I know we've got some space fans on here. I've come across this Twitter feed featuring photos and videos of Energia/Buran (the Soviet Shuttle), most of which I've never seen before.
If it's anything like accurate, and the number who have already voted is accurate, this is over. Sunak should bow out to get Johnson gone ASAP and stop the blue on blue warfare. Sunak lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is tremendous value unless Truss walks out in front of a bus.
No Tory members vote has been close. We're only 3 weeks from the scheduled end, it's too late to pull out.
He doesn't seem the type to accept a lesser post after holding a Great Office, so he's probably resigned to not being in the Truss Cabinet anyway, so no harm in pushing her all the way.
I recall that in his resignation letter to Bozo, Sunak said that being Chancellor was likely to have been his last job in government.
I thought he was just being mawkish in his martyrdom, but perhaps he had a sense of his prospects against other candidates even then.
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
I don't know, their unintentional comedic point is pretty funny, so I think it is entirely sincere that they cannot see it.
I think people are very good at holding irreconcilable opinions at the same time. I imagine they get around this one by insisting they don't censor acts that take place, they just don't host acts they don't like the content of, obviating the need to censor in the first place - the material exists uncensored, but unseen.
When I was at university, a friend was mucking around with neural nets - this was the 90s and the GPU stuff for that came much later.
His chosen thing was processing ancient texts - they have been copied and modified many times. Everything we have from the ancient Greeks, for example, has been copied many times and often hacked and modified. Often we don't know who the author or authors were. We have a number of different versions, often, as well.
What his software was doing was learning to identify style patterns by authors. Many texts were actually written by multiple authors. He trained it on known examples and then set it loose on various other texts.
The university authorities woke up (ha) and pulled him in for an interview without coffee - nearly an interview without chair. They told him that if he ran his software against several quite old texts - one in particular got some emphasis, he would be thrown off his PhD and if he even tried to complain they would tar his name in public.
The funny bit was that they dressed this up with a big speech about freedom of expression, compassion, understanding and being a Good Egg in general.
So what was the gist of their objection? That revealing that this text had multiple authors would leave the academic consensus in ruins?
Interesting that punters make it a 49.5% chance that the Tories will win an overall majority.
Labour haven't won an election since 2005, and they only won in 2005 because of their strength in Scotland and a fluky distribution of votes in England. And then Keir Starmer. He's not exactly Harold Wilson is he?
If it's anything like accurate, and the number who have already voted is accurate, this is over. Sunak should bow out to get Johnson gone ASAP and stop the blue on blue warfare. Sunak lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is tremendous value unless Truss walks out in front of a bus.
No Tory members vote has been close. We're only 3 weeks from the scheduled end, it's too late to pull out.
He doesn't seem the type to accept a lesser post after holding a Great Office, so he's probably resigned to not being in the Truss Cabinet anyway, so no harm in pushing her all the way.
I recall that in his resignation letter to Bozo, Sunak said that being Chancellor was likely to have been his last job in government.
I would be staggered if he now serves in a Truss administration after the blue-on-blue attacks and his predictions of disaster. How on earth could he accept Cabinet responsibility for her bonkers schemes??
Will he quietly bide his time on the backbench waiting the crashing end or just sod off to CA? He doesn't need the money of a corporate life and Richmond is a beautiful part of the world to spend half your week living in.
If it's anything like accurate, and the number who have already voted is accurate, this is over. Sunak should bow out to get Johnson gone ASAP and stop the blue on blue warfare. Sunak lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is tremendous value unless Truss walks out in front of a bus.
No Tory members vote has been close. We're only 3 weeks from the scheduled end, it's too late to pull out.
He doesn't seem the type to accept a lesser post after holding a Great Office, so he's probably resigned to not being in the Truss Cabinet anyway, so no harm in pushing her all the way.
I recall that in his resignation letter to Bozo, Sunak said that being Chancellor was likely to have been his last job in government.
I thought he was just being mawkish in his martyrdom, but perhaps he had a sense of his prospects against other candidates even then.
It was more likely just a poor attempt to make it look like he wasn’t the one wielding the knife against Johnson.
I think Truss's margin of victory does matter in terms of her likely future removal as leader.
ie If it's in the region of 57/43 after initial expectations of her getting 65%+ then it makes it more likely MPs will feel inclined to remove her that bit quicker.
If it's anything like accurate, and the number who have already voted is accurate, this is over. Sunak should bow out to get Johnson gone ASAP and stop the blue on blue warfare. Sunak lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is tremendous value unless Truss walks out in front of a bus.
I'm think I read somewhere that the current leadership rules meant that you couldn't pull out during the competition? Might well be wrong though.
I know we've got some space fans on here. I've come across this Twitter feed featuring photos and videos of Energia/Buran (the Soviet Shuttle), most of which I've never seen before.
If it's anything like accurate, and the number who have already voted is accurate, this is over. Sunak should bow out to get Johnson gone ASAP and stop the blue on blue warfare. Sunak lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is tremendous value unless Truss walks out in front of a bus.
It looks over. Though 68% of Tory members would still prefer Johnson to be PM than Sunak and 63% would still prefer Johnson to be PM than Truss
That's more than Corbyn got in the 2016 leadership election (62%). The Conservatives have got the advantage of a system where BoJo couldn't run again, but if Truss stumbles at all, she's in trouble.
The other ominous echo? MPs- the ones with skin in the game- twigged that Jez and Bozza had to go. Armchair generals in Momentum and the great Conservative Retirement club, seem to have told them "tough".
I think Truss's margin of victory does matter in terms of her likely future removal as leader.
ie If it's in the region of 57/43 after initial expectations of her getting 65%+ then it makes it more likely MPs will feel inclined to remove her that bit quicker.
On that Opinium poll her margin of victory almost exactly matches IDS' in 2001. Tory MPs removed him in 2 years. Truss may be saved by the fact a general election will likely be held in Spring 2024
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
I don't know, their unintentional comedic point is pretty funny, so I think it is entirely sincere that they cannot see it.
I think people are very good at holding irreconcilable opinions at the same time. I imagine they get around this one by insisting they don't censor acts that take place, they just don't host acts they don't like the content of, obviating the need to censor in the first place - the material exists uncensored, but unseen.
When I was at university, a friend was mucking around with neural nets - this was the 90s and the GPU stuff for that came much later.
His chosen thing was processing ancient texts - they have been copied and modified many times. Everything we have from the ancient Greeks, for example, has been copied many times and often hacked and modified. Often we don't know who the author or authors were. We have a number of different versions, often, as well.
What his software was doing was learning to identify style patterns by authors. Many texts were actually written by multiple authors. He trained it on known examples and then set it loose on various other texts.
The university authorities woke up (ha) and pulled him in for an interview without coffee - nearly an interview without chair. They told him that if he ran his software against several quite old texts - one in particular got some emphasis, he would be thrown off his PhD and if he even tried to complain they would tar his name in public.
The funny bit was that they dressed this up with a big speech about freedom of expression, compassion, understanding and being a Good Egg in general.
I think he exaggerated to make your flesh creep. By the 90s that sort of shit was routine and not regarded as terribly conclusive anyway.
Interesting that punters make it a 49.5% chance that the Tories will win an overall majority.
Labour haven't won an election since 2005, and they only won in 2005 because of their strength in Scotland and a fluky distribution of votes in England. And then Keir Starmer. He's not exactly Harold Wilson is he?
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
The height of absurdity. The director is tangling himself in impossibly illogical knots. You can’t be both pro-free speech and then engage in cancel culture.
He should have said “free speech has limits” or been brutally honest and said “I don’t agree with this, but we’re scared of the thugs” or even more honest, “this is a commercial decision”
No idea what this is about, but belief in freedom of speech does not mean that the free speaker has an untrammelled right to utilise the editorial pages of the Times, the Albert Hall, Penguin Books or my kitchen to express them. Venues in general are like publishers. They can be editors if they want to be.
