text:
Thinking about God: the work of Oliver Quick
Longstanding readers of this blog will remember that I used to take on aspects of religious faith sometimes, from my agnostic Christian standpoint. I have not attempted this recently as it rather distracts from my main mission of tracking the evolution of liberal politics. But it's Christmas time, and I have recently finished reading this book about the work of the early 20th Century Anglican theologian Oliver Quick (1885-1944). He is my grandfather. Those only interested in my political musings should read no further.
Oliver Chase Quick, to give him his full name, was the son of a priest, Hebert Quick, who made a name for himself in the development of liberal education, but who died in 1891, when Oliver was but 6. His mother, Bertha, daughter of Indian Army officer Chase Parr, lived until 1934. She became an important family figure, holding together the extended family of Quicks, Parrs and Hills (the Shropshire family into which Oliver's sister, Theodora, married), developing a family bond which has continued until my generation. Oliver went to Harrow school and then Corpus Christi Oxford, where he surprised everybody by only obtaining a third. That put an end to prospects of an immediate academic career, and he was ordained into the Church. He became curate at St Martin's-in-the-Fields in 1914, "then a very dead and empty church," according to my grandmother; the new vicar, who invited Quick in, was the charismatic Dick Sheppard, who started the church's now famous outreach to the poor. In 1915 Quick became Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, based mainly at Lambeth Palace. There he met Freda Pearson, secretary to the Archbishop's wife. They were married at St Martin's-in-the-Fields in 1917, with the Archbishop, Randall Davidson, presiding. Quick became Canon at Newcastle in 1920, followed by Carlisle (where my mother, Julian, was born), St Paul's, Durham and finally Christ Church Oxford, where he became Regius Professor of Divinity. He died in 1944 of a progressive heart disease – a condition that would almost certainly be readily treatable these days.
Notwithstanding the setback at the start of his academic career, Quick became probably the foremost Anglican theologian of his day. But his work is now largely forgotten. Understanding why this is the case is a central theme of the book, Oliver Quick and the Quest for a Christian Metaphysic, by Alexander Hughes, Archdeacon of Cambridge. This book is directed at an academic audience, and I do not recommend it to a general readership. Sample chapter head: Theological Prolegomena to Christology. I struggled through it from grandfilial loyalty, but I would not like to suggest that I managed to digest it properly. Still, I found it of enormous interest, and it made more sense as I progressed through it. Quick was a man of his times; his work is now of marginal interest because times have changed.
Those times, of course, where the aftershock of the scientific revolution of the 19th Century, of which Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was only the most spectacular part. The world had previously been understood to be a divine act of will with Man at its centre. Scientific thought transformed it into an incidental speck of dust in a nearly infinite universe, coming about through the action of immutable laws of nature rather than divine caprice. What on earth was orthodox religion to do about this transformation? One important response is referred to as "liberal theology". This accepted the basic premises of scientific materialism, and interpreted scripture to be of essentially symbolic meaning, offering a deeper understanding of the world. The historical truth of biblical stories was treated with a high degree of scepticism. To this line of reasoning there was a counter-reaction, of whom the most famous figure was the German theologian Karl Barth. He injected modern energy in to traditional ideas of divine will in a sinful world, often referred to as "dialectical theology", because of its confrontation of paradox.
Quick's work can be understood as plotting a middle way, by constructing a modern philosophical underpinning to orthodox belief. He accepted the "threefold cord" of scripture, tradition and reason. His aim was not to change orthodoxy, but to present it in a new light which the modern mind, with its emphasis on reasoning, could accept. A central aspect of this was framing theology in terms of classical metaphysics – the first principles of philosophy.
Quick was fascinated by the duality that runs through Christian thought from its origins. He characterised this as being between the "Hellenic" and "Hebraic" traditions. The Hellenic tradition is based on classical Greek thought, and in particular the idea of Logos. This has been translated into Latin Verbum, and English "Word", which means much the same as the Latin. This has led to some perplexity, such as the mysterious opening of John's Gospel (originally written in Greek): "In the beginning was the Word". Logos actually means something much bigger than "word" – it refers to rationality and orderliness. We get some of the meaning the idea from its English derivative "logic". Greeks believed in a pantheon of divine entities interfering with the human world. But these gods operated within a divine framework, the Logos, that lay beyond. It is an essentially passive idea. Liberal theologians equated God with this Logos, who did not therefore become a personal actor in our world. Christian doctrine was essentially symbolic in their eyes. This may be a long way from most people's understanding of the religion, but the idea has always been there. It is associated with Christian mystics, such as the Spanish 16th Century St John of the Cross, and the 14th Century Julian of Norwich, after whom Quick named my mother. It is not that the mystics were theological liberals, but they developed a vision of divine revelation and universal divine love that is the beating heart of theological liberalism; they downplayed ideas of divine retribution and sin.
Contrast this mystical, symbolic, aesthetic and revelatory path to the Hebraic tradition. This emphasises divine will over revelation, instrumentalism (that is, concrete action) over symbolism, and ethics over aesthetics. This is, perhaps, a more familiar version of religion. It conjures up pictures of fire and brimstone, and the division of mankind between those that follow the Lord (often referred to as the "Chosen") and those that don't. It is the idea of religion that the liberal theologians sought to excise as no longer compatible with modern thought. But Quick could not accept this. Christianity without the Hebraic tradition would not be Christianity. But, unlike Barth, he could not reject, or demote, the Hellenic tradition either. He sought to effect a reconciliation.
The details of this need not concern us, and not just because I, without a classical philosophical training, have been unable to grasp them properly. Ultimately the project failed in the sense that there was no satisfactory reconciliation to be found – which, as Mr Hughes points out, is not to say that the effort was not worthwhile. Often the journey means more than the destination. And Quick leads our thoughts to many interesting places. His struggles help us to understand what Christianity is about, beyond the perpetuation of ancient traditions.
The bigger problem with Quick's work, though, is not his failure to resolve the tension between Hellenic and Hebraic thought, but the way that, in the later half of the 20th Century, idealistic, classical metaphysics has fallen out of fashion. We set our sights lower these days. We feel that a single Truth is unattainable, and we are content to examine rival versions in an unresolved pluralism – we make our own choices but without the expectation that the rest of the world must follow.
Reading about Quick throws light on my own faith, or lack of it. After an Anglo-Catholic Church upbringing, and extensive engagement with Evangelical traditions at university, I came to reject anything that looks like Quick's "Hebraic" tradition. But without it, what do you have? Scientific materialists believe in the Logos, but that leaves them a long way away from anything like a religious faith. You can layer on top the poetry of love from such mystics as Simone Weil, Quick's contemporary, or the philosophical exploration of the I-Thou relationship from Martin Buber, another contemporary of Quick's, of the Jewish faith. That gives you depth. But it was Barth's highly Hebraic vision that challenged Hitler, and somehow moved things into the concrete world of action and counter action from that of mystic contemplation. I cannot resolve that tension in my soul, so I call myself an agnostic. Quick's philosophical apparatus may be dated, but the challenge he confronted is at the heart of any attempt to reconcile a modern understanding of the world with religious faith.
Posted on December 30, 2015 Author MatthewCategories Religious reflectionsTags christianity, Oliver Quick2 Comments on Thinking about God: the work of Oliver Quick
Why I'm sceptical about the Citizen's Income idea
There is growing interest in the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI), also called Citizen's Income, to replace means-tested benefits. This was given a lift last week by the think tank RSA. The Lib Dems are also reported to be looking at it as part their review of welfare. The idea already has some totemic value on the left – it is part of the Green Party policy pitch. It is an interesting idea, but my scepticism is growing. But it has along pedigree: I first remember it being advocated by Paddy Ashdown in the 1990s.
Why the interest? Well the benefit system has become fiendishly complex, with entitlement hedged around by all kinds of rules. Applying for benefits is often demeaning, and the bureaucracy involved is arbitrary. Although the government is trying to reduce the complexity of benefits with the introduction of Universal Credit (UC), which is phased out as income rises, this brings its own nightmare. To work, it needs up to date information on what people are earning. The systems difficulties associated with this have led to repeated delays in its introduction. Some of these problems may in the end prove insoluble; the project has borne many of the hallmarks of over-ambitious failed technology projects, though the bad press has eased over the last year.
A UBI would replace these benefits, including the old age pension, child benefit, unemployment pay and the tax free allowance on income, with a single system of payments to everybody. This would doubtless have to be age-related. The RSA version suggests a low rate for children (payable to parents), and a high one for the elderly. Extra allowances would need to be made for those with certain types of disability. This cuts through the current complexity.
Of course the first big design issue is affordability. How high would taxes have be to pay for it? Consider the basic maths. If the allowance was set at the mean level of earned income (spreading the income from those that work across those that don't) across the economy, then tax on income would have to be 100%. On top of that you would have to pay for the NHS, defence, schools, the police, and so on. If it was set at 50% of average income, tax would have to be 50% just to pay for it, and so on. So any design has to push the boundaries of how low can you get away with. But how low can the entitlement be and still be able to realistically provide a sole income for the unlucky? The RSA version can only get through this conundrum by sidestepping the rather central question of housing costs.
After you have navigated that rather central problem of scale, more problems await:
Incentives to work. If the income is going to be sufficient to sustain people through unemployment, might it not encourage a frugal lifestyle of people who never work (legally, anyway), reducing the tax base? This would be parasitic, and surely seen as such. Which then leads to the toxic politics of people who suspect that this is the case of their neighbours, minorities, and the like. The experience of places where something like the UBI currently works (Native American reservations with gambling or natural resources income, for example) is not particularly encouraging: too many people can lapse into a hopeless, dependent lifestyle.
