Yeah, i don't necessarily disagree with OP, but comparing the two countries I know, Denmark and the UK, you really can't tell the same story about middle class economic discontent in those two countries, and I think that mostly just has to do with people being better off in Denmark.

Is this mostly driven by rising wages for low income earners or has there been a rise across the board?

Also, sorry but will mute the thread now as I need to get on with my day

But they’re not just long term issues - if the straight stays closed it’s a short term issue, because there is just less energy going around. An energy price cap will ensure that non-households (ie industry and businesses) will bear the entirety of the price shock.

Still stand by this as the policy will in fact subsidise the energy/fuel cost of the person in the example but important to be precise as the post could be misunderstood: Green Party is not recommending a cut in fuel duty (as far as I can tell)

Portes is right. I have definitely come to see the value in political education, because "emotionally cathartic slopulism" has already taken over the Right and I think it could easily do so on the left too if we don't hold the line on, like, actually insisting that it matters you get things right.

But look, if there’s gonna be a continued cut in oil supply there’s gonna have to be a change in demand. We need to insulate the poorest from this, but an energy price cap is just a really really bad way of doing it.

I could have been more precise in the OP, and again, fine to argue for universal support, but then do it in the form of a cash subsidy. It’s obviously a better way to go about it.

I don’t think either of those two things. I think it‘d be great to have a party using this crisis to argue to further accelerate decarbonisation of the economy. Instead, we‘ve got a Green Party arguing for subsidising luxury emissions. I don’t get it.

I don‘t know why they’ve adopted this policy, but the fact is, that, whatever the intention, it *will* subsidise luxury emissions. That is, I think, a really bad policy implication, and I don’t understand why people defend it.

Fine to argue for universal support but then just give everyone a cash grant. In a fuel supply crisis, we want people to respond to the price signal.

Cannot believe the number of people in Jonathan’s replies insisting that is in fact good left wing green policy to subsidise the fuel consumption of someone driving a Land Rover around Kensington

it seems like there’s a lot of “my writing is the expression of my deepest desires and true nature“ and that may be true for some writing but not the 25th email of the day to a student asking for an extension

That’s no longer true - they’re now much more extreme, which makes accommodation much harder. The danish social democrats can’t copy a policy of mass expulsion of immigrants 3/3

The danish soc dems were ‘lucky’ in the sense that the danish people’s party was a relatively moderate right-populist party (seen in a european context) until 2019 and explicitly pursued a strategy of trying to become the new kingmaker in the centre of danish politics. 2/

Ah, sorry may have misunderstood your post. I very much agree that the strategy is badly understood in the uk. Whatever its previous success I’m also q unsure about its staying power. 1/

(Sorry should be one centrist and one right-wing party)

they entered into coalition govt with two centrist parties, eased some restrictions on immigration and were seen as insufficiently left on economics by voters. that’s really not the same strategy as 2019-2022, so not sure this confirms or disconfirms anything about it?

I really don’t think labour should copy danish soc dem‘s 2019-2022 strategy for reasons of strategy and morality, but the danish soc dem’s haven’t really followed the same strategy since the 2022 election. 1/

An arson attack on a Jewish ambulance service isn’t about Israel. It isn’t about Zionism, or American imperialism, or capitalism, or war in the Middle East.

It’s about Jews. It’s about making British Jews feel fearful in their own homes.

Just like Bondi Beach, and Heaton Park, all over again.

Anyone clamouring to be PM right now have got mushy peas for brains

seems like a restatement of well-known objections wrapped up in claims to novelty with some vague question-begging thrown in for good measure

I dunno, we might finally win some games

Don’t know about the best, but Frankfurt has got to be up there with the worst. Often no amenities past security.

Have no idea of whether this tool actually does what it says, but if it does why, exactly, should it be legal? unis ought to do their bit but why not simply legislate to ban stuff like this? (v ready to be told that there are important reasons to be careful!)

God put Wittgensteinians on this earth to show us that the reason Marxists are so rude isn't the revolutionary stakes but that some people just are like that

It must be very hard to publish null results Publication practices in the social sciences act as a filter that favors statistically significant results over null findings. While the problem of selection on significance (SoS) is well-known in theory, it has been difficult to measure its scope empirically, and it has been challenging to determine how selection varies across contexts. In this article, we use large language models to extract granular and validated data on about 100,000 articles published in over 150 political science journals from 2010 to 2024. We show that fewer than 2% of articles that rely on statistical methods report null-only findings in their abstracts, while over 90% of papers highlight significant results. To put these findings in perspective, we develop and calibrate a simple model of publication bias. Across a range of plausible assumptions, we find that statistically significant results are estimated to be one to two orders of magnitude more likely to enter the published record than null results. Leveraging metadata extracted from individual articles, we show that the pattern of strong SoS holds across subfields, journals, methods, and time periods. However, a few factors such as pre-registration and randomized experiments correlate with greater acceptance of null results. We conclude by discussing implications for the field and the potential of our new dataset for investigating other questions about political science.

I have a new paper. We look at ~all stats articles in political science post-2010 & show that 94% have abstracts that claim to reject a null. Only 2% present only null results. This is hard to explain unless the research process has a filter that only lets rejections through.

ah, right - agree that a first communicates different things from different unis (though i'd maybe put the point the following way: it communicates less useful information than it ideally should, but not no useful information)

I agree with this! (except for the last bit - not sure what you mean by the classification system being a fiction?)The unis are in a genuine bind.

I taught politics and philosophy at two russel group unis and I was forced (by marking criteria set by departments) to give far too many firsts, so yeah, it's a genuine problem. (Not a dig at my former students who were mostly conscientious, interested, and clever)