Certainly they can, but it is pretty weird to emphasise your free speech credentials at the same time as deciding you don't wish to host that particular bit of speech. If they want to lean more on the 'must align with our values' side of things that is fine, but it comes across as schizophrenic (or as Eabhal notes, dishonest) to highlight the 'we do not censor' whilst making an editorial call.
"Look, we're no prudes but when he got naked and did what he did to that trifle, so close to all the toddlers in the front row ... well it was too much and we had to act."
I think that's the essence of the statement. Right or wrong there's nothing massively illogical with it imo.
I was being told at our celebratory lunch today by my son's chinese girlfriend that in Mandarin 4 is a very unlucky number because it sounds like the word for death. Maybe they have a point.
If you are in a political party (and it doesn't really matter which one) there is or should be a sense of the importance of what some call "loyalty" and what other such democratic leaders as Lenin and Hitler called "discipline".
In a party, you either support the leader and the policies of the party or you don't and if you don't you say nothing publicly. Internally, debate the issues, discuss the policies, argue your position but once it has been decided what the position is, you follow it wither enthusiastically or less so.
Tony Blair stood as candidate for Sedgefield on the 1983 Labour Manifesto and I suspect there were parts of it with which he wasn't wholly in favour. Liz Truss has presumably supported publicly Major, Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard, Cameron, May and Johnson. You might say that's an eclectic bunch but the fact remains as party leaders it is incumbent on party members to support them and to push forward the policies and the party programme articulated by that leader.
If you make it to leader then it's your turn and you have, I'd argue, a right to expect the same loyalty from the party members that you provided for past leaders. I don't imagine Jeremy Corbyn was a huge fan of Blair's policies in 1997 but he stood as a Labour candidate on those policies.
As leader, it's your opportunity to move the party in the direction you think is right - what happened in the past is irrelevant and those using what Starmer did under Corbyn could argue how Liz Truss served David Cameron for example. In truth, it doesn't matter.
Truss has her view on where the Conservative Party should be heading and she will expect the party to unite behind her once the leadership election is over and I'm sure that will happen. Whether that's the right direction or, as the Spectator column linked to this morning suggested, it doesn't matter as long as it keeps the party in Government is another question or questions.
Both she and Starmer (and others) will have the opportunity to put forward their programmes for the direction of the country in the second half of this decade and beyond and as voters we have the right (indeed, obligation) to scrutinise and challenge and that will be at the election.
I know we've got some space fans on here. I've come across this Twitter feed featuring photos and videos of Energia/Buran (the Soviet Shuttle), most of which I've never seen before.
Maybe "For All Mankind" on Apple TV got this right?
*Whispers queitly*
Energia/Buran was a superior system to the US Shuttle. for one thing, the booster could be used independently to boost massive loads into orbit without the orbiter on it.
There are some very bad taste Man Utd jokes currently working their way around the internet.
Let’s hope the Glazers know about the football pyramid, and don’t think they bought a “Premier League franchise”.
What's the difference between a triangle and Man Utd?
I wouldn't overeact. Man U had 15 shots and De Gea gifted the 1st 2 goals. And it's VERY early days in the season.
I might have a nibble for Top 4 if the price has gone stupid.
So you think Man U might finish above one of last years top 5? Which one? Because I can’t see it.
Yeah they arent getting above Man City, Pool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham or likely West Ham, Newcastle and someone else or 2 will likely surprise on the upside. Man U to grub 9th or 10th.
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
I don't know, their unintentional comedic point is pretty funny, so I think it is entirely sincere that they cannot see it.
I think people are very good at holding irreconcilable opinions at the same time. I imagine they get around this one by insisting they don't censor acts that take place, they just don't host acts they don't like the content of, obviating the need to censor in the first place - the material exists uncensored, but unseen.
When I was at university, a friend was mucking around with neural nets - this was the 90s and the GPU stuff for that came much later.
His chosen thing was processing ancient texts - they have been copied and modified many times. Everything we have from the ancient Greeks, for example, has been copied many times and often hacked and modified. Often we don't know who the author or authors were. We have a number of different versions, often, as well.
What his software was doing was learning to identify style patterns by authors. Many texts were actually written by multiple authors. He trained it on known examples and then set it loose on various other texts.
The university authorities woke up (ha) and pulled him in for an interview without coffee - nearly an interview without chair. They told him that if he ran his software against several quite old texts - one in particular got some emphasis, he would be thrown off his PhD and if he even tried to complain they would tar his name in public.
The funny bit was that they dressed this up with a big speech about freedom of expression, compassion, understanding and being a Good Egg in general.
Blimey, what were they so concerned about? Questionable authorship seems to be generally accepted of a lot of things.
Religious texts - several religions say that X wrote the whole thing. Often by/with/from/to/for/at/near Chief Sky Fairy in question.
They were worried that when confronted with a scientific paper saying actually it was written by 37 blokes over a period of hundreds of years.....
If it's anything like accurate, and the number who have already voted is accurate, this is over. Sunak should bow out to get Johnson gone ASAP and stop the blue on blue warfare. Sunak lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is tremendous value unless Truss walks out in front of a bus.
It looks over. Though 68% of Tory members would still prefer Johnson to be PM than Sunak and 63% would still prefer Johnson to be PM than Truss
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
I don't know, their unintentional comedic point is pretty funny, so I think it is entirely sincere that they cannot see it.
I think people are very good at holding irreconcilable opinions at the same time. I imagine they get around this one by insisting they don't censor acts that take place, they just don't host acts they don't like the content of, obviating the need to censor in the first place - the material exists uncensored, but unseen.
When I was at university, a friend was mucking around with neural nets - this was the 90s and the GPU stuff for that came much later.
His chosen thing was processing ancient texts - they have been copied and modified many times. Everything we have from the ancient Greeks, for example, has been copied many times and often hacked and modified. Often we don't know who the author or authors were. We have a number of different versions, often, as well.
What his software was doing was learning to identify style patterns by authors. Many texts were actually written by multiple authors. He trained it on known examples and then set it loose on various other texts.
The university authorities woke up (ha) and pulled him in for an interview without coffee - nearly an interview without chair. They told him that if he ran his software against several quite old texts - one in particular got some emphasis, he would be thrown off his PhD and if he even tried to complain they would tar his name in public.
The funny bit was that they dressed this up with a big speech about freedom of expression, compassion, understanding and being a Good Egg in general.
Blimey, what were they so concerned about? Questionable authorship seems to be generally accepted of a lot of things.
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
I don't know, their unintentional comedic point is pretty funny, so I think it is entirely sincere that they cannot see it.
I think people are very good at holding irreconcilable opinions at the same time. I imagine they get around this one by insisting they don't censor acts that take place, they just don't host acts they don't like the content of, obviating the need to censor in the first place - the material exists uncensored, but unseen.
When I was at university, a friend was mucking around with neural nets - this was the 90s and the GPU stuff for that came much later.
His chosen thing was processing ancient texts - they have been copied and modified many times. Everything we have from the ancient Greeks, for example, has been copied many times and often hacked and modified. Often we don't know who the author or authors were. We have a number of different versions, often, as well.
What his software was doing was learning to identify style patterns by authors. Many texts were actually written by multiple authors. He trained it on known examples and then set it loose on various other texts.
The university authorities woke up (ha) and pulled him in for an interview without coffee - nearly an interview without chair. They told him that if he ran his software against several quite old texts - one in particular got some emphasis, he would be thrown off his PhD and if he even tried to complain they would tar his name in public.
The funny bit was that they dressed this up with a big speech about freedom of expression, compassion, understanding and being a Good Egg in general.
Blimey, what were they so concerned about? Questionable authorship seems to be generally accepted of a lot of things.
Religious texts - several religions say that X wrote the whole thing. Often by/with/from/to/for/at/near Chief Sky Fairy in question.
They were worried that when confronted with a scientific paper saying actually it was written by 37 blokes over a period of hundreds of years.....