Housing is a harder problem than just affordability, as it varies so much from place to place. But, to be fair, this is a problem with the current system too. A whole new approach is needed to housing policy, and that would need to work alongside this reform. This encompasses such issues as the availability of social housing, regulated the private rental sector, and the access to housing finance which seems to be too easy, so pushing up prices needlessly). This, for my money, is a more urgent problem.
Who is an isn't entitled? At what point do people coming to live in the country become entitled? At want point do people choosing to move overseas lose entitlement? This is one area where being in the EU, with its multiplicity of benefits systems and no-discrimination rules, makes things harder.
Enforcement. There is an invitation to fraud here, as people will be tempted to create claims for fictitious people, or the deceased, etc.,and that points to the use of some kind of central registration. The RSA suggests linking to the electoral register. This sits uneasily with British traditions of keeping the state at arms length.
Taxes. There is a need to roll in personal tax free Income Tax and National Insurance allowances to make it pay. That means all income is taxable. This could involve quite a lot of extra administration as more people are brought into the scope of taxation.
There are no doubt many more design issues. The problem is not so much that these difficulties are insuperable, but that the idea is revolutionary. And revolutions usually fail, because it is impossible to foresee consequences. All the modelling is based on the idea that behaviours will not change very much – when they are bound to. If possible change should be in smaller, evolutionary steps.
But I have a deeper, philosophical problem. This all reeks of a Big Idea to be dropped from a great height on people by central government. Liberals are rather prone to this. They love the idea of universal righst and entitlements, because they think they are empowering. But the alternative view is that such grand, centrally designed systems are dehumanising and create dependency.
My view is that instead of such systems of legal rights and entitlements, we need to give the state a human face. That means that individuals in difficulty have access to intermediated services and support which tie together, physical health, mental health, social support, housing and so on. These would in packages that are designed to move people onto a sustainable path, and also conditional on to some extent on how the individual engages. Universal income is based on a heartless idea of "Take the money and you're on your own." Of course intermediated services might be considered illiberal, because they place considerable discretionary power in the hands of agents of the state. I think that can be managed through stronger local accountability. And I think that current British society has the civic strengths to pull it off. Though even here, I must beware of my own Big Idea to be dumped on an unknowing public.
But Citizen's Income is supported by a lot people I respect. No doubt the idea is worth exploring further. But I will take a lot of convincing that this is the best way forward for welfare reform.
Posted on December 21, 2015 Author MatthewCategories Politics UK, Public ServicesTags tax policy, welfare reform2 Comments on Why I'm sceptical about the Citizen's Income idea
The tide is turning against Heathrow expansion
Last week the British government decided to defer its decision on whether to expand London's Heathrow airport. This has been roundly condemned by people the media calls "business", referring to self-appointed lobby groups of large companies. But what is all this about? Now it could be what the lobbyists claim, which is weak government pure and simple. Or it could be a straw in the wind for a much more interesting change in attitudes in the political economy.
The story so far. Heathrow has long been operating at near capacity. London's second airport, Gatwick, is approaching capacity too. If you believe that air travel must increase for a healthy economy, then something must be done to expand capacity. In the long view this conventional wisdom is open to question: but as a good liberal I must accept that the freely made choices of my fellow citizens point to further growth in air travel. The politics, however, are toxic. Airports in the prosperous south east of England are not popular with those that live nearby, whatever benefits they bring. Since Heathrow is quite close to the London conurbation, that adds up to an awful lot of people. Many of these people live in marginal constituencies.
Nevertheless the Labour government prior to 2010 supported an extra runway at Heathrow. But both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, spying opportunities in these south west London seats, were vehemently opposed. The Conservative leader, David Cameron, went as far as to say: "No ifs, no buts, there will be no third runway at Heathrow" (or something like it). When these two parties turned Labour out in 2010 and formed a coalition, the existing expansion plan was thrown out. Instead the government set up an Airports Commission to evaluate the alternatives, to conveniently report after the next General Election, in 2015. It duly reported in the summer, recommending a new runway at Heathrow, in a different place to the previous plan. By then the Conservatives had crushed the Lib Dems and were in government on their own. It would have been a good moment to show decisive leadership and accept the Commission's results. They would have been able to steamroller opposition from their London MPs.
But Mr Cameron didn't. He dithered. Why? There seem to be two nakedly political factors. The first is that Zac Goldsmith, the Tory MP for Richmond Park, had threatened to resign and cause a by election if the government supported Heathrow expansion. That ordinarily would be a little local difficulty – but he is the Conservatives' candidate for London Mayor in 2016. A split would be messy. The second is that Mr Cameron's "No ifs, no buts" promise is weighing on him. He fears a "Nick Clegg moment", referring to the collapse in the Lib Dem's leader's public standing when he decided to reverse a pledge on student tuition fees after 2010. And Mr Cameron needs all his political capital to carry through his referendum on the European Union. Perhaps this is enough to explain last week's announcement to defer the final decision until next summer, after further reviews of the implications for air pollution. By then the Mayoral election will have happened, and so might the EU referendum.
But there may be something deeper. It could be that the tide of conventional wisdom is moving against Heathrow expansion, recognising that the terms of reference of the Airports Commission were flawed. If that is the case then the delay is a process of gathering more evidence against Heathrow, so that a decision to expand Gatwick instead will be better proofed against judicial review.
Why might the tide be turning? Well, the case for Heathrow is based on 20th Century economics. The idea is that to make a big airport even bigger is more efficient that building up smaller airports. Time was when the concept of economies of scale was so baked into the conventional wisdom that this logic would not have to be seriously examined. But for airports it does have to be questioned. For a start, any air traveller knows that larger airports are less efficient for point to point travel. Every stage of the process takes longer than for a smaller airport. I remember vividly that taxiing to the terminal after landing at Schiphol airport took as long as the flight itself.
But there is a clear benefit of a running a large airport: that of making connections. This is referred to as being a "hub". There are two aspects to this. The first is that hub airports can consolidate short distance flights into long distance ones, in a configuration that allows demand for long haul journeys to be met more efficiently. The second is that the presence of a lot of people waiting around in hub airports is an economic opportunity for the host country: it can sell them things. It is on the benefits of the hub operation that the Airports Commission's recommendation is based: expanding Heathrow will generate bigger benefits to the British economy as a whole than would expanding Gatwick. This can be challenged, however.
The first point of challenge is on the efficiency of the hub model as the best way of managing long haul traffic – or of a hub based in London. One argument is that technology is moving against this. Smaller, efficient long haul aircraft are being developed that allow the alternative, point to point model to be more viable. The second is that the Arabian Gulf is emerging as an alternative airport hub location, and one which has a clear comparative advantage, if not an out and out absolute advantage. Pumping up a London hub is fighting the laws of global economics.
The second point of challenge is on the business of running a hub: the shops and restaurants. The London economy is already overheated, as shown by very high property prices. There really is no need for the extra income. If the hub was in the north of England, that might be a very different matter. The fact that the airport is so unpopular locally gives a clue to this.
And on top of these direct challenges there is a strategic tide. Politicians and economists are worried that economic growth in developed countries like Britain is bypassing most people, and ending up in the pockets of large multinationals and a tiny elitesof people that run them and provide supporting services such as tax avoidance advice and banking. The penny is dropping that this may largely be down to the excessive market power of large businesses, extracting monopolistic profits. And yet the Heathrow business case seems to be a paean to this form of monopolistic capitalism. And those business lobbyists provide an unwitting confirmation of this.
Before the Commission reported, it was arguments such as these that induced me to predict that Gatwick would win over Heathrow. The Airports Commission was a blow; but I am holding to my prediction yet.
Posted on December 17, 2015 Author MatthewCategories Politics UKTags Conservatives, David Cameron, London airports4 Comments on The tide is turning against Heathrow expansion
The left is failing. It must confront reality
Pity the French Socialists. Last weekend they managed to stall the Front National at regional elections – but only by supporting the centre-right Republicans. The collapse of the left and centre-left in France offers lessons to the British left – in the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green parties. But they are not listening.
Now remember that only three years ago the French Socialists were triumphant. François Hollande won the presidency, and parliamentary elections confirmed the party's ascendancy, along with left wing allies, including the French Greens. France was in an anti-capitalist mood; this was no victory of the centre ground. The Socialists promised tax hikes on the very rich, and the reversal of many of the centre-right's reforms on public services. It is probably as close as we will see in Europe to a triumph of the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn – right down to a leader that did not follow the conventions of personal charisma.
But the Socialists lost their way almost immediately. They put through a few token left wing changes, but have been following the political centre ever since. The left wing programme proved unworkable. The electorate could not see the point of the party. Working class voters defected to the Front National, offering another mix of un-keepable promises, alongside its defining xenophobia. That France's fractious centre-right was able to recover and provide the main challenge to the FN completed the humiliation of the left.
The problem for the left is that it is happier protesting and airing their "values" rather than governing. And a lot of its protest turns out to be very conservative. Many on the left seem to see their mission, not as improving the lot of the disadvantaged, but as protecting ("defending") this or that public institution from attempts to reform them. Alongside this they protest at "injustice". But there is no clear and consistent picture of how to make things better. There is an idea that you can raise taxes harmlessly by aiming at the wealthy, and then using the money to pump up public services and benefits without asking whether they are doing the job they are meant to be doing. And as for foreign affairs, it seem to be largely making a noise about various victim groups, and then doing practically nothing about it.
