I forgot to thank you about your link the other day about David Davis's letter to Parliament, which I read with much interest. I'll refrain from reading the US culture war stuff (like PlatoSaid's similar posts they're only useful during a US election) but please keep up the Westminster/Whitehall stuff.
Its a matter of faith among some Remainers that everyone in Britain is now poorer. Reality is not allowed to intrude and no exceptions are tolerated.
And there was me thinking you wanted a civilized conversation. Silly me.
A little advice then - lecturing people about their financial situation when you don't know any of their details would not be regarded as civilised among the people I know.
So yes, silly you.
And now I have some work to do.
Fair enough, and in future I will add caveats like "YMMV" and "...on average...". But your response ("Its a matter of faith among some Remainers that everyone in Britain is now poorer. Reality is not allowed to intrude and no exceptions are tolerated.") was unnecessarily rude and made unwarranted assumptions about me.
It's true. It is an article of faith amongst some people who voted Remain. Just look at MSmithson on this thread.
The quote was written in a response to my post, so the implication was that it applied to me personally.
I forgot to thank you about your link the other day about David Davis's letter to Parliament, which I read with much interest. I'll refrain from reading the US culture war stuff (like PlatoSaid's similar posts they're only useful during a US election) but please keep up the Westminster/Whitehall stuff.
You're welcome! I thought the news about the EU stripping UK citizens of voting rights - unlike the UK would have caused some anguish among remainers - but evidently not!
The way things are going I'm afraid that Brexit could be derailed too quickly for people to learn the right lessons. It's people like Liam Fox and Jacob Rees-Mogg who give me hope that this will not be the case.
I forgot to thank you about your link the other day about David Davis's letter to Parliament, which I read with much interest. I'll refrain from reading the US culture war stuff (like PlatoSaid's similar posts they're only useful during a US election) but please keep up the Westminster/Whitehall stuff.
You're welcome! I thought the news about the EU stripping UK citizens of voting rights - unlike the UK would have caused some anguish among remainers - but evidently not!
It did, weirdly. But these days it's just another problem in the queue...
We are all poorer. The value of our currency has collapsed which the Brexit Jihadists seem to ignore.
In international terms our spending power is down nearly 20%.
The value of the currency is down which affects me a lot as my diminished UK pension arrives each month to my home in Spain. However, prices here are more stable than in the UK .. and somewhat cheaper. I also earn more from my investments here and cannot in good conscience claim to be struggling. I voted remain but I think those who seem to wish to deny the will of the people are nearer to being 'jihadists' [- a term which is highly pejorative, somewhat hysterical and one I'd prefer, in the interests of good taste, not to use] than those who voted leave.
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
I voted remain but I think those who seem to wish to deny the will of the people are nearer to being 'jihadists' [- a term which is highly pejorative, somewhat hysterical and one I'd prefer, in the interests of good taste, not to use] than those who voted leave.
If the will of the people is to have their cake and eat it, it is equally pejorative to characterise those who try to explain why this is not possible as deniers of democracy. Furthermore it is infantilising the electorate to assume that they cannot cope with having their will challenged by either argument or reality.
My sense is that Chapman is both full of hot air - and not as bright or insightful as he thinks he is - and was encouraged to unleash himself and grab the airwaves by George Osborne.
But, aside from boosting the morale of ultra-Remainers and providing them with entertainment, nothing will come of it and it will be quickly overtaken by events.
What qualifications do you have to sit in judgement over the "brightness" of Chapman?
As to forecasting events perhaps we could look at some of the comments that came from you ahead of 2200 in June 8th.
Probably his twitter feed (which provides ample evidence) and his lack of judgement in posting a naked photo of himself to his instagram feed.
Forget the third party part of the Shipman narrative and focus on what he has been saying about the government total lack of preparedness by TMay when she invoked A50. That is the reason why Shipman remains dangerous
Do you mean Chapman? Or is there some other twitterati called Shipman helping him along?
So you think TMay was right to trigger A50 when she had no plan at all over the intricacies involved?
The two guilty people of this whole saga are Cameron for agreeing to the referendum and TMay. They are the ones should be blamed for making us all poorer and taking away some of our freedoms.
This is a genuine question, asked because I want to know the answer. I think you've picked the wrong post to quote, so I'll repeat it here:
Do you mean Chapman? Or is there some other twitterati called Shipman helping him along?
Addendum: Because if it's just Chapman, whether he has insider knowledge or not, whether he's right or not, the sheer ludicrousness of his tweets on the subject mean he will be ignored when he isn't laughed at. He's coming across as a sort of centrist Piers Morgan at the moment.
I believe (Tim) Shipman is the current political editor of the Sunday Times - so most likely a mistake by OGH
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?
Democracy is not a god to be worshiped. Look at the US variant of democracy and its consequence. Look at the UK with its disproportionate voting system that disenfranchises the majority of voters.
Referenda are fatally flawed because people vote to have their cake and eat it too - lower taxes and higher public services for instance - and can be easily emotionally swayed at the point of voting by wealthy media owners.
Democracy is a tool that has evolved to avoid bloodshed on the transfer of power. For that it is useful. But it is not the only tool. Power usually transfers at the top of large companies without bloodshed and without democracy. The same in China.
Democracy is a false god. It is a mere tool among many.
Democracy facilitates the free flow of ideas, and enables rulers to keep in touch with the grievances of the public. It gives people a stake in the system. It's not perfect, but it tends to deliver better outcomes than the alternative.
RCS1000 pointed out a great comment from an eminent physicist before the referendum on why he was voting 'Leave' - basically the UK has evolved reasonably efficient 'error correction' systems - from parliamentary democracy to the judiciary & common law - so when inevitably the ship of state veers off course it is fairly quickly corrected - he believes the EU does not have these systems.
Right now the UK looks much more like a political pressure cooker that could blow at any moment than the EU does.
What do you see as the Eu's 'error correction' systems?
Power is inherently distributed by the very nature of the EU, so there is never a single point of political failure. In contrast the UK is an extreme example of a top-down union.