I don't see why, the Bible has always been accepted to have been written by multiple sources
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Being a good communicator is not altogether a good thing if you're talking drivel.
Bozo or Dizzy Lizzy?
Is there a difference?
Liz thinks the Boris government has fundamentally failed to address systemic problems, has raised taxes to unacceptable levels, and that we need to try a bunch of unorthodox things in order to solve problems. She also thinks it was the greatest governement ever, and it is terrible that people took down Boris.
Yes yes, collective responsibility and all that, but given how she thinks government has failed for so long you'd think she'd be arguing Boris should have been removed ages ago.
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
it is Wokeness encapsulated. It is the same warped cognitively dissonant gibberish which can say "race is a social construct" = meaningless, while absolutely obsessing about skin colour, which is a genetic fact, not a social construct
My God I hate the Left. Come on Kari Lake, hurry up and win the White House
If it's anything like accurate, and the number who have already voted is accurate, this is over. Sunak should bow out to get Johnson gone ASAP and stop the blue on blue warfare. Sunak lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is tremendous value unless Truss walks out in front of a bus.
It looks over. Though 68% of Tory members would still prefer Johnson to be PM than Sunak and 63% would still prefer Johnson to be PM than Truss
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Not quite. A second referendum on the precise terms of Brexit, once they had been negotiated, would have been legitimate. Even @Leon thought so.
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
it is Wokeness encapsulated. It is the same warped cognitively dissonant gibberish which can say "race is a social construct" = meaningless, while absolutely obsessing about skin colour, which is a genetic fact, not a social construct
My God I hate the Left. Come on Kari Lake, hurry up and win the White House
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Why do Conservative Governments chase a new mandate every two or three years even when on the one occasion they had a decent little majority?
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
So much for the supremacy of parliament.
Did you advocate for a second vote? If you did, you should leave the PB forum. I'm serious
(I am also available, for a small fee, on giving advice on how to re-enter the forum)
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
The Lib Dem policy Labour roundly criticised a week ago. Forensic stuff.
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
So much for the supremacy of parliament.
Did you advocate for a second vote? If you did, you should leave the PB forum. I'm serious
(I am also available, for a small fee, on giving advice on how to re-enter the forum)
Er no. I was never in favour of a second referendum as I'm pretty sure I made clear at the time. Nevertheless, banning political parties from legislating for one even after they've secured a democratic majority is a tad unhinged.
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
The reality is, the energy companies who are buying at spot to supply their non-fixed customers, are paying ~£4k per year, per average household, right now (before taxes etc are added)
So Labours plan would mean a ~£2k bung from energy suppliers/extractors(?) and/or current/future taxpayers (to be decided) - to current taxpayers and non-taxpayers.
Hmm.
I’ll have to double check my figures, but it’s something like that.
£2k x however many households there are (?) per year. Bloody expensive.
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Hes such a cock. It does nothing to alleviate the underlying issue. The Tory response wont either. Embrace protectionism, the natural bedfellow of brexit
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Why do Conservative Governments chase a new mandate every two or three years even when on the one occasion they had a decent little majority?
Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is this. Seriously
We had the biggest, probably most important referendum in British history. 36 MILLION people voted, I believe that is the most ever for anything in the UK - and that on an extremely respectable 72% turnout. Almost three quarters of every eligible adult in the entire country. Massive. 17.4 MILLION people voted Leave - the most ever votes cast for any cause or party in the history of the United Kingdom. And they voted because the government, prime minster and civil service of the UK told them: this is it. One vote. Leave or Remain. You choose. We will respect your choice
Just imagine the chaos, anger and blood-letting that would have resulted, if that vote had been overturned, without honouring it, and we were asked to vote again, to provide the answer our betters wanted. Advocating for a 2nd vote was utter criminal madness. It was a kind of constitutional nihilism
Anyone that seriously did it should slink away in shame
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
I recall thinking, even as a LEAVE voter, we needed to have some form of consultation or ratification of what was being proposed and it was suggested competing visions of Britain outside the EU could be put forward and voted on by the electorate at a General Election.
That didn't happen and, perjorative language aside, those who were on the wrong side of the vote in 2016 played a bad hand dreadfully from then until 2019.
Perhaps they thought the tensions within the Conservative Party would cause a schism and allow a broadly pro-EU majority to come through to Westminster and the 2017 election emboldened that. Indeed, that election was the worst possible outcome for those looking to subvert the 2016 vote because it gave them hope.
Had, as the polls suggested, May won a crushing landslide, three things would have happened - Corbyn would probably have quit two and a half years earlier, May's authority would have been enhanced to the point whatever she proposed would have gone through Parliament and we'd have been out the EU much sooner and those hoping for some subversion of the 2016 vote would have given up much sooner.
Those who voted LEAVE in 2016 were united only in the desire not to remain within the EU - there was very little unanimity around the kind of post-EU vision. Many wanted it to be about immigration, others had other ideas but the pain and anguish of the Referendum debate (and the dreadful murder of Jo Cox) meant there was no appetite for a further debate on the kind of withdrawal package. The British public and media abdicated any interest and left it up to the Government to "sort it out".
Being a good communicator is not altogether a good thing if you're talking drivel.
Indeed, when discussing communication skills with Medical students, I am always clear that while techniques, tone and empathy matter, the important ting about communication is that it is about the interchange of content. All the skills in the world are no good if there is no content. Without it, it is just bullshit.
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Why do Conservative Governments chase a new mandate every two or three years even when on the one occasion they had a decent little majority?
Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is this. Seriously
We had the biggest, probably most important referendum in British history. 36 MILLION people voted, I believe that is the most ever for anything in the UK - and that on an extremely respectable 72% turnout. Almost three quarters of every eligible adult in the entire country. Massive. 17.4 MILLION people voted Leave - the most ever votes cast for any cause or party in the history of the United Kingdom. And they voted because the government, prime minster and civil service of the UK told them: this is it. One vote. Leave or Remain. You choose. We will respect your choice
Just imagine the chaos, anger and blood-letting that would have resulted, if that vote had been overturned, without honouring it, and we were asked to vote again, to provide the answer our betters wanted. Advocating for a 2nd vote was utter criminal madness. It was a kind of constitutional nihilism
Anyone that seriously did it should slink away in shame
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Why do Conservative Governments chase a new mandate every two or three years even when on the one occasion they had a decent little majority?
Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is this. Seriously
We had the biggest, probably most important referendum in British history. 36 MILLION people voted, I believe that is the most ever for anything in the UK - and that on an extremely respectable 72% turnout. Almost three quarters of every eligible adult in the entire country. Massive. 17.4 MILLION people voted Leave - the most ever votes cast for any cause or party in the history of the United Kingdom. And they voted because the government, prime minster and civil service of the UK told them: this is it. One vote. Leave or Remain. You choose. We will respect your choice
Just imagine the chaos, anger and blood-letting that would have resulted, if that vote had been overturned, without honouring it, and we were asked to vote again, to provide the answer our betters wanted. Advocating for a 2nd vote was utter criminal madness. It was a kind of constitutional nihilism
Anyone that seriously did it should slink away in shame
The majority of Britons in GE 2019 voted for parties advocating a second referendum. A democracy that cannot change its mind is no longer a democracy.
The biggest flaw in the second vote campaign is that there was no plan to win the vote. I think we're there to have been one it most likely would have been for Brexit.
Trump attempted a violent coup, the second voters wanted a further democratic confirmation. To say they were the same is absurd.
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
The reality is, the energy companies who are buying at spot to supply their non-fixed customers, are paying ~£4k per year, per average household, right now (before taxes etc are added)
So Labours plan would mean a ~£2k bung from energy suppliers/extractors(?) and/or current/future taxpayers (to be decided) - to current taxpayers and non-taxpayers.
Hmm.
I’ll have to double check my figures, but it’s something like that.
£2k x however many households there are (?) per year. Bloody expensive.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
I recall thinking, even as a LEAVE voter, we needed to have some form of consultation or ratification of what was being proposed and it was suggested competing visions of Britain outside the EU could be put forward and voted on by the electorate at a General Election.
