Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Midterms betting: GOP favourite for the House – DEM for the Senate – politicalbetting.com

123468

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Little Marco….

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3603940-demings-up-by-4-points-in-challenge-to-rubio-poll/
    …Rep. Val Demings (D) leads Sen. Marco Rubio (R) by 4 percentage points in Florida’s Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    The poll, released by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, shows Demings with the support of 48 percent of surveyed registered voters who said they would vote in the midterms.
    Rubio, in comparison, received 44 percent support, while 7 percent said they would choose someone else...

    There are an awful lot of "long shots" for the Dems this time around.

    Republicans have three realistic potential pick-ups:

    - Georgia
    - Arizona
    - Nevada

    And one and a half long-shots:

    - New Hampshire
    - Colorado

    But they are at risk in:

    - Pennsylvania
    - Ohio
    - Wisconsin
    - North Carolina
    and maybe even
    - Florida

    (And maybe Utah, albeit not to the Dems.)

    If Arizona is safe for the Dems (and Kelly is running up ten point leads), and Pennsylvania is a Dem gain, then there's a pretty narrow path to a Senate majority for the Republicans. They basically have to flip both Georgia and Nevada, and win everywhere else.
    Arizona is really not safe for the Dems

    "Arizona Governor Polls: Kari Lake Narrows the Lead, Trails Katie Hobbs By 1%"

    Lake is a genius, and I want to spank her. She has a pretty good chance

    https://crowdwisdom.live/us-politics/arizona-governor-race-2022-polls/
    FiveThirtyEight have spent years perfected models of outcomes on races and yet they could have saved themselves a bunch of all-nighters by simply recording that Leon wants to spank the candidate. :smile:
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    TimT said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    But they're not Woke, they're led by Sleepy Joe.
    OMG they really are Woke, and even when they are not they are like @kinabalu or @Foxy - they are too myopic and complacent to stop Wokeness, because they still naively think it is the same game of social justice that was played in the 80 and 90s, it just occasionally goes "a bit far into silliness"

    Woke is really not silly. It is cultural Marxism turned into an eerie new religion. It is powerful and growing. It is destroying America from the inside out, beginning with the universities but now infesting everything over time. It is a species of rot. It will be the end of the West and the Enlightenment if it is not checked

    I get that most people on here completely disagree with me, but this is my honest appraisal. I fear for us all
    There is something destroying America from the inside out:
    Guns having more rights than women
    Cletus the Fetus having more rights than the mother. Until its born. Then it has no rights
    Women heading towards a travel ban in case they are trying to obtain an out-of-Gilead abortion
    Elections still legal for Demtards and non-American races but with only one polling both for half a million people who cares as their votes either won't be cast or counted
    Etc etc etc.

    Shitkicker states in America are turning into Gilead right before our eyes. And seemingly you'd rather have that than north of the Mason-Dixon-Sanity line because "woke".

    You really need to drink more.
    As I said the other day, America faces a truly terrible choice between the religious freaks on the right, and the Cultural Marxists on the left

    I'D RATHER NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE, PERSONALLY

    But if forced, I'd go for the freaks as I think there is a better chance of a potent, credible, coherent America emerging from the inevitable rubble. It's a bit like Chile probably benefiting from Pinochet if the alternative is/was a form of Chavez

    The most rightwing people I know are Venezuelans
    Since you're a heterosexual white man you have little to fear from Gilead, unless they do prohibition again in which case you would be fucked. There are plenty of people for whom rule by Christian nationalist fascists would literally be a death sentence. The worst the woke would do to you would be to make you do an implicit bias course or become a vegan.
    Again, a total inability to grasp what I'm on about

    Have you read that article about Wokeness in US medicine? I'll link it one more time

    https://www.city-journal.org/the-corruption-of-medicine

    it's long, detailed, brilliant, and terrifying, and gives the lie to any trivial bullshit that Wokeness is merely about "pronouns". And this is just one area of American life

    I want my kids to live in a western world that is free, prosperous, dynamic, liberal and Enlightened (in the 18th century sense). All that is, I believe, threatened by this
    There are so many things wrong with this article that I can barely be bothered to dismantle it. The biggest thing is the assumption that there is a thing called 'merit' that we can accurately measure which itself has universal 'merit' in predicting future success in medicine.

