this question occurred to me when I read this article about censorship out of China.

China launches campaign to keep killjoys off the internet

The Chinese government is taking aim at an emotion that has become all too common on the country's internet - despondency.

This week, China's Cyberspace Administration launched a two-month campaign to curb social media posts that "excessively exaggerate negative and pessimistic sentiments". The goal, according to authorities, is to "rectify negative emotions" and "create a more civilised and rational online environment".

In the crosshairs are narratives like "studying is useless" and "hard work is useless", as well as stories that promote "world-weariness".

China has been grappling with an economic slowdown in the wake of a property crisis, high youth unemployment and cut-throat competition for admission to colleges and jobs - all of which have given rise to a sense of disillusionment among its younger generation.

Young people in China "have serious questions about future prospects of their lives" and "must confront the fact that their livelihood is very likely going to be worse than their parents' generation," Simon Sihang Luo, an assistant professor of social sciences at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University, tells the BBC.

And Beijing's anxiety over the bubbling frustration has shown itself in a wave of sanctions hitting the country's influencers and social media platforms.

'Android people'
Last week, well-known content creator Hu Chenfeng had his social media accounts scrubbed of all posts. No-one knows why because Chinese officials gave no explanation. But it's widely believed that this was in response to a viral comment that he had recently made, classifying people and items as either "Apple" or "Android" - with the latter used to describe things that are inferior to the former.

"Yours is a typical Android logic, Android person, Android qualification," he rattled off during a livestream that has since been widely shared online.

While the gag was quickly embraced by many Chinese social media users, others accused Hu of sowing social divisions.

Such obvious jokes about inequality, it seems, have become tricky territory - because they reinforce the divides that the Chinese Communist Party would rather people not dwell on.

Censorship is not new to the Chinese internet. Anything that suggests criticism of the Party, its leaders, or touches on controversial topics that have political implications, quickly disappears.

What is unusual about this campaign against pessimism is that it seems to target a range of online behaviour that could create or add to a sense of negativity.

...

Now, I'm not in favour of the above, but it did get me thinking. It feels like general discourse online (and the news) is all about terrible things and reasons to be unhappy. Joy, when shown, often feels like it needs to either be limited/specific (happy to have won a medal, happy to have passed ones exams), done by unimpeachable target (happy very old person, children, people with animals), or apologised (Yes, I am happy to win this music award but we musn't forget about the situation in Gaza..). unadulterated joy is often derided or mocked.

What gives?

#94

Gaming HQ / Re: The Miscellaneous PC & vid...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 04:26:53 AM

You can get pretty good xbox-style controllers fairly cheap off Amazon and the like. There's no reason to play games like FIFA (or Assassin's Creed, or Elden Ring etc) with mouse and keyboard.

#95

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 04:25:09 AM

So anyways, I was thinking that if your opponent's (should be called the enemy by this stage) key strategy is to create chaos, conflict and division so they can dismantle the remnants of democratic institutions, then perhaps shutting down the federal government is not the right counter-strategy to pursue.

But of course this is where the trap is. The fascists shut down the government when you are in power so either you follow suit when they are in, or you make it look like they can govern better.

Okay but we shouldn't forget it is the Republican party that is moving forward with dismantling and firings. The blame for that belongs on them not the Dems.

Unless you are a Republican or listen to Republican media. In which case the blame is squarely on the Democrats.

#96

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

Last post by garbon - Today at 04:09:39 AM

yet most foreigners I've ran into speaking about it actively want them.

Why? I can see not being bothered by them but I don't understand why a migrant would want a physical ID? After all, until government went to eVisa, all migrants already had an ID card which was called the biometric residence permit. And I can definitely see why a person would want a BRP over an eVisa as the latter is atrocious.

#97

Gaming HQ / Re: The Miscellaneous PC & vid...

Last post by Syt - Today at 04:08:55 AM

Based on this I guess? No idea. I use my XBox controller.

https://fifauteam.com/fc-26-controls/

#98

Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...

Last post by Norgy - Today at 04:05:34 AM

It's Paradox's contribution to helping wean Europe off Russian gas for heating this winter.

"I would like a radiator, please"
"Could I rather interest you in a computer from the early 2000s with two graphics cards and only air cooling? You can also use it as stove?"

#99

Gaming HQ / Re: The Miscellaneous PC & vid...

Last post by Norgy - Today at 04:02:21 AM

I think we loved FIFA a lot. I bought my first 3dfx graphics card to improve FIFA 97 and FIFA The Road To The World cup, and man, did the graphics improve. Those days, I had a Microsoft joystick with umpteen buttons, and it suited FIFA quite well. My flat was definitely the most popular place to come with a pizza and a few beers back then.