That didn't happen and, perjorative language aside, those who were on the wrong side of the vote in 2016 played a bad hand dreadfully from then until 2019.
Perhaps they thought the tensions within the Conservative Party would cause a schism and allow a broadly pro-EU majority to come through to Westminster and the 2017 election emboldened that. Indeed, that election was the worst possible outcome for those looking to subvert the 2016 vote because it gave them hope.
Had, as the polls suggested, May won a crushing landslide, three things would have happened - Corbyn would probably have quit two and a half years earlier, May's authority would have been enhanced to the point whatever she proposed would have gone through Parliament and we'd have been out the EU much sooner and those hoping for some subversion of the 2016 vote would have given up much sooner.
Those who voted LEAVE in 2016 were united only in the desire not to remain within the EU - there was very little unanimity around the kind of post-EU vision. Many wanted it to be about immigration, others had other ideas but the pain and anguish of the Referendum debate (and the dreadful murder of Jo Cox) meant there was no appetite for a further debate on the kind of withdrawal package. The British public and media abdicated any interest and left it up to the Government to "sort it out".
Yes, I agree, it was a complete failure of statecraft on all sides - Leave and Remain
Cameron, the casually arrogant Etonian twat, should have mandated a two stage referendum: Leave or Remain and then, before triggering Article 50 - and if Leave won (which it would)- what kind of Leave - 90% sure a Soft Leave, EEA/EFTA, would have won
Then we would have had ten years of relative calm in which to contemplate future directions. The fact Cameron, and the Tories, did not do this - for fear they might lose to Leave - is a badge of shame
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Theyve been working this up with economists and everything. And then they just nick Daveys policy that they said was shit a week ago
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
I don't know, their unintentional comedic point is pretty funny, so I think it is entirely sincere that they cannot see it.
I think people are very good at holding irreconcilable opinions at the same time. I imagine they get around this one by insisting they don't censor acts that take place, they just don't host acts they don't like the content of, obviating the need to censor in the first place - the material exists uncensored, but unseen.
When I was at university, a friend was mucking around with neural nets - this was the 90s and the GPU stuff for that came much later.
His chosen thing was processing ancient texts - they have been copied and modified many times. Everything we have from the ancient Greeks, for example, has been copied many times and often hacked and modified. Often we don't know who the author or authors were. We have a number of different versions, often, as well.
What his software was doing was learning to identify style patterns by authors. Many texts were actually written by multiple authors. He trained it on known examples and then set it loose on various other texts.
The university authorities woke up (ha) and pulled him in for an interview without coffee - nearly an interview without chair. They told him that if he ran his software against several quite old texts - one in particular got some emphasis, he would be thrown off his PhD and if he even tried to complain they would tar his name in public.
The funny bit was that they dressed this up with a big speech about freedom of expression, compassion, understanding and being a Good Egg in general.
Blimey, what were they so concerned about? Questionable authorship seems to be generally accepted of a lot of things.
Religious texts - several religions say that X wrote the whole thing. Often by/with/from/to/for/at/near Chief Sky Fairy in question.
They were worried that when confronted with a scientific paper saying actually it was written by 37 blokes over a period of hundreds of years.....
When I was studying the Bible at A-level, it was completely uncontroversial that it was written by numerous authors. Indeed, we spent quite a lot of time deconstructing the four (minimum) authors of Genesis.
If his algorithm said the Koran was written by more than one author or over a period of more than one lifetime, then it was wrong anyway, as the authorship process of the Koran is actually well-attested by a variety of historical sources.
I'm struggling to think of which other religion there might be an issue with. Nobody disputes the Bhagavad Gita and Vedas were the work of multiple authors. The Tipitaka and Dhammanpada likewise. The Guru Granth Sahib literally flaunts the way it draws on multiple sources.
So - it would seem to me this was a bit of a non-issue.
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
EDF is demanding between 8 and upto 15 billion euros from Macron for the freeze
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Theyve been working this up with economists and everything. And then they just nick Davies policy that they said was shit a week ago
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
EDF is demanding between 8 and upto 15 billion euros from Macron for the freeze
Which will be much better for the French economy than small businesses and pensioners paying it.
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
Last time I checked they were importing nearly 20% of their electricity. A possible reason for that would be that producing it profitably in France is no longer possible. C'est magnifique mais c'est ne pas la guerre
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
The reality is, the energy companies who are buying at spot to supply their non-fixed customers, are paying ~£4k per year, per average household, right now (before taxes etc are added)
So Labours plan would mean a ~£2k bung from energy suppliers/extractors(?) and/or current/future taxpayers (to be decided) - to current taxpayers and non-taxpayers.
Hmm.
I’ll have to double check my figures, but it’s something like that.
£2k x however many households there are (?) per year. Bloody expensive.
Back of the envelope;
£55.6bn. Per year.
Feck-a-doodle-doo.
It does give some idea of the effective fiscal tightening of the energy crisis. That is a lot of money taken out of the economy, out of discretionary income too as other costs are either fixed or are also rising.
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Why do Conservative Governments chase a new mandate every two or three years even when on the one occasion they had a decent little majority?
Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is this. Seriously
We had the biggest, probably most important referendum in British history. 36 MILLION people voted, I believe that is the most ever for anything in the UK - and that on an extremely respectable 72% turnout. Almost three quarters of every eligible adult in the entire country. Massive. 17.4 MILLION people voted Leave - the most ever votes cast for any cause or party in the history of the United Kingdom. And they voted because the government, prime minster and civil service of the UK told them: this is it. One vote. Leave or Remain. You choose. We will respect your choice
Just imagine the chaos, anger and blood-letting that would have resulted, if that vote had been overturned, without honouring it, and we were asked to vote again, to provide the answer our betters wanted. Advocating for a 2nd vote was utter criminal madness. It was a kind of constitutional nihilism
Anyone that seriously did it should slink away in shame
As accurate as most of your posts.
More people voted in the 1992 general election.
The real figure was 33 million.
34m actually. Rounded up (as you were rounding down)
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
EDF is demanding between 8 and upto 15 billion euros from Macron for the freeze
Which will be much better for the French economy than small businesses and pensioners paying it.
Err it comes from the taxes of businesses and pensioners
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Why do Conservative Governments chase a new mandate every two or three years even when on the one occasion they had a decent little majority?
Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is this. Seriously
We had the biggest, probably most important referendum in British history. 36 MILLION people voted, I believe that is the most ever for anything in the UK - and that on an extremely respectable 72% turnout. Almost three quarters of every eligible adult in the entire country. Massive. 17.4 MILLION people voted Leave - the most ever votes cast for any cause or party in the history of the United Kingdom. And they voted because the government, prime minster and civil service of the UK told them: this is it. One vote. Leave or Remain. You choose. We will respect your choice
Just imagine the chaos, anger and blood-letting that would have resulted, if that vote had been overturned, without honouring it, and we were asked to vote again, to provide the answer our betters wanted. Advocating for a 2nd vote was utter criminal madness. It was a kind of constitutional nihilism
Anyone that seriously did it should slink away in shame
As accurate as most of your posts.
More people voted in the 1992 general election.
The real figure was 33 million.
34m actually. Rounded up (as you were rounding down)
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Why do Conservative Governments chase a new mandate every two or three years even when on the one occasion they had a decent little majority?
Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is this. Seriously
We had the biggest, probably most important referendum in British history. 36 MILLION people voted, I believe that is the most ever for anything in the UK - and that on an extremely respectable 72% turnout. Almost three quarters of every eligible adult in the entire country. Massive. 17.4 MILLION people voted Leave - the most ever votes cast for any cause or party in the history of the United Kingdom. And they voted because the government, prime minster and civil service of the UK told them: this is it. One vote. Leave or Remain. You choose. We will respect your choice
Just imagine the chaos, anger and blood-letting that would have resulted, if that vote had been overturned, without honouring it, and we were asked to vote again, to provide the answer our betters wanted. Advocating for a 2nd vote was utter criminal madness. It was a kind of constitutional nihilism
Anyone that seriously did it should slink away in shame
It's somewhat ironic that you claim a second vote was an act of "constitutional nihilism" because that's what the unwinding of Brexit (post Brexit) looks like to me.
