Snap General Election called

[Zhivago]

And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...

[Digby]

I find it a bit odd that you say he's not really an anarchist... That's how he identified his own political belief... Perhaps you know better than he does? Hahaha

His view of anarchy sees an organised society formed on the back of a direct participation of the masses, anarchy to him in this sense is simply a freedom from the current controls of capitalism, government and so on. I think that's nonsensical as the masses are going to be even less informed on any given subject than elected representatives, for instance how many voters in the EU referendum had actually read the various EU treaties and understood them?, and whilst he has an allowable usage of anarchy it's not one which most will infer as being the case as they'd be assuming some greater amount of disorder. Basically in saying anarchy I think he's communicating badly and being a smart alec in the process.

[Digby]

And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...

Never heard of them, not tempted to look them up

[kk67]

Surely, that's an advantage....

How would you feel if Amber was Mohamed Al Fahd's Daughter....?.
You cannot run governance on the basis of profit. A teenager doing politics would tell you that method was for morons.

If we judge politicians on what their families get up to there would be no fecker left. Judge them on their own actions.

Experience tells me that when it comes to politics and probity, nurture is more applicable than nature.
But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.

[kk67]

Surely, that's an advantage....

How would you feel if Amber was Mohamed Al Fahd's Daughter....?.
You cannot run governance on the basis of profit. A teenager doing politics would tell you that method was for morons.

Did you hear a whooshing sound?

No. I understood you were being ironic. The Rudd's just piss me off mightily.

[Digby]

But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.

Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tony

[kk67]

But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.

Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tony

Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.

[Stones of granite]

But,.....I do see that both JRM and Hilary Benn are far more pernicious than their Fathers.

Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tony

Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.

His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

[kk67]

His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

I find it closer to the Arthur Scargill/Ken Livingstone/Bernie Grant history.
Marked as loonies at the time by the right wing press,....everything they predicted has become true. Even to the extent that Ian MacGregor himself said everything Scargill predicted during the strike was totally accurate.

[Digby]

Don't know about the Rees-Mogg generational battle, though I'm far less alarmed by Hillary than Tony

Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.

His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extreme

[Stom]

Well, for a start, none of them represent true dipoles. Take Authoritarian and Libertarian as examples. Simplified, there is a sliding scale between an extreme Authoritarian and an extreme Libertarian. In truth, I don't even believe it's that simple - most people will hold views which tend towards authoritarian in some aspects of life and those which tend towards libertarian in others.
So, these labels are no more useful then left, right, centre etc.

Gotcha.

Which is where labeling "Politics" as one thing or another doesn't work. So perhaps we should judge based upon policy...

The Conservatives are authoritarian on personal freedom, but libertarian on corporate freedom. They're Protectionist on military and police, but free on corporate freedom...

I tend to agree, but I think your straying into generalisations again. For example, which Government passed the Identity Cards Act (hint: 2006) and which Government repealed it?
If you want to label according to policy, then do it by policy.

You see, I'm definitely pro-ID cards. And I'm completely pro freedom of movement. But that's where the problem of ID cards becomes one of how they are seen. I see it as a little piece of card that can fit in my wallet that allows me to travel to other EU countries (sigh) without carrying a big passport that needs to be kept separate, therefore increasing the chances of me losing it.

Would you believe, before Brexit, one of my main reasons for wanting Hungarian citizenship was the ID cards (and being able to vote).

[kk67]

Hilary is a stooge. His Father was a conviction politician.
At this moment in history, when we are overrun with the former, I'd rather have the latter.

His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extreme

Nope.
Politics had space for decency in them days. Now you have to be a stooge to even be elected.
And the consequence is that now 'conviction politician' is seen as a derogatory classification.

[Digby]

His conviction being that no trendy bandwagon should be left un-jumped on.

I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extreme

Nope.
Politics had space for decency in them days. Now you have to be a stooge to even be elected.
And the consequence is that now 'conviction politician' is seen as a derogatory classification.