Rubbish. That may be the theory but in practice power is wielded by the Commission and a few large countries.
Who has more power: Cornwall in the UK, or Luxembourg in the EU?
Definitely Luxembourg, and the way the Tories are concentrating power in their own hands here, that will be increasingly the case. And then they sell it all off to the Americans and Chinese.
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?
We've gained the ability to vote for a wider range of policy options than we had when we were members of the club and constrained by its rules. We've lost a huge amount of influence over matters of great importance to us that are determined at a European level. Which is more important is a matter of taste, but it is easy to see why people on the far left and the far right find being outside more congenial. If your political views are moderate you might well consider us to be worse off all round - but political extremists are as entitled to their views as anyone else.
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?
Two sides of the same great coin.
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
We've regained democracy.
Power you say? Are there any specific examples we might look out for in the course of the Brexit negotiations that indicate the balance of such power?
My sense is that Chapman is both full of hot air - and not as bright or insightful as he thinks he is - and was encouraged to unleash himself and grab the airwaves by George Osborne.
But, aside from boosting the morale of ultra-Remainers and providing them with entertainment, nothing will come of it and it will be quickly overtaken by events.
What qualifications do you have to sit in judgement over the "brightness" of Chapman?
As to forecasting events perhaps we could look at some of the comments that came from you ahead of 2200 in June 8th.
Probably his twitter feed (which provides ample evidence) and his lack of judgement in posting a naked photo of himself to his instagram feed.
Forget the third party part of the Shipman narrative and focus on what he has been saying about the government total lack of preparedness by TMay when she invoked A50. That is the reason why Shipman remains dangerous
Do you mean Chapman? Or is there some other twitterati called Shipman helping him along?
So you think TMay was right to trigger A50 when she had no plan at all over the intricacies involved?
The two guilty people of this whole saga are Cameron for agreeing to the referendum and TMay. They are the ones should be blamed for making us all poorer and taking away some of our freedoms.
They've not made me poorer.
I'm much better off that I was 18 months ago and so are probably most other people with a defined contributions pension plan.
I'm not aware of these freedoms you say I've lost either.
what rubbish , you are not better off till you cash in your dc pension pot , deluded or what.
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
We've regained democracy.
Power you say? Are there any specific examples we might look out for in the course of the Brexit negotiations that indicate the balance of such power?
Who thinks we should appoint our very own Glenn & Eagles team as joint Chiefs of Staff to PB's Brexit department? It seems as sane as Chapman's employment at Dexeu..
It would be saner than the appointment of Stewart Jackson as Chief of Staff to David Davis at DExEU.
And earning the £115k Chappers used to earn to boot.
That's peanuts, especially for living in London.
Move DExEU to Manchester, and I might be interested.
Maybe peanuts to you but your friend Chappers seems upset that Stewart Jackson is earning £115k in *his* job;
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
We've regained democracy.
Power you say? Are there any specific examples we might look out for in the course of the Brexit negotiations that indicate the balance of such power?
Yes
I was hoping you might be able to list some. For example would the power to deliver new customs arrangements for Northern Ireland be one?
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?
Two sides of the same great coin.
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
We've regained democracy.
The EU is democratic, so we haven't regained it. We've had it all along.
Democracy is not a god to be worshiped. Look at the US variant of democracy and its consequence. Look at the UK with its disproportionate voting system that disenfranchises the majority of voters.
Referenda are fatally flawed because people vote to have their cake and eat it too - lower taxes and higher public services for instance - and can be easily emotionally swayed at the point of voting by wealthy media owners.
Democracy is a tool that has evolved to avoid bloodshed on the transfer of power. For that it is useful. But it is not the only tool. Power usually transfers at the top of large companies without bloodshed and without democracy. The same in China.
Democracy is a false god. It is a mere tool among many.
Democracy facilitates the free flow of ideas, and enables rulers to keep in touch with the grievances of the public. It gives people a stake in the system. It's not perfect, but it tends to deliver better outcomes than the alternative.
RCS1000 pointed out a great comment from an eminent physicist before the referendum on why he was voting 'Leave' - basically the UK has evolved reasonably efficient 'error correction' systems - from parliamentary democracy to the judiciary & common law - so when inevitably the ship of state veers off course it is fairly quickly corrected - he believes the EU does not have these systems.
Right now the UK looks much more like a political pressure cooker that could blow at any moment than the EU does.
What do you see as the Eu's 'error correction' systems?
Power is inherently distributed by the very nature of the EU, so there is never a single point of political failure. In contrast the UK is an extreme example of a top-down union.
So in other words, if 'no one is to blame' 'nothing can go wrong'?
No it means no one halfwitted moron like Theresa, Boris, davis, Fox et al can cause the damage that the halfwitted Tory clowns do in the UK.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
The word "stuck" referred to my inability to think of a more neutral term for "lose" to describe the phenomenon of "having something then not having it". It did not refer to my beliefs.
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?
Two sides of the same great coin.
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
We've regained democracy.
The EU is democratic
No it isn't; nor can it be, as there is no EU demos.
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?
Two sides of the same great coin.
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
We've regained democracy.
The EU is democratic
No it isn't; nor can it be, as there is no EU demos.
This is the argument beloved of people who cannot conceive of forms of constitutional democratic government more complex than a parish council on a national scale.
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?
Two sides of the same great coin.
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
We've regained democracy.
Geoff , I have to say that is fantasy bollox of the first order. We will get the same halfwits given most of the voting public are half witted sheep who vote based on what they see or hear on TV / bent newspapers. No intelligent person could possibly believe we will be better off, apart from the usual elite at the trough.
I must say, I'm starting to love this Chapman fellow. He's a genuine subversive who's set politics ablaze. Leave now has an unpleasant smell about it - that of failure, ineptitude and a tired old establishment just about clinging on. Remain in contrast appears focused and reinvigorated. Brexit can't and won't be reversed, but who'll want to stick with that burping charabanc when there's so much fun to be had on the other side?
Have to agree. It was much more fun campaigning for UKIP & Leave before we won. Some nice drink ups, a feeling of us vs the world. Now all we have is our boring old success
The EU is democratic, so we haven't regained it. We've had it all along.