As is par for the course you are talking utter bollocks. If the majority voted to remain after a second vote that is democracy in action, and a new mandate has been issued by the voters. Now whether that would have been wise or not is another debate entirely.
It looks like you are building up a head of steam to a crescendo of unpleasant right wing bigotry later this evening. Best I do slink away in that case.
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Why do Conservative Governments chase a new mandate every two or three years even when on the one occasion they had a decent little majority?
Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is this. Seriously
We had the biggest, probably most important referendum in British history. 36 MILLION people voted, I believe that is the most ever for anything in the UK - and that on an extremely respectable 72% turnout. Almost three quarters of every eligible adult in the entire country. Massive. 17.4 MILLION people voted Leave - the most ever votes cast for any cause or party in the history of the United Kingdom. And they voted because the government, prime minster and civil service of the UK told them: this is it. One vote. Leave or Remain. You choose. We will respect your choice
Just imagine the chaos, anger and blood-letting that would have resulted, if that vote had been overturned, without honouring it, and we were asked to vote again, to provide the answer our betters wanted. Advocating for a 2nd vote was utter criminal madness. It was a kind of constitutional nihilism
Anyone that seriously did it should slink away in shame
As accurate as most of your posts.
More people voted in the 1992 general election.
The real figure was 33 million.
34m actually. Rounded up (as you were rounding down)
I was being told at our celebratory lunch today by my son's chinese girlfriend that in Mandarin 4 is a very unlucky number because it sounds like the word for death. Maybe they have a point.
- “What is devomax? What currently reserved powers would be devolved?”
Your lack of answer did not go unnoticed.
It is not for me to answer, it is a PM Starmer and Gordon Brown who would implement it
Gordon Brown?!? When did he become leader of the Labour Party again?
Starmer has made clear as PM he would put Gordon Brown in charge of a programme of further devolution
One for the PB Tories and Stuart.
" Dumb and Dumber"
Just going through the list of stuff that could get devolved while retaining a sensible Union (aka devomax), I reckon:
Universal Credit (etc) Illegal drugs Betting (eeek) Experimenting on animals Possibly some more energy stuff? tricky Equalities Post All income taxes (though income tax is largely devolved now)
That's it really. Anything further would be unworkable, imo.
I assume if income tax is devolved and they keep all they raise then there will be no capital transfer from the rest of the country and they will be getting a bill for their share of defence and debt servicing etc
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
The Lib Dem policy Labour roundly criticised a week ago. Forensic stuff.
LD policy is a free ideas bucket for the big two - they can criticise it, and then adopt it if they want, and no one will remember who initially proposed it.
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
I don't know, their unintentional comedic point is pretty funny, so I think it is entirely sincere that they cannot see it.
I think people are very good at holding irreconcilable opinions at the same time. I imagine they get around this one by insisting they don't censor acts that take place, they just don't host acts they don't like the content of, obviating the need to censor in the first place - the material exists uncensored, but unseen.
When I was at university, a friend was mucking around with neural nets - this was the 90s and the GPU stuff for that came much later.
His chosen thing was processing ancient texts - they have been copied and modified many times. Everything we have from the ancient Greeks, for example, has been copied many times and often hacked and modified. Often we don't know who the author or authors were. We have a number of different versions, often, as well.
What his software was doing was learning to identify style patterns by authors. Many texts were actually written by multiple authors. He trained it on known examples and then set it loose on various other texts.
The university authorities woke up (ha) and pulled him in for an interview without coffee - nearly an interview without chair. They told him that if he ran his software against several quite old texts - one in particular got some emphasis, he would be thrown off his PhD and if he even tried to complain they would tar his name in public.
The funny bit was that they dressed this up with a big speech about freedom of expression, compassion, understanding and being a Good Egg in general.
Blimey, what were they so concerned about? Questionable authorship seems to be generally accepted of a lot of things.
Religious texts - several religions say that X wrote the whole thing. Often by/with/from/to/for/at/near Chief Sky Fairy in question.
They were worried that when confronted with a scientific paper saying actually it was written by 37 blokes over a period of hundreds of years.....
When I was studying the Bible at A-level, it was completely uncontroversial that it was written by numerous authors. Indeed, we spent quite a lot of time deconstructing the four (minimum) authors of Genesis.
If his algorithm said the Koran was written by more than one author or over a period of more than one lifetime, then it was wrong anyway, as the authorship process of the Koran is actually well-attested by a variety of historical sources.
I'm struggling to think of which other religion there might be an issue with. Nobody disputes the Bhagavad Gita and Vedas were the work of multiple authors. The Tipitaka and Dhammanpada likewise. The Guru Granth Sahib literally flaunts the way it draws on multiple sources.
So - it would seem to me this was a bit of a non-issue.
I think orthodox Muslims would say that the Koran had a single author, who quite literally dictated it to Muhammad, as a recital. It was then transcribed into classical Arabic. Not something that I believe, but many do.
Whatever your view of his overall thesis, I really recommend reading Oliver Eagleton's superb account (p74-127) of how Labour moved from its pledge to respect Leave in its 2017 manifesto to the car crash 2nd referendum policy in 2019. Starmer behaved, in my view, disgracefully.
ANYONE who advocated for a 2nd referendum, without enacting the first, is no better than a Trumpite marching on the Capitol to overturn the election
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Why do Conservative Governments chase a new mandate every two or three years even when on the one occasion they had a decent little majority?
Jesus fucking Christ. How hard is this. Seriously
We had the biggest, probably most important referendum in British history. 36 MILLION people voted, I believe that is the most ever for anything in the UK - and that on an extremely respectable 72% turnout. Almost three quarters of every eligible adult in the entire country. Massive. 17.4 MILLION people voted Leave - the most ever votes cast for any cause or party in the history of the United Kingdom. And they voted because the government, prime minster and civil service of the UK told them: this is it. One vote. Leave or Remain. You choose. We will respect your choice
Just imagine the chaos, anger and blood-letting that would have resulted, if that vote had been overturned, without honouring it, and we were asked to vote again, to provide the answer our betters wanted. Advocating for a 2nd vote was utter criminal madness. It was a kind of constitutional nihilism
Anyone that seriously did it should slink away in shame
As accurate as most of your posts.
More people voted in the 1992 general election.
The real figure was 33 million.
34m actually. Rounded up (as you were rounding down)
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
EDF is demanding between 8 and upto 15 billion euros from Macron for the freeze
Which will be much better for the French economy than small businesses and pensioners paying it.
Err it comes from the taxes of businesses and pensioners
If it's anything like accurate, and the number who have already voted is accurate, this is over. Sunak should bow out to get Johnson gone ASAP and stop the blue on blue warfare. Sunak lay at 9.8 on Smarkets is tremendous value unless Truss walks out in front of a bus.
I'm think I read somewhere that the current leadership rules meant that you couldn't pull
out during the competition? Might well be wrong though.
What horrendous penalty would be visited upon him if he did? Someone in Tunbridge Wells gives him a stern ticking off?
Sweden votes in four weeks and it seems Sifo will be polling regularly for Svenska Dagbladet.
The latest numbers (changes from 2018):
Social Democrats: 31.3% (+2.8) Moderates: 19.2% (-0.6) Sweden Democrats: 17.3% (-0.2) Left: 8.0% (nc) Christian Democrats: 6.7% (+0.4) Liberals: 5.6% (+0.1) Centre: 5.3% (-3.3) Greens: 4.5% (+0.1)
We have our two blocs (as we always do) - the centre-left consisting of Social Democrats, Left, Green and Centre are on 49.1% (-0.2) and the centre-right bloc of Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals are on 48.8% (-0.5) so a dead heat to all intents and purposes.