One example of political failure is dealing with racism. Look at this article from Kehinde Andrews in the Guardian. He is commenting on the 50th anniversary of the Race Relations Act. He points out how some forms of racism have been driven back in the 50 years, but then points at the racial minorities still suffer discrimination, and are disadvantaged on a wide variety of measures. The failure is clear, but what to do? All Mr Andrews can say is this: "Britain must acknowledge the uncomfortable history and reality of racial discrimination and be prepared to consider solutions that transform the conditions faced by oppressed groups". Note that he has moved to language of victimhood and oppression. And the complete absence of thinking about how on earth to solve this intractable problem. To be fair, Mr Andrews is not a politician. But I hear all too often the language of victimhood and difference amongst leftist politicians who address ethnic minority issues. Everything is always somebody else's fault.
As Tony Blair put it in a recent article in the Spectator:
Right now we're in danger of not asking the right questions never mind failing to get the right answers. All of it is about applying values with an open mind; not boasting of our values as a way of avoiding the hard thinking the changing world insists upon
This leaves the left with two big problems. First is trying to present themselves as a convincing party of government. This is what Labour failed to do in this year's General Election. But the French Socialists showed that you can still win, if your opponents are even more distrusted than you are. Then comes the second problem: what do you do when the left achieves power. Does it "stay true to its principles" and push through a populist left-wing programme, attacking independent businesses, and cosseting public sector workers, including an expanded nationalised industry. Recent examples of this approach are Argentina under the Kirchners, Brazil under Dilma Rousseff, and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. In the end the government cannot escape economic reality, and the economy turns sour. Interestingly this approach seems to be much more difficult in Europe than in South America. No doubt European institutions are stronger – making wilful suicide much harder. France cannot print its own currency, for example. The other choice is simply to U-turn, as the French did, and implement policies that most people cannot distinguish from those of the centre-right. This leads to an existential crisis for the governing party.
In Britain we can see that with the second party of the left, the Liberal Democrats. They entered coalition with the centre-right, the Conservatives, in 2010. Activists and members fled; the party felt as if it was imploding. It was vilified from across the political spectrum for selling out. Mostly this was because they dared to face up to the compromises of government – although it was also tangled with the toxicity of working with the Conservatives.
Rather than confront the realities of government, the left indulges itself with the language of protest, usually constructed in abstract terms ("austerity", etc.) that means little to people they are supposed to be helping. And that leads to two problems. The first is losing working class voters to the populist right. British leftists have had some luck here. Ukip is the only credible party fishing in these waters, and they are not adept. But the popularity of movements like Britain First shows that there is a ready group of white working class (and not a few middle class) voters who are ready to take this direction. The second threat is the centre-right. If this group has an organising philosophy, it is economic liberalism, using a conventional wisdom that has built up since the 1980s. It is well past its sell-by date, and yet it is more credible than the non-offering of the left.
To reverse this, I think the left will need to do three things:
Develop a new policy framework that addresses the challenges of the current world. That is the main focus of this blog, so readers should have some idea of what I mean. It needs to focus on sustainability, local networks and public services coordinated around the needs of users, not providers.
Develop a better language with which to frame its ideas to those currently disillusioned with politics. I suspect this is better done through local, community politics than clever brand building by Westminster operatives.
Develop alliances across the parties of the left, and move away from destructive tribalism. This will need to be underpinned by political reforms that make such collaboration easier (proportional representation, for example). There are some good ideas bubbling up across all the parties, alongside the nonsense.
There is, alas, almost no sign of progress on any of these three lines. But I will not give up hope.
Posted on December 15, 2015 December 15, 2015 Author MatthewCategories Politics UKTags Labour, Lib Dems1 Comment on The left is failing. It must confront reality
Success in Oldham deepens denial among Labour left
Last week BBC Radio 4's Thinking Aloud ran a piece on research showing how people assume that most other people think like them. This is, apparently, particularly strong at the political extremes. We don't need academics to tell us this, of course – it explains many of history's major political misjudgements. Prime candidates at the moment are supporters of the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who are in deep denial about how difficult it will be for their party to win elections. In this, if nothing else, they resemble the supporters of Donald Trump in the US.
Of course, being in denial is something that, as a Liberal Democrat supporter, I know something about. Throughout the Coalition years we were told that our party faced oblivion at the next election. We refused to accept this, but alas we were wrong. Denial is always easier to see in others. The main problem on the Labour left is that they assume that most Britons share their view that the Conservatives are out only to line the pockets of the rich, and that "austerity" is evil. Now I've written before that this outlook will doom the Labour Party to failure, and that one of the first tests of the Corbyn leadership would be the Oldham by election. Well that election was last week, and it was a triumph for Labour. They increased their percentage share of the vote, though with less votes overall. A challenge from Ukip failed to materialise: they increased their vote (by 3%), but by much less than the Conservative vote fell (over 9%). Is this vindication for the Corbynistas?
Up to a point it is. It shows that all the chatter that Labour's lurch to the left has affected the party's electoral standing is just that. There is little decent data on this result, analysing who did and didn't support each party, so we can't say for certain what happened. But as Alistair Meeks points out in politicalbetting,com, the result is completely consistent with previous by elections in the area. Nothing much has changed. There is much for Labour supporters to take heart from here.
The first point is that Ukip look like a busted flush. The party was supposed to be picking up disillusioned white working class votes, and presenting a major threat to Labour in the north of England. They nearly won one of those previous nearby by elections. If Mr Corbyn did not play well on Oldham's doorsteps, as the chatter suggested, Ukip's Nigel Farage played no better. He used to be a media star, and regarded as "authentic", but he seems to have lost his credibility. The Ukip result in the May General Election was disappointing, as they were mugged by the ruthless Tory election machine. Mr Farage's shenanigans over whether he was resigning as leader may have had the same sort of effect on his public standing as Nick Clegg's U-turn on university tuition fees. The party needs to dump him, but probably won't. The transition from a Tory breakaway in the shires to being a party of working class protest is too much for it.
The second cheering point for Labour is that their challengers to the left are thoroughly neutralised. The Greens achieved barely 1% of the vote. The Lib Dems put in a major effort and still lost their deposit, and tried, unconvincingly, to draw comfort from the fact that their vote did not actually fall from a mere 3.7%. In this environment at least, these parties are treated as a complete irrelevance. In living memory the Lib Dems were capable of pulling off a stunning wins almost anywhere. There are some signs in local by elections of a Lib Dem bounce back, but it is highly localised and bypassed Oldham.
All this bodes well for Labour's prospects in May 2016, the next big local polling date, when there are also elections to the Scots and Welsh parliaments, and London's Mayor. Labour's candidate for London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has every chance of wresting the position back from the Conservatives. In Scotland, though, prospects look dire for Labour as the SNP machine looks dominant. It is even possible that the party will drop to third place behind the Conservatives. But London's political class seems to have written Scotland off.
So why am I suggesting that Labour activists are in denial? Because May's result in the General Election was terrible for them and there is not the faintest sign of it getting better – only that it is not getting worse. Their prospects in Scotland are not the sort of irrelevance that Londoners seem to assume. Scotland is one of the most important battlegrounds in British politics; it has been for at least five years. If Labour can't engineer a recovery there, they will be locked out of politics in Westminster. Interestingly, the success of the SNP was a key piece of evidence for the Corbynista thesis – that the public was really angry about austerity, and Labour's big mistake was not to be angry enough. But Scots voters turned on Labour because they thought they were incompetent, and did not stick up for Scotland. Mr Corbyn's election does not improve their standing on either count, to put it generously.
Labour may be standing up well enough in the north of England, in spite of a cheeky challenge by the Conservatives to win back support there, but there is no sign that Labour can win back those politically sceptical middle-England voters that they progressively lost after Tony Blair stepped down as party leader. To do that Labour activists must break free of the notion that most people share their political outlook, deep down. Meanwhile a dangerous rift between the parliamentary party and the leadership reinforce a general air of incompetence, the most fatal thing in politics.
I have heard a number of people suggest that the real winners of Oldham are the Conservatives. It is hard to disagree.
Posted on December 10, 2015 December 14, 2015 Author MatthewCategories Politics UKTags Jeremy Corbyn, Labour, UKIP4 Comments on Success in Oldham deepens denial among Labour left
Osborne uses an accounting trick to implement People's QE
When Jeremy Corbyn, was running his successful campaign for the leadership of Britain's Labour Party, he floated the idea of "People's QE". "QE" stands for Quantitative Easing, the means by which central banks try to loosen monetary policy in an economy without reducing interest rates – handy when interest rates are near zero. It attracted quite a bit of attention from economists, much of it quite approving. That is because the idea touches on one of the most important aspects of modern economic policy: the suggestion that governments can sustain quite big deficits simply by "printing" money. In the end we find, not for the first time, that the current Conservative government acts much further to the political left than it talks, as did its Conservative-Liberal Democrat predecessor.
Back in the 1980s, when monetary policy first became the height of fashion, we had uncomplicated views about what it was about. Although most money was in bank accounts, economists painted a picture as though it was all in notes and coins, and the various actors behaved as if they were kids spending pocket money (and even then was probably too simplistic…). They talked of a "money supply", which could be manipulated, and the size of which affected spending behaviour. We are older and wiser now, though many economists and journalists still talk about "printing money", even though physical money has almost no role to play, and bank accounts are different in very important ways. Even trained economists who should know better sometimes trip themselves up in this way. For example there is much excited talk about how commercial banks create money rather than the central bank – which turns out to be a red herring on reflection [That link from Paul Krugman includes a broken link to a masterful essay from James Tobin in 1963, read it here]. It is better to look on monetary policy as a series of policy instruments under the control of the central bank, which have not entirely knowable effects on the economy at large.