Venezuela is democratic. A small number of eligible people vote so that a bunch at the top can cover their position with the fig leaf of popular accountability.
For the majority who do not vote, it seems to make little difference to their lives whoever gets in and they get frustrated.
Venezuela as discussed yesterday is a populist state run for the benefit of a corrupt elite. The EU is a bureaucratic organisation run to the agenda of a remote elite.
Let us thank God for the small mercy that whatever their many faults, none of the European politicians are actually evil like Maduro - although their policies sometimes have rather unfortunate side effects (Greece) it is inconceivable Juncker would ever lock up Farage.
I voted remain but I think those who seem to wish to deny the will of the people are nearer to being 'jihadists' [- a term which is highly pejorative, somewhat hysterical and one I'd prefer, in the interests of good taste, not to use] than those who voted leave.
If the will of the people is to have their cake and eat it, it is equally pejorative to characterise those who try to explain why this is not possible as deniers of democracy. Furthermore it is infantilising the electorate to assume that they cannot cope with having their will challenged by either argument or reality.
No it is not equal. the use of the term 'jihadist' implies murderous terrorist actions against innocent individuals. The term was used on here by an ardent 'remainer' about some who voted for Brexit.
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?
Two sides of the same great coin.
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
We've regained democracy.
Geoff , I have to say that is fantasy bollox of the first order. We will get the same halfwits given most of the voting public are half witted sheep who vote based on what they see or hear on TV / bent newspapers. No intelligent person could possibly believe we will be better off, apart from the usual elite at the trough.
Morning Malcolm. Are you feeling OK? I only ask because you've passed up a peerless opportunity to mention turnips.
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
No sadly about it for us exporters.
Trade is a 2 way street - many of the goods we have to buy are now more expensive. To pretend that devaluation is some kind of pain free economic panacaea is juvenile in the extreme.
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
No sadly about it for us exporters.
Trade is a 2 way street - many of the goods we have to buy are now more expensive. To pretend that devaluation is some kind of pain free economic panacaea is juvenile in the extreme.
I accept some things have gone up and especially for those importing lots, no issue. I was just pointing out they're are those of us for whom the economic upsides have far outweighed any downsides ( even though at it's heart it's not about the money anyway).
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation. A fall in Sterling and the curtailment to an extent of a huge pool of labour prepared to work at relatively low rates will all chivvy that process along as far as I am concerned. The economy wasn't working that well for me pre Brexit signs are more hopeful now.
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.
Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.
You got poorer. The trick is the fall in the value of the pound. It's not the number of pounds you have, it's the number of things you can buy with them. In the 70's Conservatives railed against "money illusion": the concept that people were fooled by an increase in their nominal wealth (the amount of pounds they have) masking a drop in their actual wealth (the things you can buy with them). 21st century low inflation has made us forget that lesson, to our detriment.
PART 2: TEMPORARY OR PERMANENTLY?
There is an ongoing argument between me and Philip Thompson of this parish, which usually ends with me quoting GBP/USD back to 2000. He represents the idea that the fall in the pound is like the 1992 ERM exit and will be temporary as industry expands to take advantage of export opportunities. I represent the idea that it is like the 1967 devaluation and will be permanent, causing inflation to work its way thru the system over the next five-ten years as industry fails to pick up. I do not know which of us are right as it is too early to tell, but I am not sanguine.
PART 3: RIGHTS AND THE LOSING OF THEM
You currently have the right to work in 27 other countries and operate under the protection of European legal protections (the ECHR, the ECJ and other bobbins beginning with E). Post Brexit you will not have those rights. Also if the Times is correct, the Government would like to remove the right to sue the Government, which would have shocked me had I been innocent to believe in its goodness.
Whether you consider those rights to be valuable is a value judgement I leave to you. But whether you will lose them is not. And currently it appears that you will.
You will no longer have the right to sue the Government for breaches of European law, that is correct. But the law will no longer apply.
The right to work in other countries is a matter of a treaty between governments. We have instructed the government to terminate the treaty, so the benefits of those treaties fall by the wayside. That was the choice the people made: it is not as if there has been some inalienable right that has been stripped from us.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
I have to disagree with this. The memo is crass and stupid.
Using the excuse of 'populations' and 'individuals' allows often-false generalisations to be used to discriminate.
My experience with women in engineering has been uniformly positive (and I'm not just saying that because I married one).
In fact, I'd go further: the female engineers I know are probably better on average than their male counterparts. The reason may be that they've had to fight more to get where they are, and that the struggle either knocks out the poorer ones, or helps them raise their game.
This leads to a question of why there are not more female managers. I'd like to say this is changing over time, but sadly IME it is not (at least at the mid-levels of SMEs I know of).
Children and child raising has to be an important aspect, although one that may take lesser importance with increased paternity leave.
Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.
Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.
One of his main points was "at this company, you're not allowed to say the wrong thing".
The company then fired him for saying the wrong thing.
"Handled this badly" is a masterpiece of understatement.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
I have to disagree with this. The memo is crass and stupid.
Using the excuse of 'populations' and 'individuals' allows often-false generalisations to be used to discriminate.
My experience with women in engineering has been uniformly positive (and I'm not just saying that because I married one).
In fact, I'd go further: the female engineers I know are probably better on average than their male counterparts. The reason may be that they've had to fight more to get where they are, and that the struggle either knocks out the poorer ones, or helps them raise their game.
This leads to a question of why there are not more female managers. I'd like to say this is changing over time, but sadly IME it is not (at least at the mid-levels of SMEs I know of).
Children and child raising has to be an important aspect, although one that may take lesser importance with increased paternity leave.
Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.
Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.
To be frank, this is more of a likelihood than increased interest rates, in my mind. Have you seen the figures on mortgage defaults? And how many know nothing else than rates in the floor.
The days of living off interest rates are over - there is too much money sloshing around (the result of mass market pensions) looking for a return. Interest rates on the floor is the new normal.
Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.
One of his main points was "at this company, you're not allowed to say the wrong thing".