    While the attempt to overcome the inherit biases in the archaic approach to developing good doctors inherently espoused by the article does include a whole bunch of gobbledegook, that does not invalidate the criticisms of the old merit by test approach, nor indeed the need to seek better ways to develop doctors. To read this article, you'd believe that cramming the latin names of tiny bones was considerably more important than being able to speak to a patient with empathy and LISTEN to them.
    Ah yes

    So you mean they assess the students to see how "likeable" they are? How friendly and smiley? Coz that's quite important in a doctor

    Also it's quite handy if you want to drive down the awkwardly large number of bright Asian students. Fuck them. Stupid Chinese geeks. No one likes them anyway


    "Harvard’s method for tamping down its Asian American applicants to an acceptable level has controversially involved using a subjective “personal” score, gauging qualities such as “likability, courage, kindness and being ‘widely respected.’” According to Harvard, Asian Americans systematically score worse by these measures than any other racial group, weighing down their admittance rate despite higher academic scores."

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/02/the-left-is-gaslighting-asian-americans-on-school-admissions.html


    If you're asking me if I'd prefer a Harvard Medical School graduate to a graduate from a second-tier medical school, where the emphasis is on holistic medicine and working with the patient to find the treatments they want, I'd take the latter any day of the week.
    You just gotta keep the Chinese and Koreans out, right? Autistic Nerds
    I've nothing against Chinese and Koreans and did not mention them in my posts. You are the one who did. My ENT doc is Korean, and very funny.

    Maybe you're the racist thinking all Chinese and Koreans are autistic nerds.
    I present you with Dr Ken Jeong.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,792

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    Excellent plan. Helps reduce bicycle theft, and identify rogue cyclists who spoil the scene for all the normal cyclists. They'll get me voting Tory at this rate. What seems to be the problem?
    We had them in Belgique when I was a kid. They abandoned them in the late 80s.


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    Okay but you did say Trump 24 . Anyway good luck trying to find a non-religious -freak Republican.
    Yes, that is an issue

    De Santis is probably the best bet for Reps. Not obviously insane, and not entirely crazed about abortion

    https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/07/02/florida-governor-desantis-post-roe-abortion-debate-roe-v-wade/7770054001/
    He's an absolute lunatic. Punished businesses for exercising free speech, banning books in schools, twisting the law to ignore the results of a referendum to disenfranchise voters.

    Absolute roaster.
    I like him. Takes on The Woke

    If the GOP choose him he could slaughter the Dems in 2024, esp if they are mad enough to go for Biden or Harris
    If the GOP choose DeSantis and Trump runs anyway... well, that's pretty much the only way we end up with President Harris.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,863
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    Okay but you did say Trump 24 . Anyway good luck trying to find a non-religious -freak Republican.
    Yes, that is an issue

    De Santis is probably the best bet for Reps. Not obviously insane, and not entirely crazed about abortion

    https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/07/02/florida-governor-desantis-post-roe-abortion-debate-roe-v-wade/7770054001/
    DeSantis has been trying to walk a narrow path: he has to be crazy enough to appeal to Trump's base... but he also has to win the Governorship again.

    And Florida is that rare thing: a purple state where abortion rights are a big deal. And where the Republican legislature has passed a fairly blanket abortion ban.

    DeSantis courted the anti-abortion lobby, and is now trying to walk it back. As @HYUFD has pointed out, it is far from impossible that he loses in Florida in November... and if so, should he really be second favourite for the Republican nomination.
    I've laid the snot out of him, but who else is meant to be second favourite for the GOP - Mike Pence ???
    More likely to be up against the wall in Trumps second term than win the presidency.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    ping said:

    ping said:

    Hmm.

    Thinking more about domestic electric prices (I posted earlier a quote from Scottish power for a 1yr fix which offered leccy @79p/kWh).

    At some point electric car charging is going to be uncompetitive vs ICE.

    Has anyone done the maths?

    Assuming;

    An efficient, reasonable EV does 4.5 miles per kWh (Hyundai ionic, not Renault tizzy)
    Leccy @ 79p

    ~18p/mile

    ICE;

    50mpg ~11 miles per litre
    £1.70 per litre

    ~15.5p/mile

    If I’ve done my maths right….? Obviously, the great thing with EV’s are they can be charged off peak, but still…
    And that's how the market balances. People buy oil powered vehicles, because oil is available.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    Okay but you did say Trump 24 . Anyway good luck trying to find a non-religious -freak Republican.
    Yes, that is an issue

    De Santis is probably the best bet for Reps. Not obviously insane, and not entirely crazed about abortion

    https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/07/02/florida-governor-desantis-post-roe-abortion-debate-roe-v-wade/7770054001/
    He's an absolute lunatic. Punished businesses for exercising free speech, banning books in schools, twisting the law to ignore the results of a referendum to disenfranchise voters.