The most important of these instruments is the short-term interest rate the central bank charges to commercial banks in their interactions with it. These ripple right through the economy. But when they are very low, as they are now in the UK, it is very hard to lower them further. Some European banks are using negative interest rates without the sky having fallen in, but these negative rates aren't very high – fractions of a percentage point. So how to "loosen" policy – that is encourage a greater level of economic activity? Here the invention of QE comes in, pioneered, as so much of modern policy, by Japan in the 1990s and early 2000s. This is often talked of as if it means printing physical money and handing it out to the kids to spend on sweeties. What it actually means is that the central bank goes into the market and buys bonds, usually government bonds, like British gilts.
How does that help? Well the people who held the bonds now hold cash instead, which they should spend on something else – which might include new capital investment, after it has changed hands a few times. And it might reduce bond yields, which will reduce long term interest rates right across the economy, and increase asset prices. This creates a "wealth effect" that might encourage the mass affluent to spend a bit more money on stuff that people make. Or all that could happen is that there is a merry-go-round of money chasing various flavours of pre-existing asset to create an asset price bubble. It's not very clear what has happened to the Bank of England's QE over the years. The bank produces various statistical associations as evidence that it has helped stimulate the wider economy. Others are sceptical.
Which is where People's QE comes in. What if, instead of buying government bonds in the market, the money went into extra government spending, such as infrastructure investment, or even current spending. Because the Bank controls the currency in the UK, it can fund the government's deficit without the need to borrow money from investors. It borrows money from itself. This amounts to supporting looser fiscal policy (i.e. government tax and spend), which should provide a more predictable stimulus to the wider economy.
Mr Corbyn's advisers developed the idea with the suggestion of administrative structures to channel the extra money into infrastructural investment. This puzzled some economists. There is no need for such engineering. All the government has to do is spend the money, increasing its deficit, issue bonds as normal, which the Bank of England then buys in the existing QE programme. If the Bank is buying bonds, the government is less beholden to the bond markets. In Japan, which has been practising QE on a massive scale, the government now issues little net debt to the bond markets, making large deficits sustainable.
But how does this work? Surely it is something for nothing? The answer to that is that it only works if there is slack in the economy, and the government steps in to create demand because businesses are investing less than the public is saving, creating an imbalance. If this is not the case, you can get inflation, which is what happened to Germany and Austria in the 1920s, Zimbabwe more recently, and is happening in Argentina now. Alternatively you get a asset price bubble. Which in the modern, globalised financial and trading system is in fact more likely for developed economies – though this seems to be a blind spot for many economists, who think that asset markets are too efficient for that.
But in the developed economies, including the US, the Eurozone and Japan, as well as the UK, there does seem to be scope to do this kind of stimulus. There is a lack of business investment, while, it appears, too much money ends up in the hands of rich people, who don't spend it. Nobody knows how long-term this problem is, but it does look as if large government deficits are much easier to sustain than before. If the bond markets refuse to fund all of the deficit, then central banks can simply "print the money" as the popularisers would put it. Prominent British economist (Lord) Adair Turner (whom I am something of a fan of) suggested that this could be a long term policy in a recent book.
In Britain there is an accounting wrinkle which is having an important impact. The Bank buys government bonds, but it holds them rather than cancelling them, so that it can sell them should it want to tighten policy. So the government still pays interest on the gilts the Bank holds, and this used to count towards the publicly declared deficit. But the Coalition government changed the rules, so that it does not count the interest on the Bank's holdings against the deficit. That reduces the fiscal deficit and allows the government to spend money on other things instead. Also the effects of QE on longer term gilt yields reduces the deficit projected by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which plays such a pivotal role in longer term government spending plans. According to the FT's Chris Giles £22.4bn of the £27bn that the Chancellor, George Osborne, "found" to allow him to loosen austerity measures in the Autumn Statement resulted from these accounting tricks. This boils down to People's QE, and Mr Osborne used it to fund his U-turn on tax credit cuts, amongst other things.
The problem, as Mr Giles points out, is what happens when the Bank feels the need to tighten policy in, say, a year or two's time? Then the whole thing goes into reverse. Politicians have seen gain in blurring the distinction between fiscal and monetary policy. That could return to haunt them, at both ends of the political spectrum.
Posted on December 7, 2015 December 7, 2015 Author MatthewCategories Economics & Finance, Politics UKTags George Osborne, Jeremy Corbyn, monetary policy, UK economic policy
Tim Farron comes of age as Lib Dem leader
The honeymoon is over. For the last few months Liberal Democrats have been able to project their hopeful expectations onto Tim Farron, their new leader. And he skilfully avoided disappointing them. But his decision to back the government in last night's vote to involve British forces in attacks on Islamic State in Syria has changed all that. Now, alongside the traumas of the Labour Party, we are asking what political parties are for, and how politics should work.
I was surprised at Tim's decision. As my last posting shows, I was personally inching towards that view – but I consider myself to be something of an outlier in Lib Dem circles. The party at large is clearly against intervention, as a recent online poll showed. My Facebook timeline showed strong opinions against. And he had given himself plenty of cover. He had set five tests against which to judge any proposal to intervene. This is usually a political tactic to oppose something. And, to put it kindly, it is stretch to say that all five tests have been met – though it is also true that there has been movement in the right direction.
My doubts over intervention were not helped by David Cameron, the Prime Minister in today's parliamentary debate. First he suggested that the attacks were needed to prevent IS activity in Britain. They will make very little difference; that is just not how these things work. Then he tried to suggest that there were about 70,000 "moderate" fighters who might act as the ground spearhead to defeat IS, without invoking the Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad. Even if the numbers are right, they do not form a coherent fighting force with the military skill to take on the highly effective IS army. And thirdly, it came out that he had smeared some of his opponents as terrorist sympathisers. That was the previous night in a "private" meeting with his party's MPs – and it alludes to some of the new Labour leadership's apparent sympathy for "freedom struggles" in the past. He might have graciously apologised, but he did not. As Jeremy Corbyn, Labour's leader, said, it diminishes the office of Prime Minister. But it is a foretaste of Conservative tactics against the new model Labour party.
Mr Corbyn, on the other hand, was a model of dignity. There was no high-flown rhetoric, but at least what he said was clearly true. And if it was also beside the point, the same can be said of Mr Cameron. The reason why there is a momentum in favour of intervention, at least in parliament, is that there is s strong public mood to "do something" after the Paris attacks, that a gesture of solidarity with France will have diplomatic benefits, and that with Syria creating a massive refugee crisis, it is not a political topic we can turn our back on. Inaction seems to pose just as big problems as action. If it is good enough for the Germans, whose government is planning to commit forces to the same campaign, almost without precedent, that surely it is good enough for the UK? The fact that the proposed British contribution is small scale is actually in its favour – a lot of diplomatic bang for quite a small buck. Iraq this is not.
This is what politics is about. Weighty issues for which there are no obvious solutions, and where messy compromises are needed. It is about politicians from across the country and different political persuasions, working out what the country as a whole should do. The trouble is that there seems to be a new politics about, where political representatives are seen as figureheads for wider movements of like-minded people, for whom compromise is betraying your principles. The Labour Party is being overwhelmed by this conception of politics. Labour activists oppose intervention in Syria, and have turned it into a totem issue. They have been harassing any MPs and their staffs who take a different view. Some talk of rooting them out as "scum".
Such are the death throws of a party that once aspired to govern. After being hammered for entering coalition, the Lib Dems can safely put such aspirations to one side. The behaviour of their MPs is more of a puzzle – though Tim's leadership opponent Norman Lamb, and one other of the eight MPs voted against. Many of the party's members have similar views to those Labour activists, though standards of behaviour and language are infinitely better. There has been much talk of rebuilding a core vote – which seems to be code for ignoring messy compromises and attracting the support of more motivated, middle class liberals. But Tim Farron and his fellow MPs seem to have an older view of what MPs are for. They seem to have considered the vote on its merits, rather on any wider political impact. (I will say the same for Norman, incidentally. The differences between the two men are a complete reversal of what was said about them in the leadership contest, when Tim was portrayed as being to Norman's left).
That wider political impact is hard to judge. Coming out in favour of intervention is the sort of thing that will play well with floating voters. But it will be hard for the party to get any credit for it. They famously opposed the Iraq war, so people will expect them to oppose all military interventions. They will just get confused when they do something different. And the party's members and activists will not be happy. Some could leave, others just drift away.
It may too much to hope that the party will take this as a lesson on what successful politics must look like. Political representatives are responsible to their voters first, and party membership second. It is not "democratic" for a bunch of self selected activists to agree something using voting procedures, and then impose this on people elected in proper, public elections. Getting things done means compromise and lending support to policies that are second best or worse. This is why we use a system of representative democracy. Political movements not prepared to engage fully with the real business politics ultimately get nowhere. – or if they do get somewhere, end up by forcing their views on others and suffocating political debate.
Unlike what the Labour Party is becoming (and, it has to be said, a lot of what it was of old, for different reasons), the SNP or the Greens I hope the Liberal Democrats will understand this and give their leader some slack. But this will prove a painful coming of age for him.