The company then fired him for saying the wrong thing.
"Handled this badly" is a masterpiece of understatement.
Well to be fair if he knew he wasn't allowed to say this, then said it anyway, then the company firing him is sort of inevitable. Can't really complain that it has taken him by surprise that the company wouldn't like what he was saying.
Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.
One of his main points was "at this company, you're not allowed to say the wrong thing".
The company then fired him for saying the wrong thing.
"Handled this badly" is a masterpiece of understatement.
He sounds slightly immature. Many companies allow you to say the 'wrong' thing. They may not like you saying the wrong thing and then plastering it throughout the company ...
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
I have to disagree with this. The memo is crass and stupid.
Using the excuse of 'populations' and 'individuals' allows often-false generalisations to be used to discriminate.
My experience with women in engineering has been uniformly positive (and I'm not just saying that because I married one).
In fact, I'd go further: the female engineers I know are probably better on average than their male counterparts. The reason may be that they've had to fight more to get where they are, and that the struggle either knocks out the poorer ones, or helps them raise their game.
This leads to a question of why there are not more female managers. I'd like to say this is changing over time, but sadly IME it is not (at least at the mid-levels of SMEs I know of).
Children and child raising has to be an important aspect, although one that may take lesser importance with increased paternity leave.
Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.
PC jocks are the new Godbotherers
It's not PC. It's saying that the skills and capabilities of roughly half of the population is not being adequately utilised for b/s reasons.
I don't see women (or Indians, or Romanans, or any other grouping) as rivals for jobs (*). If I'm good enough, I'll find work. If not, I'll have to try to upskill. But more than that: one of those women, or Indians, or Romanians might start a company that employs me and scores of others.
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.
Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.
4-5%?
On that basis provided Sterling drifted down to account for (say) inflation amongst our competitors in Euroland USA etc of 2%ish I 'd be agnostic to positive. Of course 4/5% inflation would soon start eating into Govt debt and be bad for bond holders so gilt yields might rise anyway (v good!). It may I guess help erode real house prices (v good overall), but again a rise in rates would help curtail property prices better.
I think mega low rates have biblically mispriced property and bonds and are at the heart of both the accommodation crisis ( though importing 250k plus people a year doesn't help with construction rates so far behind) and the pensions crisis. Tata, BHS, universities- you'd not have heard about any of them without sustained crazy interest rates.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
I have to disagree with this. The memo is crass and stupid.
Using the excuse of 'populations' and 'individuals' allows often-false generalisations to be used to discriminate.
My experience with women in engineering has been uniformly positive (and I'm not just saying that because I married one).
In fact, I'd go further: the female engineers I know are probably better on average than their male counterparts. The reason may be that they've had to fight more to get where they are, and that the struggle either knocks out the poorer ones, or helps them raise their game.
This leads to a question of why there are not more female managers. I'd like to say this is changing over time, but sadly IME it is not (at least at the mid-levels of SMEs I know of).
Children and child raising has to be an important aspect, although one that may take lesser importance with increased paternity leave.
Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.
PC jocks are the new Godbotherers
It's not PC. It's saying that the skills and capabilities of roughly half of the population is not being adequately utilised for b/s reasons.
I don't see women (or Indians, or Romanans, or any other grouping) as rivals for jobs (*). If I'm good enough, I'll find work. If not, I'll have to try to upskill. But more than that: one of those women, or Indians, or Romanians might start a company that employs me and scores of others.
(*) I'm not currently in the market.
it's simply the modern version of people who used to cover up chair legs for being immoral
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
I have to disagree with this. The memo is crass and stupid.
Using the excuse of 'populations' and 'individuals' allows often-false generalisations to be used to discriminate.
My experience with women in engineering has been uniformly positive (and I'm not just saying that because I married one).
In fact, I'd go further: the female engineers I know are probably better on average than their male counterparts. The reason may be that they've had to fight more to get where they are, and that the struggle either knocks out the poorer ones, or helps them raise their game.
This leads to a question of why there are not more female managers. I'd like to say this is changing over time, but sadly IME it is not (at least at the mid-levels of SMEs I know of).
Children and child raising has to be an important aspect, although one that may take lesser importance with increased paternity leave.
Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.
PC jocks are the new Godbotherers
It's not PC. It's saying that the skills and capabilities of roughly half of the population is not being adequately utilised for b/s reasons.
I don't see women (or Indians, or Romanans, or any other grouping) as rivals for jobs (*). If I'm good enough, I'll find work. If not, I'll have to try to upskill. But more than that: one of those women, or Indians, or Romanians might start a company that employs me and scores of others.
(*) I'm not currently in the market.
it's simply the modern version of people who used to cover up chair legs for being immoral
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.
Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.
4-5%?
On that basis provided Sterling drifted down to account for (say) inflation amongst our competitors in Euroland USA etc of 2%ish I 'd be agnostic to positive. Of course 4/5% inflation would soon start eating into Govt debt and be bad for bond holders so gilt yields might rise anyway (v good!). It may I guess help erode real house prices (v good overall), but again a rise in rates would help curtail property prices better.
I think mega low rates have biblically mispriced property and bonds and are at the heart of both the accommodation crisis ( though importing 250k plus people a year doesn't help with construction rates so far behind) and the pensions crisis. Tata, BHS, universities- you'd not have heard about any of them without sustained crazy interest rates.
Flip the effect on pensions on its head; they have had a huge effect on the money supply in the world - the crazy low interest rates are as a result of the trillions of dollars looking for a return.
Pensions relying upon interest rates was poor design - the growth required for sustained pensions was always going to be hard to achieve when there was so much money around.
The right to work in other countries is a matter of a treaty between governments. We have instructed the government to terminate the treaty, so the benefits of those treaties fall by the wayside. That was the choice the people made: it is not as if there has been some inalienable right that has been stripped from us.
Explaining to me why the right has been lost does not change the fact that the right was lost. In a discussion of rights that were lost, it is legitimate for me to point out that a right which is currently had and will in future not be had, will be a right that is lost.