Very weird.

Benn sought to bring control of the Labor party under an undemocratic banner of local and national party institutions, very similar to what we're seeing now actually. He coddled the left, wouldn't speak out on the Soviet Union or Ireland other than in support of supposed left leaning parties, actively supported Castro ignoring it was hardly all good.

I actually met the duffer, though he wasn't talking generally about politics but more specifically concorde, which based on his modest presentation of the facts he designed, raised monies for, tested and built. I've seldom been so struck that someone was so unattached to reality, albeit he was getting on a bit and could well have been suffering from dementia or another mental illness

[Zhivago]

I find it a bit odd that you say he's not really an anarchist... That's how he identified his own political belief... Perhaps you know better than he does? Hahaha

His view of anarchy sees an organised society formed on the back of a direct participation of the masses, anarchy to him in this sense is simply a freedom from the current controls of capitalism, government and so on. I think that's nonsensical as the masses are going to be even less informed on any given subject than elected representatives, for instance how many voters in the EU referendum had actually read the various EU treaties and understood them?, and whilst he has an allowable usage of anarchy it's not one which most will infer as being the case as they'd be assuming some greater amount of disorder. Basically in saying anarchy I think he's communicating badly and being a smart alec in the process.

It seems you know very little of both Chomsky and anarchism. You are such a pretentious ultracrepidarian, it's pointless to discuss this with you.

You also completely avoided my point in order to focus obliquely on anarchism for some reason.

[Zhivago]

And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...

Never heard of them, not tempted to look them up

You're not tempted to look anything up... Which explains your vacuity.

[Digby]

I find it a bit odd that you say he's not really an anarchist... That's how he identified his own political belief... Perhaps you know better than he does? Hahaha

His view of anarchy sees an organised society formed on the back of a direct participation of the masses, anarchy to him in this sense is simply a freedom from the current controls of capitalism, government and so on. I think that's nonsensical as the masses are going to be even less informed on any given subject than elected representatives, for instance how many voters in the EU referendum had actually read the various EU treaties and understood them?, and whilst he has an allowable usage of anarchy it's not one which most will infer as being the case as they'd be assuming some greater amount of disorder. Basically in saying anarchy I think he's communicating badly and being a smart alec in the process.

It seems you know very little of both Chomsky and anarchism. You are such a pretentious ultracrepidarian, it's pointless to discuss this with you.

You also completely avoided my point in order to focus obliquely on anarchism for some reason.

You think anarchy wouldn't normally be taken to mean disorder? I don't know if I have ignored your point, though I can't say I know what it was so maybe.

And can I assume calling someone a 'pretentious ultracrepidarian' is an attempt at humour?

[Digby]

And if you're looking for proponents of something approximating anarcho-capitalism in the USA, look no further than the Ludwig von Mises Institute...

Never heard of them, not tempted to look them up

You're not tempted to look anything up... Which explains your vacuity.

I'm happy to look many things up, anarcho-capitalism doesn't warrant my attention I feel though. If I'm wrong on that I'll just lave to live with a lesser life. And a great many things help explain my vacuity, this could well be another

[kk67]

I don't doubt Tony had conviction, sadly he was just very wrong far too often, and he failed over and over to join up his thinking. Also for all Tony was a man of conviction so is Hilary, again I'll say a more extreme position doesn't mean one has more conviction it only means one is more extreme

Nope.
Politics had space for decency in them days. Now you have to be a stooge to even be elected.
And the consequence is that now 'conviction politician' is seen as a derogatory classification.

Very weird.

Benn sought to bring control of the Labor party under an undemocratic banner of local and national party institutions, very similar to what we're seeing now actually. He coddled the left, wouldn't speak out on the Soviet Union or Ireland other than in support of supposed left leaning parties, actively supported Castro ignoring it was hardly all good.