Posted on December 3, 2015 December 3, 2015 Author MatthewCategories Politics UKTags Islamic State, Lib Dems, Syria, Tim Farron5 Comments on Tim Farron comes of age as Lib Dem leader
High morals v low pragmatism: what on earth to do about Syria?
Do we let British forces join their US and French allies and intervene in Syria against the forces of Islamic State (IS)?This is now the biggest issue in British politics. it is not an easy question.
So often we are urged to take such important decisions based on high moral principle. In this case, do we attack those who have, in effect, declared war on us on principle? This seems to be the French view. Or do we rule out the use of violence, outside strict self-defence, on principle? If such moral principles are your guide, then deciding about foreign interventions becomes much easier. Take your moral stand, and if it doesn't go well, then it is somebody else's fault. And if the place of the intervention is remote it is somebody else's problem too. Such reasoning is commonplace amongst the politically engaged – but it is a cop out. Actions (and non actions for that matter) have consequences, and we can't escape responsibility for them as far as they are foreseeable.
And, of course, the closer we get to the place of intervention, the muddier it all seems. For us the big issue in Syria is the progress of IS. And yet, with the exception of the government of Iraq, this is not top of anybody else's agenda. This can be seen from last week's episode with the shooting down by Turkish forces of a Russian bomber aircraft. The story presented by neither side is convincing. The Russian bomber looks as if it was attacking a Turkomen force that is nothing to do with IS, but which is resisting the official Syrian government of President Assad. The Turkomens seem to have the covert support of the Turkish government. Russian actions have been high-handed and directed at supporting the Assad regime, under the cover of fighting "terrorism". The Turks seem to be telling them to keep away from their protégés in the only language the current Russian regime seems to respond to.
To my mind it is the conflicting agendas of the local middle-ranking powers that is the most frustrating aspect of the Syrian situation: Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular. To them IS seems to be of rather tangential importance, whose main use is as a hook to draw in Western powers on their side, taking the pressure off them to resolve the conflict. The West still suffers from a post imperialist idea that it is the world's policeman, and that the local powers should be treated as unruly children rather than accept responsibility for the maintenance of peace and order in their neighbourhood.
It doesn't get much better when you look at IS itself. For some reason this organisation likes to project an image of undiluted evil. It seems to help it draw in foreign recruits to its cause – who see moral clarity where we see evil. But its support base is clearly much wider than that. The local Sunni populations, in both Syria and Iraq, have lost faith in their official governments, and with good reason. Rule by IS seems preferable, and nobody is offering a credible alternative. Remember that the standard Western answer that you set up a democratic government has been tried in Iraq – only for it to be abused by unscrupulous power brokers intent on their own enrichment. Why should it work better next time?
All this fog points against the high moral case for Western intervention, and so against further British involvement. How can it be effective? And arguments of this type are seized on by opponents of intervention. But they too strike a high moral tone. They organise protest rallies; Jeremy Corbyn justifies his stance on the basis of the opinion of political activists, and urges these activists to lobby their MPs. Such tactics can only be driven by high moral purpose, not by a pragmatic weighing of the options.
This high moral purpose seems to be driven by a loathing of two things. The loathing of the use of military force in pretty much any capacity. And the loathing of Western capitalist governments, and especially that of the US, and all their foreign interventions. How these two loathings balance varies widely between individuals. But such moral arguments are clearly suspect. In Syria we have had years of non-intervention, or limited intervention, by Western powers. That has left the country in an appalling stalemate, which has now created a refugee crisis that is placing huge strains on European civic society. Surely this threatens Western interests sufficiently for some kind of intervention? Are we being too dismissive of intervention, and using the clear practical difficulties as cover irresponsible inaction?
Building a pragmatic case for intervention runs something like this. The US and France are already heavily engaged. By joining them as a full member of that alliance (Britain already provides support in Iraq) may not make a huge difference to that joint effort immediately, but a three country alliance would have considerably more diplomatic weight than the current incomplete one. Britain's current half-hearted contribution is almost useless on that basis. This alliance of Western nations, which joins up with local Kurdish forces, would then be able to bring pressure on other actors to work towards a new settlement of the Greater Syria region (i.e. Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan) than can form the basis of future peaceful development.
But any such settlement must face up to the central challenge of what can replace the current IS regime? Neither the Assad regime, nor the Iraqi one looks up to the job, though changes in leadership might help. Trying to create new government institutions from nothing is what went wrong in Iraq. Everybody says that it would be impossible or immoral to negotiate with the IS regime, and looks a fair judgement based on its current leadership. But might a successor emerge from within, amongst its clearly highly competent military leadership, with whom negotiation might be possible?
So there you. The pragmatic arguments against intervention have real weight. There is no clear game plan to bring matters to resolution. But the Syrian war is causing damage at continental level. Can we really just walk away and hope for the best?
Posted on December 1, 2015 Author MatthewCategories Politics UK, World


The prevailing trend today among biblical scholars is to regard most of the book of Revelation as something other than prophecy. Godly and gifted men such as John Piper and other popular writers and preachers believe there is no literal seven-year tribulation. They believe in a millennial reign of Jesus (minus Israel), so at some point they begin to take Revelation literally rather than symbolically.
Why then do so many today insist on overlooking the astounding miracle before our eyes, God's restoration of the nation of Israel, and insist that in spite of Paul's clear words in Romans 11:1-2 God has forever pushed Israel aside in His program? I have no answer to this question, but it does grieve my heart.
I cannot read Jeremiah 31:35-40, Ezekiel 36:22-37:28, and Zechariah chapters 12-14 and believe that Israel has no place in future prophecy. The Jeremiah passage is clear: if the sun comes up today Israel remains a nation in God's eyes. And, since the sun is shining brightly outside my office at this moment, Israel remains an essential part of prophecy!
I prefer to think of myself as "full of sap and green!" My prayer is that the words of Psalm 92:14-15 will always be true of me, "They still bear fruit in old age; they are ever full of sap and green, to declare that the Lord is upright, he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him" (ESV).
Why do all these things matter? First, how secure would we be if we relied on a God who reneged on His promises to Israel and His covenants with the Patriarchs? If God has turned His back on the "everlasting covenant" of land He made with Abraham, what does that say about His honor (Gen. 15:12-21; Ps. 105:8-11) and the confidence we can have in Him? God keeps His Word!
I feel a fierce passion within me to show why the Old Testament prophecies regarding Israel remain in effect today. My prayer is that the Lord will keep me "full of sap and green" as I continue to write and teach on these things. Without Him working through me, my efforts would be vain.
Stay tuned for more articles on this matter.
Older PostWhere is the Hope?


text:
Home / Tennis News / Tennis News • Alexander Zverev Qualifies For Nitto ATP Finals In London • With Rafa And Roger • Buy Tickets
Tennis News • Alexander Zverev Qualifies For Nitto ATP Finals In London • With Rafa And Roger • Buy Tickets
ALEXANDER ZVEREV QUALIFIES FOR NITTO ATP FINALS
Twenty-year-old Alexander Zverev is set to make his debut at the Nitto ATP Finals, to be held 12-19 November at The O2 in London. A winner of two ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles this season, the German joins Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer in the 2017 field, leaving five places up for grabs with six weeks to go until the season-ending tournament.
""I think it's great for any player to qualify for a prestigious event that we have in London," said Zverev, who attended the tournament in 2015 to receive his ATP Star of Tomorrow Award presented by Emirates. "It's really an award for, I think, every player that shows that you've been one of the best players, not only for one or two weeks in a year, but you've been one of the best players for the whole year. That's something special. That's an amazing achievement for me, and I think for all the other guys, as well.
"The atmosphere is amazing in London. I've been there for the award that I got two years ago. So hopefully it's going to be similar to that. I know it's going to be a very special event for me."
Alexander Zverev of Germany in action against Kyle Edmund of Britain during their men's singles first round match of the China Open tennis tournament at the National Tennis Center in Beijing, China, 03 October 2017. EPA-EFE/ROMAN PILIPEY
Zverev, who qualified by reaching the semi-finals at the China Open in Beijing, is the youngest player to clinch a berth at the season finale since a 20-year-old Juan Martin del Potro in 2008 and the first German singles qualifier since Rainer Schuettler in 2003.
One year since lifting his first ATP World Tour trophy at the St. Petersburg Open, Zverev has won five in 2017 – tied with Nadal and Federer for the most singles titles this season. With his triumphs on clay at the Internazionali BNL d'Italia in Rome (d. Djokovic) and on hard court at the Coupe Rogers in Montreal (d. Federer), he became the first player outside the ATP's 'Big Four' to win multiple Masters 1000 titles in a season since David Nalbandian in 2007.
Zverev additionally won the ATP World Tour 500 title at the Citi Open in Washington, D.C., and claimed a pair of ATP World Tour 250 titles – at the Open Sud de France in Montpellier and BMW Open by FWU in Munich. In Montpellier, he also teamed up with older brother Mischa Zverev to win the doubles title.
The Nitto ATP Finals welcomes more than 250,000 fans to The O2 arena each year, as well as generating a global TV viewership of more than 100 million, as the ATP's best eight singles players and doubles teams compete over eight days at the biggest indoor tennis tournament in the world.