Th 2018 result split the 349 seat Riksdag 175-174 in favour of the centre-left bloc so this is going to be very close again. Perhaps the centre-left might extend their lead by a couple of seats on these numbers but there's a long way to go.
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
Last time I checked they were importing nearly 20% of their electricity. A possible reason for that would be that producing it profitably in France is no longer possible. C'est magnifique mais c'est ne pas la guerre
Fench leccy is overwhelmingly nuclear. I think there's an issue at the moment with rivers, or rather the lack thereof, reducing the amount they can safely produce.
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
The reality is, the energy companies who are buying at spot to supply their non-fixed customers, are paying ~£4k per year, per average household, right now (before taxes etc are added)
So Labours plan would mean a ~£2k bung from energy suppliers/extractors(?) and/or current/future taxpayers (to be decided) - to current taxpayers and non-taxpayers.
Hmm.
I’ll have to double check my figures, but it’s something like that.
£2k x however many households there are (?) per year. Bloody expensive.
Back of the envelope;
£55.6bn. Per year.
Feck-a-doodle-doo.
It does give some idea of the effective fiscal tightening of the energy crisis. That is a lot of money taken out of the economy, out of discretionary income too as other costs are either fixed or are also rising.
An issue with blocking any price rise is nobody will bother saving any energy. The price signal is gone. Now maybe things are so shite that that doesn't matter anymore but I suspect that is not the case.
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
EDF is demanding between 8 and upto 15 billion euros from Macron for the freeze
Which will be much better for the French economy than small businesses and pensioners paying it.
Err it comes from the taxes of businesses and pensioners
There is no free money
But what there are are disproportionate multiplier effects, in particular areas of the economy and society. If the government doesn't foot the bill in the shorter-term, thousands of businesses will be gone, never to return, and milllions will be left destitute.
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
The Lib Dem policy Labour roundly criticised a week ago. Forensic stuff.
LD policy is a free ideas bucket for the big two - they can criticise it, and then adopt it if they want, and no one will remember who initially proposed it.
I mean Starmer said it was fantasy economics and based on already out of date data on Wednesday!! I look forward to the details on Monday and tge outrage that they will, once again, be spending (billions this time) compensating energy companies
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
EDF is demanding between 8 and upto 15 billion euros from Macron for the freeze
Which will be much better for the French economy than small businesses and pensioners paying it.
Err it comes from the taxes of businesses and pensioners
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
It will be when there's power cuts (or French taxpayers get the bill).
I'm guessing those lignite stations in Germany will be kept busy.
Mind you, at least they kept their nuclear sites going. We should have replaced ours 20 years ago.
That will help the owner of a 6 bedroom mansion a lot more than the owner of a 1 bedroom flat. Is that what he wants?
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
Presumably his next policy will be to decree that gravity in the UK will be reduced to 8.8m/s2 so that those who are overweight feel better about themselves?
Gravity is not banned in France, but curiously the energy price rises will be held at 4% this year. C'est interesting, n'est-ce-pas ?
EDF is demanding between 8 and upto 15 billion euros from Macron for the freeze
Which will be much better for the French economy than small businesses and pensioners paying it.
Err it comes from the taxes of businesses and pensioners
Sweden votes in four weeks and it seems Sifo will be polling regularly for Svenska Dagbladet.
The latest numbers (changes from 2018):
Social Democrats: 31.3% (+2.8) Moderates: 19.2% (-0.6) Sweden Democrats: 17.3% (-0.2) Left: 8.0% (nc) Christian Democrats: 6.7% (+0.4) Liberals: 5.6% (+0.1) Centre: 5.3% (-3.3) Greens: 4.5% (+0.1)
We have our two blocs (as we always do) - the centre-left consisting of Social Democrats, Left, Green and Centre are on 49.1% (-0.2) and the centre-right bloc of Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals are on 48.8% (-0.5) so a dead heat to all intents and purposes.
Th 2018 result split the 349 seat Riksdag 175-174 in favour of the centre-left bloc so this is going to be very close again. Perhaps the centre-left might extend their lead by a couple of seats on these numbers but there's a long way to go.
So does Italy and there Brothers of Italy still leads most of the latest polls
"German nuclear operators push on with shutdowns despite rethink E.ON, RWE and EnBW want clarity from Berlin over whether to keep three plants running" [via G search]
I was being told at our celebratory lunch today by my son's chinese girlfriend that in Mandarin 4 is a very unlucky number because it sounds like the word for death. Maybe they have a point.
- “What is devomax? What currently reserved powers would be devolved?”
Your lack of answer did not go unnoticed.
It is not for me to answer, it is a PM Starmer and Gordon Brown who would implement it
Gordon Brown?!? When did he become leader of the Labour Party again?
Starmer has made clear as PM he would put Gordon Brown in charge of a programme of further devolution
One for the PB Tories and Stuart.
" Dumb and Dumber"
Just going through the list of stuff that could get devolved while retaining a sensible Union (aka devomax), I reckon:
Universal Credit (etc) Illegal drugs Betting (eeek) Experimenting on animals Possibly some more energy stuff? tricky Equalities Post All income taxes (though income tax is largely devolved now)
That's it really. Anything further would be unworkable, imo.
I assume if income tax is devolved and they keep all they raise then there will be no capital transfer from the rest of the country and they will be getting a bill for their share of defence and debt servicing etc
You're forgetting NI, VAT, road tax, petrol tax ...
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
The reality is, the energy companies who are buying at spot to supply their non-fixed customers, are paying ~£4k per year, per average household, right now (before taxes etc are added)
So Labours plan would mean a ~£2k bung from energy suppliers/extractors(?) and/or current/future taxpayers (to be decided) - to current taxpayers and non-taxpayers.
Hmm.
I’ll have to double check my figures, but it’s something like that.
£2k x however many households there are (?) per year. Bloody expensive.
Back of the envelope;
£55.6bn. Per year.
Feck-a-doodle-doo.
It does give some idea of the effective fiscal tightening of the energy crisis. That is a lot of money taken out of the economy, out of discretionary income too as other costs are either fixed or are also rising.
Absolutely. And that is only the cost of those covered by the cap. What about business? Or is Starmer in agreement with Boris about that?
Having a second vote on brexit before ghe first had been implemented would have been an abomination. But we could have one now, as we have left. There's no problem with that and I'd vote to rejoin. On the energy I think keeping the price cap to the old level would make sense but with a kicker of much higher unit charges once someone gets past 3000 kwh of leccy or 12000 kwh of gas. Adjust the leccy up for someone on leccy only supply
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
The reality is, the energy companies who are buying at spot to supply their non-fixed customers, are paying ~£4k per year, per average household, right now (before taxes etc are added)
So Labours plan would mean a ~£2k bung from energy suppliers/extractors(?) and/or current/future taxpayers (to be decided) - to current taxpayers and non-taxpayers.
Hmm.
I’ll have to double check my figures, but it’s something like that.
£2k x however many households there are (?) per year. Bloody expensive.
Back of the envelope;
£55.6bn. Per year.
Feck-a-doodle-doo.
It does give some idea of the effective fiscal tightening of the energy crisis. That is a lot of money taken out of the economy, out of discretionary income too as other costs are either fixed or are also rising.
An issue with blocking any price rise is nobody will bother saving any energy. The price signal is gone. Now maybe things are so shite that that doesn't matter anymore but I suspect that is not the case.
It is better to give folks some money to be used on energy bills if they want.
If they want to keep some of that money for other things, say a nice curry, then they can do that by reducing their energy use.
“The Pleasance declined to give detail about what aspects of Sadowitz's material led to the cancellation.
Its director, Anthony Alderson, added: "The Pleasance is a venue that champions freedom of speech and we do not censor comedians' material.
"While we acknowledge that Jerry Sadowitz has often been controversial, the material presented at his first show is not acceptable and does not align with our values.