So far discussion has ranged from whether the right is a right, or freedom, or even a "right", and whether the process of "having a thing followed by not having a thing" can be described using the word "lost". Although I delight in pedantry I can't help thinking that this semantic discussion does not change the fact that the right which is had will be lost.
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.
Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.
To be frank, this is more of a likelihood than increased interest rates, in my mind. Have you seen the figures on mortgage defaults? And how many know nothing else than rates in the floor.
The days of living off interest rates are over - there is too much money sloshing around (the result of mass market pensions) looking for a return. Interest rates on the floor is the new normal.
"Rights" is a loaded term and implies something fundamental and profound like free speech or self defence. These are not "rights" in any deep sense. They are no more than abilities or bureaucratic concessions.
Whether you would describe them as rights or something else is a fair discussion, but not to the fact that you have them now and soon you will not.
You use the word "lose" but that implies that I want to keep these things ...
No, it implies that you have them now and you will not have them in future. If there is a neutral term you would like me to use instead of "lose" please inform me of it, because I confess I'm stuck.
You're stuck because you are only looking at one side of the argument and ignoring the rights gained. On balance I wanted to stay in the EU but like many who voted thus I was only too aware of it's failings.
But what rights have we gained? Only to put more power in the hands of our national leaders (now Tories, later Socialists) so that they can play ducks and drakes with the economy, the environment and society in general. What have we - the general public who actually live here - actually gained?
We've gained the ability to vote for a wider range of policy options than we had when we were members of the club and constrained by its rules. We've lost a huge amount of influence over matters of great importance to us that are determined at a European level. Which is more important is a matter of taste, but it is easy to see why people on the far left and the far right find being outside more congenial. If your political views are moderate you might well consider us to be worse off all round - but political extremists are as entitled to their views as anyone else.
The other big point no one focuses on is the trend for Eurozone countries to vote as a bloc.
If this developed then we would permanently be in a minority - the EU would effectively have suzerainty over the UK, albeit not sovereignty
The right to work in other countries is a matter of a treaty between governments. We have instructed the government to terminate the treaty, so the benefits of those treaties fall by the wayside. That was the choice the people made: it is not as if there has been some inalienable right that has been stripped from us.
Explaining to me why the right has been lost does not change the fact that the right was lost. In a discussion of rights that were lost, it is legitimate for me to point out that a right which is currently had and will in future not be had, will be a right that is lost.
So far discussion has ranged from whether the right is a right, or freedom, or even a "right", and whether the process of "having a thing followed by not having a thing" can be described using the word "lost". Although I delight in pedantry I can't help thinking that this semantic discussion does not change the fact that the right which is had will be lost.
Rights change, is the point - there are very few inalienable rights.
I think you'll find the right to live anywhere within Europe is not a fundamental, inalienable right.
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.
Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.
To be frank, this is more of a likelihood than increased interest rates, in my mind. Have you seen the figures on mortgage defaults? And how many know nothing else than rates in the floor.
The days of living off interest rates are over - there is too much money sloshing around (the result of mass market pensions) looking for a return. Interest rates on the floor is the new normal.
You might be right
I'm not sure I can cope with this level of civilised discourse. I've come to expect people calling me a moron. I did vote leave, remember.....
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.
Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.
4-5%?
On that basis provided Sterling drifted down to account for (say) inflation amongst our competitors in Euroland USA etc of 2%ish I 'd be agnostic to positive. Of course 4/5% inflation would soon start eating into Govt debt and be bad for bond holders so gilt yields might rise anyway (v good!). It may I guess help erode real house prices (v good overall), but again a rise in rates would help curtail property prices better.
I think mega low rates have biblically mispriced property and bonds and are at the heart of both the accommodation crisis ( though importing 250k plus people a year doesn't help with construction rates so far behind) and the pensions crisis. Tata, BHS, universities- you'd not have heard about any of them without sustained crazy interest rates.
Flip the effect on pensions on its head; they have had a huge effect on the money supply in the world - the crazy low interest rates are as a result of the trillions of dollars looking for a return.
Pensions relying upon interest rates was poor design - the growth required for sustained pensions was always going to be hard to achieve when there was so much money around.
Yeah I see the point, and I doubt 10% rates are coming back any time soon. But even getting to 2% wouldn't half help a lot. When 20yr gilt yields are 1.6/1.8% as they've been for the past few months even small absolute moves (say 0.75% to 2.5% ish yields?) make huge differences to discount rates and hence notional fund liabilities because they represent reasonably chunky percentages of the starting point.
It's a mess because we are having to run on afterburners to maintain level flight so to speak, but all that extra fuel and heat are causing the engines to burn out.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.
Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.
To be frank, this is more of a likelihood than increased interest rates, in my mind. Have you seen the figures on mortgage defaults? And how many know nothing else than rates in the floor.
The days of living off interest rates are over - there is too much money sloshing around (the result of mass market pensions) looking for a return. Interest rates on the floor is the new normal.
You might be right
I did vote leave, remember.....
I expect you're typing this on the dial up modem computer in your local library which is about to be shut because of BREXIT.....good riddance!
The right to work in other countries is a matter of a treaty between governments. We have instructed the government to terminate the treaty, so the benefits of those treaties fall by the wayside. That was the choice the people made: it is not as if there has been some inalienable right that has been stripped from us.
Explaining to me why the right has been lost does not change the fact that the right was lost. In a discussion of rights that were lost, it is legitimate for me to point out that a right which is currently had and will in future not be had, will be a right that is lost.
So far discussion has ranged from whether the right is a right, or freedom, or even a "right", and whether the process of "having a thing followed by not having a thing" can be described using the word "lost". Although I delight in pedantry I can't help thinking that this semantic discussion does not change the fact that the right which is had will be lost.
We don't know that it has been lost: it could be renegotiated as part of a new arrangement between governments.
I'm also questioning whether your use of the word "right" is helpful. You have a benefit - the ability to work in multiple countries - but not an inalienable right.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
The right to work in other countries is a matter of a treaty between governments. We have instructed the government to terminate the treaty, so the benefits of those treaties fall by the wayside. That was the choice the people made: it is not as if there has been some inalienable right that has been stripped from us.