    Absolute roaster.
    I like him. Takes on The Woke

    If the GOP choose him he could slaughter the Dems in 2024, esp if they are mad enough to go for Biden or Harris
    If the GOP choose DeSantis and Trump runs anyway... well, that's pretty much the only way we end up with President Harris.
    I should think that would please the majority of the US - Dems get to win, traditional GOP are not beholden to Trump, and Trump gets the pleasure of knowing he determined the outcome, whilst his acolytes get to rage against the deep state and RINOs who stopped them from winning. Win win.
  • OT again.

    Interesting item on Euronews about French protesters taking action against golf courses which are staying green whilst all around them is withering away in the drought. What is the situation in the UK? Can the greens still be watered even if there is a hosepipe ban?

    For the record I detest golf but this is just a general interest enquiry.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Leon said:

    nico679 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    The Woke Dems need to be destroyed. Trump for '24

    Silly boy.
    Remember Leon droning on about Remainers trying to overturn the EU ref result but in vomit inducing hypocrisy is backing Trump who sent a mob to storm Congress and who wanted to overturn the US election .
    I'm not backing Trump. My comment was a Situationist provocation to get the new thread off to a cracking start

    I'd not be - shall we say - *overly unhappy* if Trump dropped dead tomorrow. I'd mourn the passing of a human soul for a nanosecond then crack open several bottles of English fizz

    My ideal is for a non-religious-freak Republican to get the nomination, and thrash the Woke Dems
    Okay but you did say Trump 24 . Anyway good luck trying to find a non-religious -freak Republican.
    Yes, that is an issue

    De Santis is probably the best bet for Reps. Not obviously insane, and not entirely crazed about abortion

    https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2022/07/02/florida-governor-desantis-post-roe-abortion-debate-roe-v-wade/7770054001/
    He's an absolute lunatic. Punished businesses for exercising free speech, banning books in schools, twisting the law to ignore the results of a referendum to disenfranchise voters.

    Absolute roaster.
    My betfair account (following an RCS tip) says he's a fine upstanding fellow.
    I think you'll find that Rubio is the man for the GOP.

    Failing that, Tom Cotton.
    You sound just like my Betfair book... albeit, I'm on the other Florida Senator.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Little Marco….

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3603940-demings-up-by-4-points-in-challenge-to-rubio-poll/
    …Rep. Val Demings (D) leads Sen. Marco Rubio (R) by 4 percentage points in Florida’s Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    The poll, released by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, shows Demings with the support of 48 percent of surveyed registered voters who said they would vote in the midterms.
    Rubio, in comparison, received 44 percent support, while 7 percent said they would choose someone else...

    There are an awful lot of "long shots" for the Dems this time around.

    Republicans have three realistic potential pick-ups:

    - Georgia
    - Arizona
    - Nevada

    And one and a half long-shots:

    - New Hampshire
    - Colorado

    But they are at risk in:

    - Pennsylvania
    - Ohio
    - Wisconsin
    - North Carolina
    and maybe even
    - Florida

    (And maybe Utah, albeit not to the Dems.)

    If Arizona is safe for the Dems (and Kelly is running up ten point leads), and Pennsylvania is a Dem gain, then there's a pretty narrow path to a Senate majority for the Republicans. They basically have to flip both Georgia and Nevada, and win everywhere else.
    Arizona is really not safe for the Dems

    "Arizona Governor Polls: Kari Lake Narrows the Lead, Trails Katie Hobbs By 1%"

    Lake is a genius, and I want to spank her. She has a pretty good chance

    https://crowdwisdom.live/us-politics/arizona-governor-race-2022-polls/
    FiveThirtyEight have spent years perfected models of outcomes on races and yet they could have saved themselves a bunch of all-nighters by simply recording that Leon wants to spank the candidate. :smile:
    I've always felt that spankability is a neglected metric when assessing US elections, especially the midterms
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    At what point does Biden face a crunch point where he has to make very clear if he is really going for a second term? I know the actual period for candidates is a long long way off, and things can change for him quickly, but presumably a lot of Democrats are going to want to know fairly soon if they are spending two years hoping he is up to it, finding their new candidate, or if they need to kneecap their own president who won't go quietly (I assume if they do badly in the mid terms, even if that is normal, that will aid those trying to convince him not to restand).
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,206

    OT again.