I liked the NHL series from EA, but more to play as Norway in the B World Cup. The invented names were so off-key we just sat and laughed while playing. I think the last version I bought, Espen Knudsen was still in the NHL, and the only real name in the Norwegian team. 

Syt, can you play this game without a controller?

#100

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

Last post by Josquius - Today at 03:12:10 AM

Maybe.

When New Labour came into office the economy was growing at 3% per year. The national debt was at 37.5% of GDP. Inflation was at 2%. We were a net energy exporter meaning that a key price input was largely under domestic control. We had one of the youngest populations in Europe. We were about to have a decade of growth where in GDP per capita terms (including real term) the economy not only grew significantly faster than the rest of Europe but also faster than the US. And asset prices were about to go on a massive run - particularly housing - so people who had bought homes were about to do very well. Prices in 1997 (adjusted) were about the same as they were in the 80s as there'd been a dip in the early 90s following Black Wednesday - by the time New Labour left office they had more than doubled.

That is a material context that makes the politics of "everyone wins" quite easy. It's, as the Irish used to frame it about "sharing the proceeds of growth" - in Ireland largely through tax cuts, in the UK through a better resourced public sector. I would add there were issues within that decade as everyone winning started to have costs and contradictions. Obviously there's a downside to that huge increase in housing costs in terms of people trying to access the market. The debt was rising before the financial crisis. And things really shift in the second term. In 2005, Mervyn King gives his speech saying the "NICE" (non-inflationary continuous expansion) decade was coming to an end. In the same year we become a net energy importer which means we're more exposed to global energy costs and balance of payments start to matter again. It's also around that time (a little earlier actually) that there is a huge explosion in consumer credit (powered by asset prices increasing too), so a lot of the consumer spending becomes powered by debt and household debt goes from about 90% of GDP to about 160%.

That's a very different context from now. On growth the UK is doing okay-ish - on course to have the second fastest growth in the G7 (after the US) in 2025. But that's still at about half the rate it was in 1997. Inflation is the highest in the G7 and particularly sticky in the UK (again, balance of payments, currency and that we rely on imports for a lot are key here). After the crash (which doubled the national debt) plus covid and energy guarantee following Russia's invasion (which increased by about 25% again), we now have debt as a share of GDP at between 95-100%. The population is aging (but still relatively young in a European context) and the old age dependency ratio is increasing - there's also been a big increase in the long term sick. House prices are very regionalised but broadly plateauing, but rental costs have skyrocketed (in part this reflects the last government's measures increasing the tax burden on landlords, followed by this government increasing the regulations in that area which means landlords are selling up - I personally benefit from this as I bought a flat that used to be a rental).

I think that is a context in which politics and spending is significantly more zero-sum. It's not about sharing the proceeds of growth, because there's not enough to share. It's about choosing - and Starmer, and the Labour movement at this point, and the soft left press like the Guardian do not like making choices. A one off wealth tax is not going to fix this. MMT is fantasy nonsense for a country like the UK (always reliant on the kindness of creditworthy strangers). This should be something Labour can be hard-headed about, as Nye Bevan put it, "the language of priorities is the religion of socialism" - but this government isn't. Similarly the way to a less zero-sum politics is through growth - but I don't see anything like the energy required on that. Although I think there are positive signs - apparently Starmer and Reeves have been reading Abundance (which is about the US, but I actually think far more applicable, relevant - and actionable - for the UK). There's reports that Reeves is going to propose pulling out of the Aarhus Convention and is pushing for quite sweeping reforms to unlock growth, particularly around planning. I saw Steve Reed signing MAGA style red baseball caps with "build, baby, build" on them. But we'll see if urgent action actually follows as opposed to dither, reviews, consultations, process for another year.

I would add that I think the pessimistic side has a reasonable argument that we are moving into a zero-sum world more broadly and that to a large extent it's out of the control of the UK (or most other countries). The world is getting older. Climate is only going to intensify (in the near term - longer term it all depends on China and India's decisions). I think we're in an era of great power competition again where there will be shocks like the impact on energy and food markets by Russia invading Ukraine, or things like covid. I think all of those are structural changes that will shift politics from a more "win win" framing to one about distribution: who benefits, who pays, what's the trade off. And it's not clear that avoiding that would even be good (particularly thinking of climate). I think British (and Western) politics has spent a long time in a fantasy world and needs to get real quick - or it'll happen through a crisis. I think one bigger question should be what does a left wing politics look like in a world more along those lines.

I know you've said this before. The far right might actually be right as the world descends into an apocalyptic dystopia.
But really that's a self fulfilling prophecy. Elect people who actively want to destroy the world and that's the world we will get. Its really not too late though to make changes that avoid the worst effects- and doing this will make for a more prosperous country and world in itself.