Explaining to me why the right has been lost does not change the fact that the right was lost. In a discussion of rights that were lost, it is legitimate for me to point out that a right which is currently had and will in future not be had, will be a right that is lost.
So far discussion has ranged from whether the right is a right, or freedom, or even a "right", and whether the process of "having a thing followed by not having a thing" can be described using the word "lost". Although I delight in pedantry I can't help thinking that this semantic discussion does not change the fact that the right which is had will be lost.
Rights change, is the point - there are very few inalienable rights.
I think you'll find the right to live anywhere within Europe is not a fundamental, inalienable right.
But this is discussing the quality of the right, not its absence
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation.
Parenthetically, what would you think of high(ish) inflation and no rise in interest rates? I wouldn't put it past Carney to pull a fast one.
To be frank, this is more of a likelihood than increased interest rates, in my mind. Have you seen the figures on mortgage defaults? And how many know nothing else than rates in the floor.
The days of living off interest rates are over - there is too much money sloshing around (the result of mass market pensions) looking for a return. Interest rates on the floor is the new normal.
You might be right
I'm not sure I can cope with this level of civilised discourse. I've come to expect people calling me a moron. I did vote leave, remember.....
Did you want to try again?
I said you might be right because I thought you might be right. If you wanted unprovoked insults, you'll have to pay extra. I could do a full-throttle stream-of-consciousness abusive diatribe but it takes a few days to arrange and I'll have to get malcolmg to help with the fractals, so not until next Tuesday unfortunately...
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
The right to work in other countries is a matter of a treaty between governments. We have instructed the government to terminate the treaty, so the benefits of those treaties fall by the wayside. That was the choice the people made: it is not as if there has been some inalienable right that has been stripped from us.
Explaining to me why the right has been lost does not change the fact that the right was lost. In a discussion of rights that were lost, it is legitimate for me to point out that a right which is currently had and will in future not be had, will be a right that is lost.
So far discussion has ranged from whether the right is a right, or freedom, or even a "right", and whether the process of "having a thing followed by not having a thing" can be described using the word "lost". Although I delight in pedantry I can't help thinking that this semantic discussion does not change the fact that the right which is had will be lost.
Rights change, is the point - there are very few inalienable rights.
I think you'll find the right to live anywhere within Europe is not a fundamental, inalienable right.
But this is discussing the quality of the right, not its absence
You're correct - I should have said 'the ability to live anywhere is not a fundamental....'
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
We don't know that it has been lost: it could be renegotiated as part of a new arrangement between governments.
I'm also questioning whether your use of the word "right" is helpful. You have a benefit - the ability to work in multiple countries - but not an inalienable right.
The original discussion - many, many centuries ago now - was initiated by the OP who said he was unaware of rights that were lost. I listed some, one of which the right to live and work in other countries. Whether we refer to it as a "right", a "benefit", an "option" or whether we qualify it as "fundamental" or "inalienable"(?!) or even "elemental" is not germane to the point: namely that he currently has it and post-Brexit he will not.
As to your point that it might be regained: well, I hope so. But I fear it will be the same as Johnson's mooted freedom of movement between UK & Australia: allow people to come in but prevent me from going out. .
My sense is that Chapman is both full of hot air - and not as bright or insightful as he thinks he is - and was encouraged to unleash himself and grab the airwaves by George Osborne.
But, aside from boosting the morale of ultra-Remainers and providing them with entertainment, nothing will come of it and it will be quickly overtaken by events.
What qualifications do you have to sit in judgement over the "brightness" of Chapman?
As to forecasting events perhaps we could look at some of the comments that came from you ahead of 2200 in June 8th.
Probably his twitter feed (which provides ample evidence) and his lack of judgement in posting a naked photo of himself to his instagram feed.
Forget the third party part of the Shipman narrative and focus on what he has been saying about the government total lack of preparedness by TMay when she invoked A50. That is the reason why Shipman remains dangerous
Do you mean Chapman? Or is there some other twitterati called Shipman helping him along?
So you think TMay was right to trigger A50 when she had no plan at all over the intricacies involved?
The two guilty people of this whole saga are Cameron for agreeing to the referendum and TMay. They are the ones should be blamed for making us all poorer and taking away some of our freedoms.
This is a genuine question, asked because I want to know the answer. I think you've picked the wrong post to quote, so I'll repeat it here:
Do you mean Chapman? Or is there some other twitterati called Shipman helping him along?
Addendum: Because if it's just Chapman, whether he has insider knowledge or not, whether he's right or not, the sheer ludicrousness of his tweets on the subject mean he will be ignored when he isn't laughed at. He's coming across as a sort of centrist Piers Morgan at the moment.
I believe (Tim) Shipman is the current political editor of the Sunday Times - so most likely a mistake by OGH
Yesterday I watched the drama documentary on Harold Shipman (on dvd) and OGH's slip had me wondering about a homicidal Westminster GP creating byelections to keep us in (or get us out of) the EU. It is brilliant ideas like this that explain why I am not one of pb's novelists.
We don't know that it has been lost: it could be renegotiated as part of a new arrangement between governments.
I'm also questioning whether your use of the word "right" is helpful. You have a benefit - the ability to work in multiple countries - but not an inalienable right.
The original discussion - many, many centuries ago now - was initiated by the OP who said he was unaware of rights that were lost. I listed some, one of which the right to live and work in other countries. Whether we refer to it as a "right", a "benefit", an "option" or whether we qualify it as "fundamental" or "inalienable"(?!) or even "elemental" is not germane to the point: namely that he currently has it and post-Brexit he will not.
As to your point that it might be regained: well, I hope so. But I fear it will be the same as Johnson's mooted freedom of movement between UK & Australia: allow people to come in but prevent me from going out. .
My argument is that something which is a byproduct of an agreement between two third parties is not a right. So no "rights" have been lost.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
It isn't the CEO's job to defend the (purported) values of the company?
At least everyone now knows Google's pressure points.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
They're not 'witch burners'. There is a real and pressing issue with getting women into science and technology, and it is hurting the economic good of the country.