You're a stooge for the corporate politics that benefits your social situation. Any conviction politician is anathema to you because it doesn't profit your pension or your house price..

[Zhivago]

His view of anarchy sees an organised society formed on the back of a direct participation of the masses, anarchy to him in this sense is simply a freedom from the current controls of capitalism, government and so on. I think that's nonsensical as the masses are going to be even less informed on any given subject than elected representatives, for instance how many voters in the EU referendum had actually read the various EU treaties and understood them?, and whilst he has an allowable usage of anarchy it's not one which most will infer as being the case as they'd be assuming some greater amount of disorder. Basically in saying anarchy I think he's communicating badly and being a smart alec in the process.

It seems you know very little of both Chomsky and anarchism. You are such a pretentious ultracrepidarian, it's pointless to discuss this with you.

You also completely avoided my point in order to focus obliquely on anarchism for some reason.

You think anarchy wouldn't normally be taken to mean disorder? I don't know if I have ignored your point, though I can't say I know what it was so maybe.

And can I assume calling someone a 'pretentious ultracrepidarian' is an attempt at humour?

So you mistook anarchism for anarchy and spouted a bunch of nonsense and criticised a well known prominent intellectual giant saying he doesn't know what he's on about... And you wonder why I described you as an ultracrepidarian?

My best guess is that your narcissism is correlated with cognitive bias that gives you an illusory sense of superiority... aka Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Digby]

Nope.
Politics had space for decency in them days. Now you have to be a stooge to even be elected.
And the consequence is that now 'conviction politician' is seen as a derogatory classification.

Very weird.

Benn sought to bring control of the Labor party under an undemocratic banner of local and national party institutions, very similar to what we're seeing now actually. He coddled the left, wouldn't speak out on the Soviet Union or Ireland other than in support of supposed left leaning parties, actively supported Castro ignoring it was hardly all good.

You're a stooge for the corporate politics that benefits your social situation. Any conviction politician is anathema to you because it doesn't profit your pension or your house price..

I'm more than happy to vote for higher taxes and policies that would drive down house prices in the name of he greater good, though both don't exactly come without cost to me. Though again I resent the notion that only those on the extreme, any extreme not just those you'd care to support, are those with conviction. I suppose though typically where you cite conviction I'd cite simplistic bollocks, and you might resent that suggestion. Such is life.

[Digby]

So you mistook anarchism for anarchy and spouted a bunch of nonsense and criticised a well known prominent intellectual giant saying he doesn't know what he's on about... And you wonder why I described you as an ultracrepidarian?

My best guess is that your narcissism is correlated with cognitive bias that gives you an illusory sense of superiority... aka Dunning-Kruger effect.

in fairness that made me laugh

[kk67]

[
I'm more than happy to vote for higher taxes and policies that would drive down house prices in the name of he greater good, though both don't exactly come without cost to me. Though again I resent the notion that only those on the extreme, any extreme not just those you'd care to support, are those with conviction. I suppose though typically where you cite conviction I'd cite simplistic bollocks, and you might resent that suggestion. Such is life.

Yeah. Conviction is subjective.

[Digby]

This is worth an apology from Labour, ideally it should come from those who were responsible at the time for their lack of honesty and and integrity. And we need to hear from all current party leaders now on what they'd do about it, and how they'd pay for it if applicable