About the Nitto ATP Finals
The Nitto ATP Finals is the year-end climax to the men's professional tennis season, featuring only the world's best eight qualified singles players and doubles teams as they battle it out for the last title of the season. Players compete for Emirates ATP Rankings points throughout the season in a bid to earn one of the eight coveted berths and a chance to win the biggest indoor tennis tournament in the world. Played using a round-robin format, each player plays three matches as they compete for a berth in the knockout semi-finals and beyond. The prestigious tournament has been contested in major cities around the world with a rich history dating back to the birth of The Masters in 1970 in Tokyo. Since 2000 the event has taken place in cities such as Lisbon, Sydney, and Shanghai. In 2009 the tournament was moved to London, where it will be played through 2020. For more information, please visit www.NittoATPFinals.com.
02 ArenaAlexander ZverevBeijingChina OpenLondonNitto ATP FinalsSascha Zverevtennistennis news
← Previous Story ATP / WTA Photo Gallery From The China Open Tennis In Beijing
Next Story → Japan Open • Tokyo Tennis Championships • Cilic, Goffin, Mannarino, All Win

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
JK Harris to File For Bankruptcy
Well, it happened: our oldest competitor in tax resolution, JK Harris, filed for bankruptcy to avoid being punished for their failure to fully pay a $1.2 million judgement against them to the Texas Attorney General: JK Harris to File for BK. It looks their bankruptcy is going to take the form of an asset purchase. According to the article, Taxmasters might be buying their assets using a code 363 of the bankruptcy law. But I think it is safe to say that this isn't a reorganization. But we'll see.
UPDATED: JK HARRIS DISSOLVED IN CHAPTER 7 : http://watax.com/blog/no-reorganization-one-of-oldest-tax
I never thought this day would come. They were the first tax resolution company to go big on television marketing. And perhaps the first tax resolution company to bank on a franchise system: with "offices" all around the country while the cases were handled in a central office in South Carolina. A year 2000 article in the Wall Street Journal mentioned an IRS investigation of them while also mentioning Washington Tax Services as their 2nd largest competitor. Boy, times have changed.
The big class action lawsuit and various problems with Attorney Generals really started to gnaw at their profitability. The judgement from the class action lawsuit was pretty heavy although not very generous to their disgruntled clients who received $69 a piece after lawyers were paid. Here's a list of the creditors as per the comment's section below: http://media.charleston.net/2011/pdf/jkharrissmallbizchapter11petition.pdf
As I said before, it was pretty difficult to run the JK Harris high volume model while having an F rating at the BBB and a class action lawsuit against them.
If Taxmasters buys JK Harris, it will be an F rated BBB company BBB record -- buying a F rated BBB company -- BBB record that's not the most attractive bride and groom -- the Addams Family redux?
I alluded to JK's financial trouble in previous blog entries HERE and HERE.
For 30 years, WATAX has been solving every kind of tax problem. Call us at 1-888-282-4697 or email us a description of your tax issue and we'll contact you.


We noticed similar issues using CEGUI 0.5 and the OpenGL renderer. The way we solve it is by leaving an extra 1 pixel border around everything so this does not happen. Maybe this could help with you.
Topic: Lua event handlers always handle?
Topic: Can the script module be compiled seperately.
Can the script module be compiled seperately.
Has anyone tried to use xerces 2.8 with CEGUI. I am getting some link errors that I have not been able to resolve yet and was wondering if anyone else had tried this in the past.
Is there a way to have a ScrollablePane that does not show its scrollbars?
Topic: StaticText drawing of the frame of windows.
StaticText drawing of the frame of windows.
I figured it out buy setting the TextColours property of the Window.


text:
Grounds June 2022
June 27, 2022 StephenFH 2 Comments
Chichester, Bath and Kew.
Priory Park, Chichester and the pleasure of visiting somewhere new. With the Park Tavern nearby, it is as atmospheric as it is photogenic; if some grounds are usually photographed from one angle, this one looks good all the way round it.
Bath: the rec., a venue for first-class cricket from the visit of the Gentlemen of Philadelphia in 1897 to Somerset's departure in 2006. In 2022 the Grade II listed pavilion remains, as do memories of sitting in front it, but alas there was no sign of a pitch the day the photo was taken.
Bath CC: North Parade, on the other side of the road. In recent times Gloucestershire 2nd XI have played here, surprisingly maybe given the historical association of the area with their rivals. Perhaps county first XI's will return at some point.
Kew Green, which has a rather intimate feel to it, despite the main road over the bridge to the left and the royal entrance to the gardens to the right. Personally as familiar as any, it makes a picture, particularly in high summer.
Previous PostCounty MembersNext PostBarry Richards at Dean Park
2 thoughts on "Grounds June 2022"
Dave Allen says:
I often visit Chichester and I've seen a few club games there (just off North Street) over the years – it seems so small to have been a first-class ground. Hampshire played Sussex there in the first two years after the War and back in the late 1990s I chatted to Neville Rogers about it – he scored 90 there in 1947; Hampshire won both games.
StephenFH says:
Interesting Dave, small for county games although maybe not much more so than say May's Bounty? I thought it was a lovely setting. Hampshire games in the days of Phil Mead as well.


Provides training in a variety of naturalistic and formal observation techniques, and discusses the use of standardized testing in children. Students learn to use formal observation tools, make a case study portfolio and give a parent conference. Observing children in classroom settings is required. This course has the option of a letter grade or pass/no pass. (C-ID: ECE 200) ADVISORY: Eligible for English 1A; transfer students consult with advisor.
Critically compare the purpose, value and use of formal and informal observation and assessment strategies and ethical implications within cultural and social contexts in early childhood settings.
Describe and evaluate the characteristics, strengths and limitations of common assessment tools related to children's developmental, cultural and linguistic characteristics.
Demonstrate systematic observation methods to provide data to assess the impact of the environment, interactions and curriculum on all domains of children's learning and development.
Use effective verbal and written communication skills to collaborate and build partnerships with family in an ongoing and positive manner to support the child's development.
Develop activities related to assessment within play-based environments, curriculum and care routines for typically and atypically developing children.


In the world of smarketing, where the goal is to align sales and marketing efforts, one of the most difficult goals to achieve is streamlining lead management and sales process optimization. As proof, statistics show that most companies fail the test.
According to a study done for Harvard Business Review, 71% of qualified leads are never followed up with. Yet of the leads that are contacted, they're only touched an average of 1.3 times. These are wasted opportunities that your company pays for and works hard to obtain.
If you know your prospect's preferred mode of communication, it's easy to determine how to first reach out. If you're not sure the best way to contact your lead, consider the type of lead, where they are in the buyer's journey, and how you obtained their information.
Email is quick and efficient, and often considered less intrusive as it doesn't interrupt the recipient's day. For this reason, it may be best to send an email or two to introduce yourself before you make a call.
A well-received phone call to a prospect can establish a rapport that is hard to achieve electronically. However, you should always be prepared to leave a voicemail. If the prospect has seen your earlier messages, they are more likely to recognize your name or company and make the connection.
Bounce rates and spam filters are a reality of our electronic age and busy decision makers often screen their voicemails. But try to avoid sending the same information multiple times. Being redundant is insulting to the prospect and reinforces their belief that you are a mass-marketing robot devoid of the ability to deliver a personalized, relevant message.
Each communication should contain a different insight. Be sure to keep record of what message you've sent to which prospects to avoid being repetitive.
Much like dating, inbound sales also has a 48-hour rule. If you don't get a response from your first email or phone call, wait two days and try again, making sure to reposition your message slightly.
You may want try a different day or time to make your move – Studies show sales reps are 49% more likely to make contact with a lead on Thursday vs. Tuesday, and a whopping 164% more likely to make contact between 4 – 5 PM than 1 – 2 PM.
In follow-up attempts, start with a quick reminder that you've reached out before, identify how you obtained their contact information and that you'd like to discuss how you can help them better achieve their goals. Always end the message with an invitation to connect.
Send tailored messages every 48 hours, making at least 6 attempts to reach the prospect. Why 6? Research reveals that you have a 90% chance of making contact with your target after 6 attempts, versus less than 40% chance for only one attempt.
These mechanized recommendations may seem contradictory with regard to inbound sales, where the goal is to establish a relationship with your client and make the transaction more personal. However, having a clear and concise lead-management system will ensure not a single lead falls through the cracks, which will help you achieve your goal of building those valuable relationships.


Abstract: This article introduces a new spatial price analysis methodology based on maximum likelihood estimation of a mixture distribution model incorporating price, transfer cost, and trade flow data. This method permits differentiation between market integration and competitive market equilibrium and derivation of intuitive measures of intermarket tradability, competitive market equilibrium, perfect integration, segmented equilibrium, and segmented disequilibrium. One can also use these estimates to derive semiparametric measures of time-varying regime probabilities to track changing market conditions. An application to trade in soybean meal among Pacific Rim economies demonstrates the usefulness of the method. Copyright 2002, Oxford University Press.


Smithville is a small community in the township of West Lincoln, located on Regional Road 20 between Hamilton and Niagara Falls. It is largely an agricultural community and well known for its dairy and poultry production.
Every year in early June the Poultry Fest takes place in Smithville. Visitors and residents from around the area come to visit and to see the town's display of agricultural pride. There is also the annual Agricultural Fair, held on Labour Day weekend. It has agricultural competitions, a demolition derby and live entertainment for all ages.
Murgatroyd Parkette is a local park, full of trees and benches. It also features the town clock (from the original post office) mounted on a pedestal.
Big changes are coming to Hamilton's west harbour, with several developers combining their efforts to create new green space, housing, cafés and stores. Would you like to be one of the estimated 2,000 people to move there in the next 10 years? Go to https://www.facebook.com/BillyDeeJ for more info.