It's particularly interesting that he makes a split between women being more interested in 'people', and men in 'things'. If you hold this to be true (and I think it's b/s), then why aren't management jobs, which are often more to do with people than things, filled with women?
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
In America yes.
Then Trump is the least of their problems....
Why?
The American view of employment is quite equitable on both sides. If an employee doesn't want to work for their employer anymore they can quit. If an employer doesn't want to employ their employee anymore they can fire them. There is no requirement for "suitable grounds for termination".
The only exception is statutory forbidden grounds (such as discrimination) or contractural restrictions (eg tenure which is the exception not the norm). If this guy didn't have tenure then since there is no statutory grounds protecting crassness or stupidity the company can let him go if they don't want him anymore.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
It isn't the CEO's job to defend the (purported) values of the company?
(Snip)
The memo went against one of Google''s prime directives: the ridiculous "don't be evil". He should have expected what's happened, and his actions post-memo will hardly have helped.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
If you cravenly cave into the mob, they don't go away satisfied.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
It isn't the CEO's job to defend the (purported) values of the company?
(Snip)
his actions post-memo will hardly have helped.
Post memo or post firing?
He has acquired some unfortunate allies - which parts of his memo in context do you object to?
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.
like it or not the value of a country's currency is a reflection of the value of national wealth - the fall affects individuals in terms of prices of foreign made goods and nations in terms of for example borrowing costs. It can help exporters but it can also act to shield them from being more efficient. the pretence that it is somehow a good thing is at best a chimera.
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.
Germany has manipulated its currency all the way down up from 3.85 to the pound in 1980, 2.77 to the pound at the time of the launch of the Euro in 1999 to an equivalent of only 2.16 to the pound today. If this is a race to the bottom, I know who my money's on.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
The other big point no one focuses on is the trend for Eurozone countries to vote as a bloc.
If this developed then we would permanently be in a minority - the EU would effectively have suzerainty over the UK, albeit not sovereignty
Are we prohibited from joining the Euro?
Permanently unless we do something for which the UK population has, to date, shown no appetite.
The UK population shows plenty of appetite for having influence on matters that affect them. Politicians just need to channel it in the appropriate direction.
You may not think it reasonable for CEOs to be expected to stand up to a mob, but political leaders certainly ought to be able to.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
It isn't the CEO's job to defend the (purported) values of the company?
(Snip)
The memo went against one of Google''s prime directives: the ridiculous "don't be evil". He should have expected what's happened, and his actions post-memo will hardly have helped.
No, sacking someone for writing that quite reasonable memo is certainly evil.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Do you agree, or disagree?
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.
Germany has manipulated its currency all the way down up from 3.85 to the pound in 1980, 2.77 to the pound at the time of the launch of the Euro in 1999 to an equivalent of only 2.16 to the pound today. If this is a race to the bottom, I know who my money's on.
Germany has locked in an artificially low rate by membership of the Euro. Greece, to take one example, has locked in too high a rate. If either or both countries were to exit the Euro tomorrow, we can judge which way their currencies would float.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Nope, the fundamental question is why there is an 80/20 disparity between men and women in tech. His argument about 'minor population differences' is effectively self refuting.
So firing employees who advance theories is a solution?
That's a different question. You were defending his argument; I said it was absurd. US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
Company reputation is not limited to senior positions, and he distributed it widely.
He says it had limited distribution and only within his work group where it excited little interest. It was a month after it was originally written that others distributed it widely and outside Google.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man , but bear examining in an organisation of tens of thousands.
Do you agree, or disagree?
"The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms) "
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
He seems quite an odd dude, but then lots of people in tech are. The point is he wrote a discussion paper with citations to peer reviewed academic work, which then somebody stripped of the citations / edited and leaked to make it appear like he was simply ranting against diversity. Google higher ups have seen the original document and decided that firing him is the right course of action.
Its worth reading the original memo - its carefully written - he repeatedly makes the point that his comments are about populations and not individuals and any differences between populations might be small while differences between individuals can be much larger.
The memo is crass and stupid..
That may well be the case.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
Possibly: that may well depend on his terms of employment or contract with the company. Certainly, its release into the public arena could (has?) damaged Google's reputation.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
If he was a Senior VP of HR then he would deserve sanction for releasing a memo that possibly didn't balance conflicting evidence.
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
From his shareholders perspectives, the CEO did the right thing. It's shitty, and if he was a good person he'll help the guy find a job elsewhere, but a company shouldn't be expected to stand up to a mob.
If you cravenly cave into the mob, they don't go away satisfied.
Unless our political leaders will stand up to the mob, you can't ask a company to do the same. It will destroy stakeholder value.
Sadly it looks to be heading that way finally - it is already above it by some way for many tourists.
What is sad about euro/sterling parity? More successful economies than ours have manipulated their currencies downwards (Germany and China, for instance) yet in Britain an overvalued currency is seen by politicians, press and public alike as a national virility symbol.
Germany has manipulated its currency all the way down up from 3.85 to the pound in 1980, 2.77 to the pound at the time of the launch of the Euro in 1999 to an equivalent of only 2.16 to the pound today. If this is a race to the bottom, I know who my money's on.
Germany has locked in an artificially low rate by membership of the Euro. Greece, to take one example, has locked in too high a rate. If either or both countries were to exit the Euro tomorrow, we can judge which way their currencies would float.
At the time Germany first joined the Euro it was called the sick man of Europe and people were saying it had locked itself in at too high a rate. The Eurosceptic arguments change to suit the prevailing wind.
Comments
I forgot to thank you about your link the other day about David Davis's letter to Parliament, which I read with much interest. I'll refrain from reading the US culture war stuff (like PlatoSaid's similar posts they're only useful during a US election) but please keep up the Westminster/Whitehall stuff.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eea-single-market-article-127-stop-crashing-out-a7880691.html
[edit: "It did", not "I did"...]
Do we all like the way the NHS is going?
Our national leaders will now have real power again to make changes. And real responsibility to deliver solutions now that the sea-anchor of the EU has been cut away - which was both their political restraint and sometimes their handy excuse.