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715

As Chancellor Philip Hammond considers tougher budget measures on diesel cars, documents obtained by the BBC reveal how the "dash for diesel" was encouraged by presentational considerations.
The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.
In 2001, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown introduced a new system of car tax aimed at protecting the environment. In actual reality it fostered a popular move towards highly polluting diesel cars - a trend which according to some experts has been associated with thousands of premature deaths a year.
New light is shed on how this happened by records received by the BBC, after a two-year freedom of information battle with the Treasury. Some of these papers show that civil servants objected to a stronger policy to deter diesel usage on presentational grounds, because they did not want the government to be seen as "penalising" diesel drivers.
'Overly harsh'
Mr Brown brought in a sliding scale for car tax or vehicle excise duty (VED), to make it cheaper for cars with lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas which contributes to global warming. This resulted in lower VED rates generally for diesel cars, which tend to be more fuel efficient. But they emitted greater quantities of other pollutants harmful to health, nitrogen oxides and particulates.
The records confirm that ministers and civil servants in the Labour government were well aware that diesel pollution damages air quality (even if perhaps they did not appreciate the full extent). But officials preparing the 2000 Budget argued against higher tax for diesel cars "so we are not seen as being overly harsh on diesel users".
Advice from the Treasury's tax policy section presented to ministers stated: "Relative to petrol, diesel has lower emissions of CO2 but higher emissions of the particulates and pollutants which damage local air quality. A diesel supplement is necessary so that we do not create incentives for people to choose diesel vehicles over similar petrol models in order to attract a lower VED rate."

But their concern was how this supplement would be perceived: "Presentationally, this should be seen as ensuring fair treatment of petrol and diesel, rather than as a penalty on diesel users."
The officials therefore rejected imposing larger supplements on diesel cars which would have a greater deterrent effect, concluding "we would prefer the smaller £10 supplement, so we are not seen to be 'penalising' diesel vehicles."
'Dash for diesel'
They added that this could be re-visited if another budget decision on fuel duty "opens us up to criticism of doing too little on local air quality".
In the documents released to the BBC this presentational factor was the only argument given against a higher supplement for diesels. This was advice from officials which may not have represented the motives of ministers. The Labour government's policy followed a consultation exercise on vehicle duty and environmental concerns.
The resulting financial incentive for diesel cars helped to prompt a "dash for diesel" after it came into effect in 2001 and was extended in further years. This particularly happened within company car fleets which were responsible for a substantial proportion of new car purchases.
There are now 12 million diesel cars on Britain's roads, while back in 2000 there were only three million. And in recent years diesels have accounted for around half the new car market, whereas in 2000 only one in seven new cars was a diesel model.

Millions of Britons switched to drive very polluting vehicles, while being told it was less damaging to the environment. Emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates have been linked to respiratory difficulties, heart attacks and lung cancer.
The health issues affecting diesel vehicles have since been recognised and the government has pledged to tackle them. According to reports ahead of the forthcoming budget, Mr Hammond is considering extra tax on the sale of diesel vehicles and an increase in diesel fuel duty.
I first applied for relevant documents from the Treasury in October 2015, under the freedom of information law and the regulations governing environmental information. Their response to the request has involved considerable delays.
'Toxic'
At one stage the Treasury argued that it would be against the public interest to release any information, as it would damage the policy development process and inhibit the quality of advice. It later changed its stance and said the application would be too expensive to answer. Eventually officials decided to respond partly to a narrower request.
Gordon Brown's office declined to comment. In his memoirs published this month there is no specific reference to the diesel issue, but Mr Brown states that "our policy on fuel taxation was heavily influenced by our desire to promote cleaner fuels and vehicles".
Paul Morozzo, clean air campaigner at Greenpeace, said: "It's now clear politicians have known diesel is toxic to people's health for decades. This government must not make the mistakes of the last. It must prioritise public health over the motoring lobby in next week's budget by getting tough on diesel."
The Treasury said that it can't comment on decisions taken under a previous government, or on budget speculation. It refused to comment on the reasons for the FOI delays.

[canta_brian]

Scrolled up expecting to to see Rowan as poaster

[Digby]

Labour's Glorious Leader™ has quite reasonably condemned Trump for sharing social media content of a far-right group, and yet he remains silent on the far-left groups (largely Momentum) going councillor by councillor to de-select and force out Labour candidates who don't hold suitably pious views on the left.

One extremism good, one extremism bad, just depends whether Glorious Leader™ likes it when it comes to speaking out against it.