Ius Laboris is an alliance of law firms offering employers cross-border employment labour and pensions law advice. It now has over 1,400 specialist HR lawyers in over 135 cities and 50 countries worldwide. Ius Laboris offers access to the best local HR law experts in one global team with 24% more ranked employment lawyers (Chambers & Partners, June 2014) in 10% more recommended jurisdictions (Legal 500, July 2014) than any other global HR legal services organization. It has the highest ranking, being ranked as an Elite band 1 global employment network (Chambers Global Guide, June 2014). In October 2014, Ius Laboris was recommended in the Financial Times Special Report Innovative Lawyers for client service. Clients include many household names as well as multinational companies in all sectors ranging from energy, retail and technology to pharmaceuticals.
Mathews Dinsdale was voted in at the Alliance's annual Board meeting held in Chicago on May 7, 2015 with immediate effect.
More information on Ius Laboris can be found here.


A thesis paper can be a big stress factor in college life. Days in the library can turn into late nights with lots of caffeine and headaches. It can sometimes feel endless and isolating, or if you're working long hours at a job, juggling both is difficult. Sometimes things can go wrong at the last minute, or work can be lost. There are a million different reasons why you might not be able to get your thesis paper done on time. If something does go wrong, you don't have to worry because you can buy thesis papers quickly and easily from DegreeWay. We have years of experience helping people graduate and submit their thesis papers on time.
Our Ph.D. writers have been crafting thesis papers for years and if you buy a thesis from us, you can rest assured that you are buying a genuine, one of a kind thesis paper. If you need a masters paper, Ph.D. paper, or undergraduate thesis we provide a custom, professional service and a team of world-class academic writers. Our thesis writing service is the best out there, and we know this because we only hire the best writers and communicate with students every step of the way to make sure you're getting a paper that will help you graduate. Buy thesis is sometimes the best option, and our clients know this.
Confidentiality – Always. It's our golden rule, we will not share your information with anyone.
24/7 support – we're there whenever you need us, whether at 4 am or 4 pm our writers are always available to support you with any task you need.
Buy a thesis from us when you need it, and we'll make sure you get where you need to be.
DegreeWay is a custom thesis writing service that guarantees reliable, high quality and professional thesis papers. It's our job to make sure the work we provide is the standard students need to excel academically, we take this role seriously and we strive to be the best in the market for our services. Our writers have first class degrees and come from a variety of educational disciplines, from Biology grads to English lit grads, we carefully choose top quality writers. They have years of writing experience and have been vetted extensively before we hire them. We can write a thesis paper on any topic needed and if you want to buy a master thesis online then we make the process comfortable and supportive because we understand how difficult papers can be. Write my thesis has never been this easy.
To buy a thesis paper from us is easy. We can deliver your thesis to meet the tightest deadlines. If you need to buy a Ph.D. thesis or buy masters thesis, our writers can accommodate everything.
When buying a thesis online there are a few simple things to consider. When choosing the type of paper you want, do you need to buy a Ph.D. thesis? Or buy a standard thesis paper?
There's also the cost question, how much do thesis papers cost to buy? This varies depending on the type of paper you want and the time you need it in, if you need it quickly, it might be a bit more expensive, but our prices are always reasonable among dissertation writing services.
We always recommend not waiting to buy a thesis. It's quick and easy and will save you worry in the future or for the weeks in the build-up to your due date. We can do all the work and you can achieve the next big thing in your life. Buy thesis online, and save time.


text:
Gus Greensmith – "There's no other rally than gives me more satisfaction behind the wheel"
Teemu Suninen – "The rally is always a lottery"
Double Title Glory For Richardson Racing
by Simon Paice October 9, 2012
written by Simon Paice October 9, 2012
Richardson Racing enjoyed a stunning weekend of success at Silverstone, securing two pole positions, two wins, two lap records and two championship titles in the penultimate meeting of the Michelin Ginetta GT Supercup.
In the G55 class, Andrew Richardson secured a long awaited maiden overall win, while a fourteenth class win of the season secured Mark Davies the G50 title for 2012, with their combined success wrapping up the teams' championship for the Grantham-based outfit.
Richardson's weekend started perfectly when he stormed to pole position in qualifying and it continued in the opening race, the 21 year old fighting back after slipping to second early on to re-gain the lead on lap eleven, leading the remainder to take the win, setting a new lap record in the process.
From pole in race two, Richardson was beaten into turn one by Carl Breeze, before a forceful move from Tom Sharp damaged his G55, eventually dropping him to a fourth place finish.
"It's been a good weekend and I'm pleased to have got my first win," he said. "I said before we got to Silverstone that we needed to get a victory to show our pace and it's great that we were able to do it.
"Having taken pole, broken the lap record and set the fastest lap in both races, I think we proved a point this weekend although I am a bit disappointed that I wasn't able to at least finish on the podium in race two as well. The car was quick but the tracking was knocked out when Tom hit me as he got ahead, and the splitter was also damaged, so we had to settle for fourth.
"However, as a team we have wrapped up the teams' championship with a round to go, and that is a fantastic achievement. Hopefully we can celebrate in style at Brands Hatch."
For Davies, the focus at Silverstone was to wrap up the championship title and he put himself on the right track with pole in qualifying, which he duly converted in to a dominant win.
Davies once again led from start to finish in the second race, although a five second penalty for exceeding track limits meant he was demoted to second in the final results. It was still enough to finally land him the class title though, with the Cardowan Creameries-backed driver hoping to move into a G55 for the final rounds of the year.
"I really wanted to try and wrap the championship up this weekend and hopefully I can now get into a G55 for the final round of the season and fight at the front," he said. "We had a good run in the first race to take another win and that made things a lot easier for race two as I knew that I only really needed to finish to become champion.
"It was a bit frustrating to get the penalty in race two and I didn't see it, but in the end it didn't matter and I got the points that I needed to lift the title.
"Coming into the season, my aim was to win the championship and from the first practice session at Brands Hatch, I knew the car was up to the job. The team has worked well all season, and whenever they have suggested making a change to the car and have said what it will do, it's done exactly what they said – and that hasn't always been the case with other teams in the past. At this level, they are one of the best teams I've been with."
Davies was joined in the G50 class for the weekend by series debutant Giles Dawson. The managing director of Aero Tec Laboratories was making his first racing appearance for two years and qualified fourth in class, before finishing both encounters fifth in class.
"I knew coming into the weekend that it was going to take time to get my eye in again, but I got there in the end," he said. "I hoped I might be able to get a podium finish and I think I just needed some more time in the car to really push and fight for a stronger result.
"At the moment, the deal was just for Silverstone but when it comes to Brands Hatch, who knows? Watch this space…"
Photos: Jakob Ebrey Photography
Andrew RichardsonGiles DawsonMark DaviesRichardson Racing
Simon Paice
Simon provides coverage of the support championships for the BTCC, having been a fixture in the TOCA paddock for over six years.
Richardson Racing join Porsche Carrera Cup GB grid for 2020 with Will...
PREVIEW: British F4 – Brands Hatch GP
Foster takes victory as championship rivals Alvarez & Maloney collide
Alvarez draws level on points with Maloney after triumph at wet Silverstone
Lights-to-flag win for Double R's Louis Foster
Foster seals crucial double Silverstone pole position
PREVIEW: British F4 – Silverstone
British F4: Seven drivers still in championship contention after dramatic Knockhill weekend
Williams doubles up for JHR Developments 1-2
Lack Of Pace Leaves Dalton Struggling At Silverstone
Jordan King Next To Star On Sky Sports F1
Barwell Motorsport to go for 3 in the...


This infographic is available for download here.
Neurologist Judy Willis explains that all information that comes into the brain is filtered through the amygdala. It is the area of the brain responsible for deciding what memories are stored and where.
When a learner becomes bored, the amygdala becomes hyperactive and it sends all of the information it receives to the lower 80 per cent of the brain. According to Judy, this is the "animal brain, the reactive, involuntary brain". Boredom means that important learning content isn't remembered.
Repetition rocks – use it or lose it.
Most people will have experienced the sore hand and bad hand-writing that accompanies the first day back to school after a long summer break. The same issue follows learners into adulthood. Just like the muscles in our hands, neural pathways are weakened over time. This means that if learners are not using knowledge or skills gained through training, they will begin to forget it.
We all have an information limit.
Educational Psychologist John Sweller first coined the term "Cognitive Overload" in 1998. The idea is that we have a finite amount of working memory at our disposal to process and understand information. When a learner is presented with information, it is important that it is delivered in bite-sized chunks which he or she can reasonably process.
We all need a reason.
If a learner can't make the connection between learning content and application in their everyday life, they won't have a reason and therefore the motivation to understand the topic presented to them. As the person guiding learning and development, it is your role to communicate expectations and the motive behind learning a particular piece of knowledge or skill.
Primacy – If at first you don't succeed.
The first time learners receive teaching, it creates a strong impression upon them. It's important to present information in a logical and clear manner at the start of any training module. The foundation of learning that you set in place becomes the map students use to navigate all further information.
We know that our list is by no means extensive; there are many different factors to be taken into account when authoring great learning content. We would love to hear what principles you think are most important when creating learning content that engages learners and have worked for your organisation. Please feel free to leave a comment below with if you can think of anymore principles every L&D professional needs to know. We would love to hear your learning and particularly e-learning successes.


text:
Local News & Views
World News & Views
BayViewTV
Abolition Now!
