British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Tory leadership contest is quickly turning into farce. Trump has backed Boris, which should be reason enough for anyone with half a brain to exclude him.
Of the other candidates Rory Stewart looks the best of the outsiders. Surprised to see Cleverly and Javid not further up the betting, but not sure the Tory membership are ready for a brown PM.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/bri...
Regarding the LD leadership contest, Jo Swinson is miles ahead of any other candidate (and indeed any of the Tory lot). Should be a shoe in.
Finally, it's Groundhog Day in Labour - the more serious the anti-Semitism claims get, the more Corbyn's cronies write their own obituary by blaming it on outlandish conspiracy theories - this week, it's apparently the Jewish Embassy's fault...
Looks like reform uk are getting in to bed with DUP and TUV. DUP founded by a terrorist (the reverend ian paisley) then led by someone who allegedly raped his own daughter and currently have an unelected leader. TUV are protestant extremists so expect to hear insanity e.g abortions, what time shops can open on a sunday, burning effigies of prominent republicans and chants of fk the pope. Farage is an associate of the rapist, donald trump.
If Farage has any sense he'll realise his future lies in either making money as a shock jock type in the US or as leader of the Tories, bankrolled by Russia in either case.
Tory civil war? This could be good.
By prolonging working age and by getting quality migration.
Quality migration isn't sexually skewed toward young adult men
Quality migration is educated or at least very skilled in fields that formal education doesn't cover
Quality migration can afford a plane ticket
Quality migration speaks the language of the host country or at the very least decent English coupled with sufficient IQ to learn the host country language properly quickly enough
People who need to talk with traffickers to leave are cle
"Quality migration" doesn't want to rock up here and pay and ever-expanding bill for wiping pensioners's arses.
You are in the British politics thread talking about "we".
You've solved nothing here - the UK is losing, not gaining, what you would call quality migrants. We are short on bodies. "We will do without" solves absolutely nothing.
we- the EU, as we were talkign about recent EU elections .
According to you if the EU makes immigration stricter, which is plausible now after recent events and which i agree with, UK is going to gain , you can take all the uneducated people who don't speak english we will start refusing
So enjoy the masses of pension-payers coming to your shores soon, and with a Labour government you can even manage to give them all the welfare in the world, aren't you happy?
we- the EU, as we were talkign about recent EU elections .
According to you if the EU makes immigration stricter, which is plausible now after recent events and which i agree with, UK is going to gain , you can take all the uneducated people who don't speak english we will start refusing
So enjoy the masses of pension-payers coming to your shores soon, and with a Labour government you can even manage to give them all the welfare in the world, aren't you happy?
Happier than I will be paying unskilled labour €30/hour.
The idea is that with wage pressures, that could finally motivate people to ... automatize, which is what increases productivity (production per hour worked) and thus real per capita gdp. Which in theory should be the end goal of any legislation that affects the economy.
And, for everything that can be traded, you can trade the final goods incorporating foreign (lower) labor prices for unskilled labor without the negatives of having unskilled labor in your country.
Moreover at some point in time (distant, yes), this imported unskilled labor will need pensions and healthcare when old and the Ponzi immigration scheme won't necessarily work forever, given worldwide fertility rate & economic growth in developing countries.
While robots stay (and get better every year, unlike humans) and don't require pensions or healthcare. Just maintenance which is good paying jobs for citizens.
The idea is that with wage pressures, that could finally motivate people to ... automatize, which is what increases productivity (production per hour worked) and thus real per capita gdp. Which in theory should be the end goal of any legislation that affects the economy.
And, for everything that can be traded, you can trade the final goods incorporating foreign (lower) labor prices for unskilled labor without the negatives of having unskilled labor in your country.
Moreover at some point in time (
None of this will matter once AI has killed us all anyway.
None of this will matter once AI has killed us all anyway.
If a malicious AGI arises (and/or an AGI in malicious human hands) nothing matters, so you can completly disregard that scenario no matter how probable you think it is, and work for the other scenarios.
OR , if you think that's scenario is almost a certainty, then you can simply stop caring about any long term scenario and become much more short termist, and that would mean not caring at all about the sustainibility of the pension system in the long term, nor climate change, among other things.
Or we could use AI to combat climate change while harnessing its ability to kill us all.
Just a thought. Unlikely though.
Or we could use AI to combat climate change while harnessing its ability to kill us all.
Just a thought. Unlikely though.
If you believe an AGI comes "soon" (within 2050) then long termism is futile. It either solves all our problems or kills us all (depending on it's own volition and/or which humans control it), there is no in between.
So it doesn't matter how optimistic or pessimistic you are about how AGI will be used (or will act if it has volition), if you believe it's coming soon, you can stop giving a **** about anything with a timeframe longer than the timeframe for AGI arrival
We Liberal Democrats are adding something to this debate: we would adopt a public health approach to gambling legislation. We propose that there should be a soft cap on gambling losses set at £100 per month . . . if someone wished to bet beyond that loss limit, they would be required to provide financial data to show that they can afford to do so.
That's from the debate a couple of months ago that happened after a petition about affordability checks reached 100k signatures. Their manifesto published yesterday stated they would "implement effective affordability checks".
Do these people live in the real world?
30% chance of it not happening makes it totally worthwhile fighting for a better future.
That's from the debate a couple of months ago that happened after a petition about affordability checks reached 100k signatures. Their manifesto published yesterday stated they would "implement effective affordability checks".
Do these people live in the real world?
They’re just stupid and don’t know what variance is.
Italy's in the EU, so it doesn't have an altogether independent immigration policy, not that Britain's theoretically independent policy is working out well. And one curious side-effect of Brexit is that it's put Continental right-wing and populist parties off the idea of leaving the EU. It's not seen as a beneficial move. After all, Britain's now reduced to trying to export immature strawberries to Japan (assuming they'll be ripe on arrival) because the red tape involved in exports to the Continent is too costly and trying. This is partly the EU's fault for being difficult and sulky, and we'll have to keep renegotiating our trade terms with them, but obviously Brexit has not gone well and no one wants to copy it.