We as individuals now have regained real power to vote in and vote out national leaders who can actually make those changes. For the first time in decades we will be able to vote for true unfettered alternatives and we can kick the people running the show out if they don't perform.
We've regained democracy.
For the majority who do not vote, it seems to make little difference to their lives whoever gets in and they get frustrated.
Venezuela as discussed yesterday is a populist state run for the benefit of a corrupt elite. The EU is a bureaucratic organisation run to the agenda of a remote elite.
Let us thank God for the small mercy that whatever their many faults, none of the European politicians are actually evil like Maduro - although their policies sometimes have rather unfortunate side effects (Greece) it is inconceivable Juncker would ever lock up Farage.
I will go further and state that by far the best thing that can happen to me personally from an economic perspective is a rise in interest rates, which will not come in a sustained fashion till we can generate some sustained inflation. A fall in Sterling and the curtailment to an extent of a huge pool of labour prepared to work at relatively low rates will all chivvy that process along as far as I am concerned. The economy wasn't working that well for me pre Brexit signs are more hopeful now.
Today: 1.09981
The right to work in other countries is a matter of a treaty between governments. We have instructed the government to terminate the treaty, so the benefits of those treaties fall by the wayside. That was the choice the people made: it is not as if there has been some inalienable right that has been stripped from us.
Using the excuse of 'populations' and 'individuals' allows often-false generalisations to be used to discriminate.
My experience with women in engineering has been uniformly positive (and I'm not just saying that because I married one).
In fact, I'd go further: the female engineers I know are probably better on average than their male counterparts. The reason may be that they've had to fight more to get where they are, and that the struggle either knocks out the poorer ones, or helps them raise their game.
This leads to a question of why there are not more female managers. I'd like to say this is changing over time, but sadly IME it is not (at least at the mid-levels of SMEs I know of).
Children and child raising has to be an important aspect, although one that may take lesser importance with increased paternity leave.
Google has handled this badly, though: better for the company to produce a rebuttal of *why* they think he's wrong. AFAIAA they have not, and that's poor.
The company then fired him for saying the wrong thing.
"Handled this badly" is a masterpiece of understatement.
The days of living off interest rates are over - there is too much money sloshing around (the result of mass market pensions) looking for a return. Interest rates on the floor is the new normal.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/08/dnc-hackers-from-russia-used-nsa-developed-attack-code-in-attack-on-hotels/
I don't see women (or Indians, or Romanans, or any other grouping) as rivals for jobs (*). If I'm good enough, I'll find work. If not, I'll have to try to upskill. But more than that: one of those women, or Indians, or Romanians might start a company that employs me and scores of others.
(*) I'm not currently in the market.
On that basis provided Sterling drifted down to account for (say) inflation amongst our competitors in Euroland USA etc of 2%ish I 'd be agnostic to positive. Of course 4/5% inflation would soon start eating into Govt debt and be bad for bond holders so gilt yields might rise anyway (v good!). It may I guess help erode real house prices (v good overall), but again a rise in rates would help curtail property prices better.
I think mega low rates have biblically mispriced property and bonds and are at the heart of both the accommodation crisis ( though importing 250k plus people a year doesn't help with construction rates so far behind) and the pensions crisis. Tata, BHS, universities- you'd not have heard about any of them without sustained crazy interest rates.
What are you blathering on about?
Pensions relying upon interest rates was poor design - the growth required for sustained pensions was always going to be hard to achieve when there was so much money around.
So far discussion has ranged from whether the right is a right, or freedom, or even a "right", and whether the process of "having a thing followed by not having a thing" can be described using the word "lost". Although I delight in pedantry I can't help thinking that this semantic discussion does not change the fact that the right which is had will be lost.
If this developed then we would permanently be in a minority - the EU would effectively have suzerainty over the UK, albeit not sovereignty
I think you'll find the right to live anywhere within Europe is not a fundamental, inalienable right.
Did you want to try again?
It's a mess because we are having to run on afterburners to maintain level flight so to speak, but all that extra fuel and heat are causing the engines to burn out.
If it is, is that suitable grounds for termination of employment?
;-)
I'm also questioning whether your use of the word "right" is helpful. You have a benefit - the ability to work in multiple countries - but not an inalienable right.
But as I said below, Google hasn't handled this well, either. I'm guessing the totality of the story has yet to emerge ...
As it is Google has proved his case - dissenting views will be punished.
Edit AFAIK the memo was released by the witch burners
As to your point that it might be regained: well, I hope so. But I fear it will be the same as Johnson's mooted freedom of movement between UK & Australia: allow people to come in but prevent me from going out. .
At least everyone now knows Google's pressure points.
They're not 'witch burners'. There is a real and pressing issue with getting women into science and technology, and it is hurting the economic good of the country.
It's particularly interesting that he makes a split between women being more interested in 'people', and men in 'things'. If you hold this to be true (and I think it's b/s), then why aren't management jobs, which are often more to do with people than things, filled with women?
The American view of employment is quite equitable on both sides. If an employee doesn't want to work for their employer anymore they can quit. If an employer doesn't want to employ their employee anymore they can fire them. There is no requirement for "suitable grounds for termination".
The only exception is statutory forbidden grounds (such as discrimination) or contractural restrictions (eg tenure which is the exception not the norm). If this guy didn't have tenure then since there is no statutory grounds protecting crassness or stupidity the company can let him go if they don't want him anymore.
The fundamental question surely is "are men and women the same?" (In gross population terms)
He argues "no" and each population has different strengths and weaknesses. These are minor compared to individual differences, (so woman A can easily be a better leader (for example) than man
Do you agree, or disagree?
Currencies go up and go down, I'm not sure what your point was?
He has acquired some unfortunate allies - which parts of his memo in context do you object to?
You may not think it reasonable for CEOs to be expected to stand up to a mob, but political leaders certainly ought to be able to.
That is not the fundamental question. It is a false question posed by people wanting to justify discrimination.
US companies fire a lot of people for worse reasons - or no reason at all, as US law, unlike ours, allows.