Pen Pals
Prisoners' Subscription Fund
Apprentice Training
Requests for Proposals and Qualifications
Meet the Bay View Crew!
Abolition Now! Alternatives to Jerry Brown's 'more cages' prison plan proposed
Alternatives to Jerry Brown's 'more cages' prison plan proposed
by Dick Price and Sharon Kyle
Gov. Jerry Brown's just-proposed plan to ease overcrowding in California prisons without releasing inmates early has drawn quick opposition from prison reform activists across the state and has spawned an alternative approach from a contingent of moderate and liberal Democrats in the state legislature, creating an unusual rift among senior Democrats in the age-old incarceration-rehabilitation divide that usually pits Republican against Democrat.
Announced Tuesday, Aug. 27, Brown's plan would spend more than $1.2 billion over three years to rent beds in private prisons here in California and in other states, reopen city-owned detention facilities in the Central Valley, keep open a state prison slated for closure and put more prisoners in county jails, including the already "bursting at the seams" L.A. County Jail system.
Designed to comply with federal court mandates to reduce prison overcrowding, Brown's plan drew quick and whole-hearted support from fellow Democrat Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, Republican Senate and Assembly leaders Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, and Assemblywoman Connie Conway, R-Tulare, law enforcement officials, victims' rights groups and the state's powerful prison guards' union.
Less impressed were community activists.
"With a year-end compliance deadline looming, they give us the worst possible deal, delighting not only Republicans but rewarding the prison guards' union with a package that includes extensive use of private prisons that will be staffed with the highest-paid guards in the nation," remarked Rev. Peter Laarman of Justice Not Jails.
In response, community groups – including Californians United for a Responsible Budget and the ACLU of Southern California – have begun collecting signatures and encouraging Californians to contact their legislators to stop what CURB calls the "worst possible scenario not just for prison reform in California – but for our schools, our roads, our hospitals and our social services."
Sacramento listening?
By Wednesday, opposition to the Brown-Perez plan had formed in the state Senate, led by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, along with 16 fellow Democratic senators, including Sen. Kevin de Leόn, D-Los Angeles.
"We have a broken system and simply pouring more money down that drain won't fix it," Sen. de Leόn stated.
"We need a new approach and one that emphasizes more than incarceration, but rehabilitation as well," de Leόn said after recently meeting with a contingent of prison and drug policy reform activists in his Northeast Los Angeles district.
Community groups – including Californians United for a Responsible Budget and the ACLU of Southern California – have begun collecting signatures and encouraging Californians to contact their legislators to stop what CURB calls the "worst possible scenario not just for prison reform in California – but for our schools, our roads, our hospitals and our social services."
Earlier this month, a group of prison and drug policy reform activists met with de Leόn to urge him to vote yes on California's AB 218, a piece of legislation dubbed "Ban-the-Box" that would prohibit state and local agencies from including a box on employment applications requiring applicants to disclose criminal convictions. The measure would not preclude agencies from gaining prior criminal history information after determining the applicant meets the job's minimum employment qualifications.
Proponents of the measure argue that without this legislation, agencies will continue to do what they have been doing – tossing out the employment applications of formerly incarcerated people before giving the application a once over.
De Leόn, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, represents a district whose constituents are heavily impacted by the state's high rate of incarceration. AB 218 and other Ban-the-Box legislation across the country are gaining broad support from a groundswell of community activists, formerly incarcerated and their loved ones in response to the high rates of unemployment and the high rates of recidivism.
Experts assert that increased recidivism is highly correlated with the inability of formerly incarcerated people to find gainful employment. AB 218 takes a step to mitigate this.
The coalition of organizations including Justice not Jails, Homeboy Industries, the Drug Policy Alliance, A New Way of Life, All of Us or None and the LA Progressive convened in the senator's Echo Park office where they took turns sharing the reasons they support the measure. De Leόn listened and then assured the petitioners that he supported the measure.
The bill was passed on Aug. 12. During that same week Attorney General Eric Holder announced major federal sentencing changes, including dropping the use of mandatory minimum sentencing in certain drug cases, and U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the New York City police violated the civil rights of minorities with the implementation of their "Stop-and-Frisk" policy.
With these victories for prison and drug policy reform and the flurry of legislation across the country decriminalizing marijuana use and "banning the box," it seems the criminal justice tide is turning. Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, California's more liberal Democrats may not want to be on the wrong side of this issue.
The governor and his allies, on the other hand, have a different plan.
Opposition grows
Outlined in Senate Bill 105, Brown's plan earmarks $315 million in the first year and more than $400 million in two subsequent years, to rent private and out-of-state space for 8,000 inmates to bring California's prison population to 137.5 percent of capacity by year's end, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Efforts by the Brown administration to extend that deadline have so far fallen on deaf ears.
By contrast, Steinberg's counterproposal would use a three-year extension of that deadline during which California counties would get $200 million per year to expand drug treatment and mental health care for criminal offenders, far less expensively and more effectively than the "no end in sight" Brown plan.
"The governor's proposal is a plan with no promise and no hope," Steinberg said in a statement. "As the population of California grows, it's only a short matter of time until new prison cells overflow."
Indeed, it is hard to imagine the state's prison-industrial complex putting the mechanisms in place to house these additional 8,000 inmates – getting all the private prison contracts negotiated, hiring and training the guards and support staff, moving the prisoners hither and yon – and suddenly after three years saying, OK, now it's time for rehabilitation.
No, once you've got that prison bedspace capacity in place, you're going to find a reason to keep it – and then grow it. Forty years of California's exploding prison population tells you all you need to know.
Steinberg's plan would also set up an independent panel to determine appropriate prison population levels and an advisory committee to recommend changes to the state's sentencing laws that have done so much to pack California prisons to the gills, often with low-level drug offenders, elderly long-term prisoners, and others who could better serve themselves, their families, their communities, and California taxpayers through effective supervised release and community-based rehabilitation and support systems.
Although both Brown and Perez waived off Steinberg's plan with the usual talk of keeping as many prisoners behind bars for as long as possible in the name of "keeping the public safe," far more effective and humane approaches are available to fix California's broken criminal justice system. Included at the county level are programs to increase the use of split sentences – part in jail, part supervised released – develop alternatives to detention for pretrial detainees, and expand community support systems as opposed to endless incarceration.
And the tide seems to be turning for the public as well. Commissioned by Californians for Safety and Justice, recent survey results by David Binder Research circulated by the Steinberg camp show
overwhelming public support for the Public Safety Commission (74 percent) his plan recommends,
plans to release elderly and frail inmates who are no longer a threat to public safety (70 percent),
better mental health services for the mentally ill rather than putting them in prison (80 percent),
rewarding counties for reducing the number of people they send to prison (59 percent), and
allowing inmates to earn their way out of prison with good behavior and completing rehabilitation, job training and educational programs (66 percent).
But will that be enough? As Peter Laarman said: "The real threat Democrats are worried about is not crime but possible backlash from Republicans and law enforcement. It's pure politics, in other words, only there's nothing very 'pure' about perpetuating suffering and betraying California voters for the sake of political expediency."
Dick Price and Sharon Kyle are editor and publisher of LA Progressive, where this story first appeared.
"BAN THE BOX"
All of Us or None
Assemblywoman Connie Conway
Attorney General Eric Holder
Brown administration
Brown-Perez plan
California prison guards
California sentencing laws
California taxpayers
California's AB 218
California's broken criminal justice system
California's prison population
Californians for Safety and Justice
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Chowchilla Freedom Rally
city-owned detention facilities in the Central Valley
civil rights of minorities
community activists
community-based rehabilitation and support systems
county jails
David Binder Research
decriminalizing marijuana use
Democrat Assembly Speaker John Perez
Dick Price
disclose criminal convictions
Drug Policy Alliance
drug treatment and mental health care for criminal offenders
federal sentencing changes
formerly incarcerated people
Gov. Jerry Brown
high rate of incarceration
high rates of recidivism
high rates of unemployment
Homeboy Industries
incarceration-rehabilitation divide
Justice not Jails
L.A. County Jail system
LA Progressive
mandatory minimum sentencing
mental health services for the mentally ill
moderate and liberal Democrats
Northeast Los Angeles district
overcrowding in California prisons
Peter Laarman
prior criminal history information
prison and drug policy reform
prison and drug policy reform activists
prison guards union
prison reform activists
prison reform in California
private prison contracts
private prisons
Public Safety Commission
reduce prison overcrowding
rehabilitation job training and educational programs
release elderly and frail inmates
Republican against Democrat
Rev. Peter Laarman of Justice Not Jails
Sen. Bob Huff
Sen. Kevin de Leόn
Senate Appropriations Committee
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg
senior Democrats
Sharon Kyle
stop-and-frisk policy
U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin
victims' rights groups
50th Anniversary Black August Commemoration at San Quentin Prison West Gate 8/21, 11 a.m.
Wanda's Picks August 2021: Interview with Pamela Price
Recognizing prison resistance: From George Jackson and Attica to the Agreement to End Hostilities
WE are the 'eight ball'!
50+ organizations demand San Francisco release people from jails to mitigate COVID-19 spread
Prisons in a time of pandemic: Protect our loved ones inside
New California bill aims to eliminate racial and other biases in hiring
Celebrating Alkebulan: African love, Black joy, resistance and futures!
Introducing the Free South Carolina Movement
The San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper was founded in 1976 to serve thought-provoking stories and commentary on the full range of Black trials and triumphs.
4917 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94124
editor@sfbayview.com
Political Prisoner Kwame Shakur, speaks to Harvard, Howard law students