"This type of material has no place on the festival and the Pleasance will not be presenting his second and final show"
Did they say that with a straight face? And without realising the irony of what they said?
Fair enough to say they wouldn't book him because they don't approve of his act, but they can't then say they don't censor material. The two are mutually exclusive.
I don't know, their unintentional comedic point is pretty funny, so I think it is entirely sincere that they cannot see it.
I think people are very good at holding irreconcilable opinions at the same time. I imagine they get around this one by insisting they don't censor acts that take place, they just don't host acts they don't like the content of, obviating the need to censor in the first place - the material exists uncensored, but unseen.
When I was at university, a friend was mucking around with neural nets - this was the 90s and the GPU stuff for that came much later.
His chosen thing was processing ancient texts - they have been copied and modified many times. Everything we have from the ancient Greeks, for example, has been copied many times and often hacked and modified. Often we don't know who the author or authors were. We have a number of different versions, often, as well.
What his software was doing was learning to identify style patterns by authors. Many texts were actually written by multiple authors. He trained it on known examples and then set it loose on various other texts.
The university authorities woke up (ha) and pulled him in for an interview without coffee - nearly an interview without chair. They told him that if he ran his software against several quite old texts - one in particular got some emphasis, he would be thrown off his PhD and if he even tried to complain they would tar his name in public.
The funny bit was that they dressed this up with a big speech about freedom of expression, compassion, understanding and being a Good Egg in general.
Blimey, what were they so concerned about? Questionable authorship seems to be generally accepted of a lot of things.
Religious texts - several religions say that X wrote the whole thing. Often by/with/from/to/for/at/near Chief Sky Fairy in question.
They were worried that when confronted with a scientific paper saying actually it was written by 37 blokes over a period of hundreds of years.....
When I was studying the Bible at A-level, it was completely uncontroversial that it was written by numerous authors. Indeed, we spent quite a lot of time deconstructing the four (minimum) authors of Genesis.
If his algorithm said the Koran was written by more than one author or over a period of more than one lifetime, then it was wrong anyway, as the authorship process of the Koran is actually well-attested by a variety of historical sources.
I'm struggling to think of which other religion there might be an issue with. Nobody disputes the Bhagavad Gita and Vedas were the work of multiple authors. The Tipitaka and Dhammanpada likewise. The Guru Granth Sahib literally flaunts the way it draws on multiple sources.
So - it would seem to me this was a bit of a non-issue.
I think orthodox Muslims would say that the Koran had a single author, who quite literally dictated it to Muhammad, as a recital. It was then transcribed into classical Arabic. Not something that I believe, but many do.
Well, yes, I know that, but among scholars there is no real controversy that it was gathered into one volume from the sayings and teachings of Mohammed by people who had known him within a very short time of his death. It may well have been somewhat edited for clarity but there could be no real reason to think it was 'the work of multiple authors' still less that it was 'compiled over hundreds of years.'
I recall thinking, even as a LEAVE voter, we needed to have some form of consultation or ratification of what was being proposed and it was suggested competing visions of Britain outside the EU could be put forward and voted on by the electorate at a General Election.
That didn't happen and, perjorative language aside, those who were on the wrong side of the vote in 2016 played a bad hand dreadfully from then until 2019.
Perhaps they thought the tensions within the Conservative Party would cause a schism and allow a broadly pro-EU majority to come through to Westminster and the 2017 election emboldened that. Indeed, that election was the worst possible outcome for those looking to subvert the 2016 vote because it gave them hope.
Had, as the polls suggested, May won a crushing landslide, three things would have happened - Corbyn would probably have quit two and a half years earlier, May's authority would have been enhanced to the point whatever she proposed would have gone through Parliament and we'd have been out the EU much sooner and those hoping for some subversion of the 2016 vote would have given up much sooner.
Those who voted LEAVE in 2016 were united only in the desire not to remain within the EU - there was very little unanimity around the kind of post-EU vision. Many wanted it to be about immigration, others had other ideas but the pain and anguish of the Referendum debate (and the dreadful murder of Jo Cox) meant there was no appetite for a further debate on the kind of withdrawal package. The British public and media abdicated any interest and left it up to the Government to "sort it out".
Yes, I agree, it was a complete failure of statecraft on all sides - Leave and Remain
Cameron, the casually arrogant Etonian twat, should have mandated a two stage referendum: Leave or Remain and then, before triggering Article 50 - and if Leave won (which it would)- what kind of Leave - 90% sure a Soft Leave, EEA/EFTA, would have won
Then we would have had ten years of relative calm in which to contemplate future directions. The fact Cameron, and the Tories, did not do this - for fear they might lose to Leave - is a badge of shame
There must be something in the air tonight - I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with you.
The problem was it was never meant to be an IN/OUT vote and for that the blame must sit with the EU leaders of the time. Cameron only wanted a revised membership package which he believed he could sell to the British people in the aftermath of his 2015 election victory and which would have shot the UKIP/Farage fox.
Had the likes of Merkel, Sarkozy and others made a few concessions to Cameron on rebates, opt-outs and future directions as well as QMV it's quite likely Cameron could have made a triumphant return to Westminster and got the referendum through before any one had time to give it any thought.
As soon as Cameron came back empty handed and we were looking at an IN/OUT vote those who actually wanted us out the EU had their opportunity and took it. Had Cameron brought back a successful revised membership, they'd have never had the opportunity to do more than carp from the side lines which they would probably still be doing to this day.
Comments
I know we've got some space fans on here. I've come across this Twitter feed featuring photos and videos of Energia/Buran (the Soviet Shuttle), most of which I've never seen before.
https://twitter.com/11K25_Energia
Will he quietly bide his time on the backbench waiting the crashing end or just sod off to CA? He doesn't need the money of a corporate life and Richmond is a beautiful part of the world to spend half your week living in.
So I think he stays.
ie If it's in the region of 57/43 after initial expectations of her getting 65%+ then it makes it more likely MPs will feel inclined to remove her that bit quicker.
Maybe "For All Mankind" on Apple TV got this right?
The other ominous echo? MPs- the ones with skin in the game- twigged that Jez and Bozza had to go. Armchair generals in Momentum and the great Conservative Retirement club, seem to have told them "tough".
Four nothing.
The world's gone mad.
I think that's the essence of the statement. Right or wrong there's nothing massively illogical with it imo.
If you are in a political party (and it doesn't really matter which one) there is or should be a sense of the importance of what some call "loyalty" and what other such democratic leaders as Lenin and Hitler called "discipline".
In a party, you either support the leader and the policies of the party or you don't and if you don't you say nothing publicly. Internally, debate the issues, discuss the policies, argue your position but once it has been decided what the position is, you follow it wither enthusiastically or less so.
Tony Blair stood as candidate for Sedgefield on the 1983 Labour Manifesto and I suspect there were parts of it with which he wasn't wholly in favour. Liz Truss has presumably supported publicly Major, Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard, Cameron, May and Johnson. You might say that's an eclectic bunch but the fact remains as party leaders it is incumbent on party members to support them and to push forward the policies and the party programme articulated by that leader.
If you make it to leader then it's your turn and you have, I'd argue, a right to expect the same loyalty from the party members that you provided for past leaders. I don't imagine Jeremy Corbyn was a huge fan of Blair's policies in 1997 but he stood as a Labour candidate on those policies.
As leader, it's your opportunity to move the party in the direction you think is right - what happened in the past is irrelevant and those using what Starmer did under Corbyn could argue how Liz Truss served David Cameron for example. In truth, it doesn't matter.
Truss has her view on where the Conservative Party should be heading and she will expect the party to unite behind her once the leadership election is over and I'm sure that will happen. Whether that's the right direction or, as the Spectator column linked to this morning suggested, it doesn't matter as long as it keeps the party in Government is another question or questions.
Both she and Starmer (and others) will have the opportunity to put forward their programmes for the direction of the country in the second half of this decade and beyond and as voters we have the right (indeed, obligation) to scrutinise and challenge and that will be at the election.