    Interesting item on Euronews about French protesters taking action against golf courses which are staying green whilst all around them is withering away in the drought. What is the situation in the UK? Can the greens still be watered even if there is a hosepipe ban?

    For the record I detest golf but this is just a general interest enquiry.

    No ban yet - Golf is played at least twice a month by 2 million people (mainly older people for which it is an ideal form of exercise and social interaction )-
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    "Isabel Hardman
    Truss charms the Scottish audience, while Sunak struggles
    16 August 2022, 10:59pm" (£)

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/truss-charms-the-scottish-audience-while-sunak-struggles
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited August 2022

    OT again.

    Interesting item on Euronews about French protesters taking action against golf courses which are staying green whilst all around them is withering away in the drought. What is the situation in the UK? Can the greens still be watered even if there is a hosepipe ban?

    For the record I detest golf but this is just a general interest enquiry.

    Golf needs to do its bit to “limit water usage as much as is reasonably practical at the current time”.

    So said the heads of two of the sport’s governing bodies as much of the UK finds itself in drought conditions following another spell of extreme hot weather.

    Tom Brooke, chief executive of the Golf Club Managers’ Association, and Jim Croxton, CEO of the British and International Golf Greenkeepers’ Association, added that players also needed to be “considerate” and understand that green playing surfaces were “quite simply not possible” as the home nations swelter under 30 degree heat...

    While golf courses have exemptions for irrigating sports turf, albeit with some restrictions on times of watering depending on the water company, Brooke and Croxton are urging the industry to consider its “social responsibility”.


    https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/gcma-bigga-uk-heatwave-warning/

    Woke courses needed?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Little Marco….

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3603940-demings-up-by-4-points-in-challenge-to-rubio-poll/
    …Rep. Val Demings (D) leads Sen. Marco Rubio (R) by 4 percentage points in Florida’s Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    The poll, released by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, shows Demings with the support of 48 percent of surveyed registered voters who said they would vote in the midterms.
    Rubio, in comparison, received 44 percent support, while 7 percent said they would choose someone else...

    There are an awful lot of "long shots" for the Dems this time around.

    Republicans have three realistic potential pick-ups:

    - Georgia
    - Arizona
    - Nevada

    And one and a half long-shots:

    - New Hampshire
    - Colorado

    But they are at risk in:

    - Pennsylvania
    - Ohio
    - Wisconsin
    - North Carolina
    and maybe even
    - Florida

    (And maybe Utah, albeit not to the Dems.)

    If Arizona is safe for the Dems (and Kelly is running up ten point leads), and Pennsylvania is a Dem gain, then there's a pretty narrow path to a Senate majority for the Republicans. They basically have to flip both Georgia and Nevada, and win everywhere else.
    Arizona is really not safe for the Dems

    "Arizona Governor Polls: Kari Lake Narrows the Lead, Trails Katie Hobbs By 1%"

    Lake is a genius, and I want to spank her. She has a pretty good chance

    https://crowdwisdom.live/us-politics/arizona-governor-race-2022-polls/
    That's because you're looking at the Gubernatorial race, and not the Senate race.

    For the Senate, the Republicans chose someone who had a charisma bypass operation.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Andy_JS said:

    538 is predicting the Democrats to win 50.3 seats (including the independents). Not much margin of error for the party.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate

    There's not much margin of error for either party, to be honest.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
    Squirming again to try and justify your indefensible position.

    The cesspit beckons.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
    Squirming again to try and justify your indefensible position.

    The cesspit beckons.
    Sure. good save.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,206
    kle4 said:

    OT again.

    Interesting item on Euronews about French protesters taking action against golf courses which are staying green whilst all around them is withering away in the drought. What is the situation in the UK? Can the greens still be watered even if there is a hosepipe ban?

    For the record I detest golf but this is just a general interest enquiry.

    Golf needs to do its bit to “limit water usage as much as is reasonably practical at the current time”.

    So said the heads of two of the sport’s governing bodies as much of the UK finds itself in drought conditions following another spell of extreme hot weather.