True the world economy is in a worse state than in the 90s.... but this need not necessarily spell doom for working people. Globalisation unravelling does provide opportunities for jobs at home.
One big opportunity is in renewables. Places that best stand to benefit from these are pretty poor - coastal towns? hilly rural mining areas?
The idea of different energy charges for those who have the infrastructure near them makes a lot of sense and really should be pushed forth. With water too- there's a current little story in the news with people whinging about a reservoir near them which was promised would be nicely landscaped but...isn't.
Blyth one example of somewhere that is amazingly well placed with the Norwegian connector and very robust grid connections from the old power plant there.

There's definitely aspects of its just distribution even in this. Less of the millionaire telling the man with £10 the man with £5 wants his money. Even just slightly more equal distribution to lower earners would have massive positive ripple effects.

I've heard the Abundance argument in the US and from my first hearing it I was into it. It makes a lot of sense as a path that should be taken. A solid offer that works for working people and doesn't rely on scapegoats.

I think the UK's relative smallness and unimportance is something that can really help us in this (though less so than for genuinely low population countries). Abundance for China?....yeah.... its long been said the world simply can't support a billion more Americans.
But 70 million?....far more attainable.

Again it all comes down to planning doesn't it. Make British infrastructure more affordable and housing denser.

Sort of related to the above and what I was saying on ID cards.

There was polling on ID cards in the summer which had net support of 35%, 53% in favour and 19% against. As I say I suspect that was always mile wide and inch deep which is why you need to make the argument.

But polling out today showing  that support has fallen to a net of -14%, 45% opposed (and 32% strongly opposed) with only 31% support. They have become "Keir Starmer's ID Cards" and he's deeply unpopular. Only 13% of voters are satisfied with his performance as PM to 79% who are dissatisfied - so a net rating of -66% which is a record low for this question (worst than previous lows by Sunak and Major).

That's why I'm not convinced his speech necessarily matters. But it also makes the point that if they're making that argument they need to make it. We can see this with ID cards - details briefed to the press and then announced.

But they didn't do any work in advance outlining where and how ID Cards would be useful (Cameron referred to this as "rolling the pitch", Blair as "framing the argument") - but also what hasn't happened is any sustained follow up. I've not really seen much of anything from the government spelling out the benefits, explaining why this government IT project would be different, rebuffing the arguments against.

Josh Glancy in the Times commented on this pointing at Blair - when Blair increased tuition fees it was very unpopular (but he had a majority) and carried a possibility of a big revolt. He did a Newsnight special being interviewed by the toughest interviewer on the BBC, he did a Question Time (like a town hall special) with young people and parents. There were big internal debates too and Blair wanted them because he thought it flushed out objections and sharpened his argument. There are similar stories with Thatcher (in both her case and Blair's this was true until they went mad after winning three elections). You test a policy to destruction internally so you have the best arguments to go out and convince the public. In both cases Thatcher and Blair were kind of energised by opposition - they liked being on stage, they liked being in an intellectual fight for what they were doing.

It's a bit like why Starmer gave government time for the private member's bill on assisted dying his explanation is that he made a promise to Esther Rantzen. Or the welfare cuts - there's absolutely a case and piece of work on welfare reform but it needs a lot of work and you need to build the argument; those cuts were decided last minute because the Treasury needed to make the numbers add up leading to a government with a majority of 170 having to u-turn or face defeat because of internal rebellions. You can't win arguments you're not making. So that speech was good. If it is an isolated speech followed by another two or three month period of minimal activity or comms it will mean nothing.

I keep on thinking about that Patrick Maguire article about Starmer's time in Northern Ireland on human rights law and quietly ticking things off a list and moving things forward in airless conference rooms. The message at that time was not flashy but perhaps effective. I now suspect it's more that that is about his level - he is, at best, an effective middle manager/bureaucrat able to progress items on an agenda. But he's not a leader.

Edit: On this, I hadn't realised but listening to Steve Richards and Starmer didn't mention ID cards in his speech which is really weird. Big announcement, a u turn, apparently a key policy on a number of fronts and controversial but not followed up.

I'm 100% for ID cards as a concept but yes, Labour completely ballsed it.
Really they shouldn't have made it a big policy announcement. it was never going to be a big support winner and was clearly red meat for the quitlings. It should have just been pushed through as a quiet reform to standardise the million different forms of government ID out there.
And physical cards please. Oh let there be physical cards. I've seen a fair few British people moaning that this would be terrible and is really horrid to foreigners...yet most foreigners I've ran into speaking about it actively want them.