Energia/Buran was a superior system to the US Shuttle. for one thing, the booster could be used independently to boost massive loads into orbit without the orbiter on it.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1558454850299564037?s=20&t=1ljWFy1avDbRjIU1cPqKzQ
Betfair next prime minister
1.1 Liz Truss 91%
10.5 Rishi Sunak 10%
Next Conservative leader
1.09 Liz Truss 92%
11 Rishi Sunak 9%
They were worried that when confronted with a scientific paper saying actually it was written by 37 blokes over a period of hundreds of years.....
They should all be hurled out of politics, and never allowed to speak again. Including Starmer
Besides the immorality of their position, what they espoused was criminally dangerous and stupid. It would have collapsed British democracy overnight. Whyever vote for anything ever again?
Yes yes, collective responsibility and all that, but given how she thinks government has failed for so long you'd think she'd be arguing Boris should have been removed ages ago.
My God I hate the Left. Come on Kari Lake, hurry up and win the White House
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/13/keir-starmer-demands-ban-on-raising-energy-prices
“The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, is to call for a ban on crippling energy price rises this autumn in a move that would save the average household more than £2,000 a year on gas and electricity bills, the Observer can reveal.
The demand to freeze the energy price cap at the current £1,971 level – blocking the regulator Ofgem from allowing a huge anticipated rise to around £3,600 in October – will place intense pressure on the Tory leadership candidates Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to follow suit when one becomes prime minister.”
He took his time…
(I am also available, for a small fee, on giving advice on how to re-enter the forum)
I assume the plan also includes nationalising all the providers and rationing supply.
So Labours plan would mean a ~£2k bung from energy suppliers/extractors(?) and/or current/future taxpayers (to be decided) - to current taxpayers and non-taxpayers.
Hmm.
I’ll have to double check my figures, but it’s something like that.
£2k x however many households there are (?) per year. Bloody expensive.
The Tory response wont either.
Embrace protectionism, the natural bedfellow of brexit
We had the biggest, probably most important referendum in British history. 36 MILLION people voted, I believe that is the most ever for anything in the UK - and that on an extremely respectable 72% turnout. Almost three quarters of every eligible adult in the entire country. Massive. 17.4 MILLION people voted Leave - the most ever votes cast for any cause or party in the history of the United Kingdom. And they voted because the government, prime minster and civil service of the UK told them: this is it. One vote. Leave or Remain. You choose. We will respect your choice
Just imagine the chaos, anger and blood-letting that would have resulted, if that vote had been overturned, without honouring it, and we were asked to vote again, to provide the answer our betters wanted. Advocating for a 2nd vote was utter criminal madness. It was a kind of constitutional nihilism
Anyone that seriously did it should slink away in shame
That didn't happen and, perjorative language aside, those who were on the wrong side of the vote in 2016 played a bad hand dreadfully from then until 2019.
Perhaps they thought the tensions within the Conservative Party would cause a schism and allow a broadly pro-EU majority to come through to Westminster and the 2017 election emboldened that. Indeed, that election was the worst possible outcome for those looking to subvert the 2016 vote because it gave them hope.
Had, as the polls suggested, May won a crushing landslide, three things would have happened - Corbyn would probably have quit two and a half years earlier, May's authority would have been enhanced to the point whatever she proposed would have gone through Parliament and we'd have been out the EU much sooner and those hoping for some subversion of the 2016 vote would have given up much sooner.
Those who voted LEAVE in 2016 were united only in the desire not to remain within the EU - there was very little unanimity around the kind of post-EU vision. Many wanted it to be about immigration, others had other ideas but the pain and anguish of the Referendum debate (and the dreadful murder of Jo Cox) meant there was no appetite for a further debate on the kind of withdrawal package. The British public and media abdicated any interest and left it up to the Government to "sort it out".
More people voted in the 1992 general election.
The real figure was 33 million.
The biggest flaw in the second vote campaign is that there was no plan to win the vote. I think we're there to have been one it most likely would have been for Brexit.
Trump attempted a violent coup, the second voters wanted a further democratic confirmation. To say they were the same is absurd.
£55.6bn. Per year.
Feck-a-doodle-doo.
Cameron, the casually arrogant Etonian twat, should have mandated a two stage referendum: Leave or Remain and then, before triggering Article 50 - and if Leave won (which it would)- what kind of Leave - 90% sure a Soft Leave, EEA/EFTA, would have won
Then we would have had ten years of relative calm in which to contemplate future directions. The fact Cameron, and the Tories, did not do this - for fear they might lose to Leave - is a badge of shame
If his algorithm said the Koran was written by more than one author or over a period of more than one lifetime, then it was wrong anyway, as the authorship process of the Koran is actually well-attested by a variety of historical sources.
I'm struggling to think of which other religion there might be an issue with. Nobody disputes the Bhagavad Gita and Vedas were the work of multiple authors. The Tipitaka and Dhammanpada likewise. The Guru Granth Sahib literally flaunts the way it draws on multiple sources.
So - it would seem to me this was a bit of a non-issue.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum
There is no free money
As is par for the course you are talking utter bollocks. If the majority voted to remain after a second vote that is democracy in action, and a new mandate has been issued by the voters. Now whether that would have been wise or not is another debate entirely.
It looks like you are building up a head of steam to a crescendo of unpleasant right wing bigotry later this evening. Best I do slink away in that case.
Your original post was still wrong.
The latest numbers (changes from 2018):
Social Democrats: 31.3% (+2.8)
Moderates: 19.2% (-0.6)
Sweden Democrats: 17.3% (-0.2)
Left: 8.0% (nc)
Christian Democrats: 6.7% (+0.4)
Liberals: 5.6% (+0.1)
Centre: 5.3% (-3.3)
Greens: 4.5% (+0.1)
We have our two blocs (as we always do) - the centre-left consisting of Social Democrats, Left, Green and Centre are on 49.1% (-0.2) and the centre-right bloc of Moderates, Sweden Democrats, Christian Democrats and Liberals are on 48.8% (-0.5) so a dead heat to all intents and purposes.
Th 2018 result split the 349 seat Riksdag 175-174 in favour of the centre-left bloc so this is going to be very close again. Perhaps the centre-left might extend their lead by a couple of seats on these numbers but there's a long way to go.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62532620
'Everyone who uses water'...as in every human being?
I look forward to the details on Monday and tge outrage that they will, once again, be spending (billions this time) compensating energy companies
I'm guessing those lignite stations in Germany will be kept busy.
Mind you, at least they kept their nuclear sites going. We should have replaced ours 20 years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Italian_general_election
E.ON, RWE and EnBW want clarity from Berlin over whether to keep three plants running" [via G search]
https://www.ft.com/content/0257588e-0ebe-4696-8c4e-77f0a192b616
But we could have one now, as we have left. There's no problem with that and I'd vote to rejoin.
On the energy I think keeping the price cap to the old level would make sense but with a kicker of much higher unit charges once someone gets past 3000 kwh of leccy or 12000 kwh of gas. Adjust the leccy up for someone on leccy only supply
If they want to keep some of that money for other things, say a nice curry, then they can do that by reducing their energy use.
The problem was it was never meant to be an IN/OUT vote and for that the blame must sit with the EU leaders of the time. Cameron only wanted a revised membership package which he believed he could sell to the British people in the aftermath of his 2015 election victory and which would have shot the UKIP/Farage fox.
Had the likes of Merkel, Sarkozy and others made a few concessions to Cameron on rebates, opt-outs and future directions as well as QMV it's quite likely Cameron could have made a triumphant return to Westminster and got the referendum through before any one had time to give it any thought.
As soon as Cameron came back empty handed and we were looking at an IN/OUT vote those who actually wanted us out the EU had their opportunity and took it. Had Cameron brought back a successful revised membership, they'd have never had the opportunity to do more than carp from the side lines which they would probably still be doing to this day.