    Tom Brooke, chief executive of the Golf Club Managers’ Association, and Jim Croxton, CEO of the British and International Golf Greenkeepers’ Association, added that players also needed to be “considerate” and understand that green playing surfaces were “quite simply not possible” as the home nations swelter under 30 degree heat...

    While golf courses have exemptions for irrigating sports turf, albeit with some restrictions on times of watering depending on the water company, Brooke and Croxton are urging the industry to consider its “social responsibility”.


    https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/gcma-bigga-uk-heatwave-warning/
    what about football pitches then ? Oh of course its the premier league innit and nothing to good for them
  • OT again.

    Interesting item on Euronews about French protesters taking action against golf courses which are staying green whilst all around them is withering away in the drought. What is the situation in the UK? Can the greens still be watered even if there is a hosepipe ban?

    For the record I detest golf but this is just a general interest enquiry.

    No ban yet - Golf is played at least twice a month by 2 million people (mainly older people for which it is an ideal form of exercise and social interaction )-
    Not sure what difference that makes. Many millions of people get exercise and pleasure from their gardens and no one is suggesting they be exempted from bans.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    rcs1000 said:

    ping said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    It’s gonna be bad.
    Resilience. Britain has largely chosen not to have it.

    And a bit like Johnson with Covid, Truss gives the impression of not wanting to intervene. Even if that's a good instinct, it runs the risk of delaying necessary action, so it ends up worse than it needs to be.
    Clegg said in 2010 that there is no point building new nuke capacity in UK as it would not be available until 2022.

    And then Facebook made him the company's No 2.

    Sell Facebook.

    Clegg is not the number two at Facebook.
    Who is then? His promotion was presented by Zuckerberg as putting him on the same level as himself and Sheryl Sandberg, and now she's on the way out.
    The Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Product Officer, the Chief Technology Officer, and the Chief Business Officer are all massively more important than Nick Clegg.

    His job is meeting with Government regulators and having a posh title. His actual power at Facebook is negligible. And - if you look in the company's annual report - you can see that in his compensation. The Chief Something Officers are all on $200m plus packages over five years. Nick Clegg earns a couple of million a year (which is a lot of money), but it doesn't put him in the top twenty most important people at Facebook.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    OT again.

    Interesting item on Euronews about French protesters taking action against golf courses which are staying green whilst all around them is withering away in the drought. What is the situation in the UK? Can the greens still be watered even if there is a hosepipe ban?

    For the record I detest golf but this is just a general interest enquiry.

    No ban yet - Golf is played at least twice a month by 2 million people (mainly older people for which it is an ideal form of exercise and social interaction )-
    Not sure what difference that makes. Many millions of people get exercise and pleasure from their gardens and no one is suggesting they be exempted from bans.
    Nor that Golf (or many other sports) is impossible to play on a less than lush surface.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ping said:

    https://twitter.com/1goodtern/status/1559519407742885890?s=21&t=uPXQpSpBFEv1ODJGoJO6Nw

    I'm a trustee of a charity whose electricity bill will rise from
    £8k in 2019
    to
    £50k in 2023.

    We're screwed.
    This country, I mean.

    You know what this means for businesses, charities, homeowners, industry, hospitals, schools?

    Everything will *collapse*.

    It’s gonna be bad.
    Resilience. Britain has largely chosen not to have it.

    And a bit like Johnson with Covid, Truss gives the impression of not wanting to intervene. Even if that's a good instinct, it runs the risk of delaying necessary action, so it ends up worse than it needs to be.
    Clegg said in 2010 that there is no point building new nuke capacity in UK as it would not be available until 2022.

    And then Facebook made him the company's No 2.

    Sell Facebook.

    Clegg is not the number two at Facebook.
    Who is then? His promotion was presented by Zuckerberg as putting him on the same level as himself and Sheryl Sandberg, and now she's on the way out.
    The Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Product Officer, the Chief Technology Officer, and the Chief Business Officer are all massively more important than Nick Clegg.

    His job is meeting with Government regulators and having a posh title. His actual power at Facebook is negligible. And - if you look in the company's annual report - you can see that in his compensation. The Chief Something Officers are all on $200m plus packages over five years. Nick Clegg earns a couple of million a year (which is a lot of money), but it doesn't put him in the top twenty most important people at Facebook.
    Being a well spoken face of the company seems in his wheelhouse, and a couple of million fair reward for that I guess.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
    Squirming again to try and justify your indefensible position.

    The cesspit beckons.
    Sure. good save.
    Don't worry I am going to keep hammering it home so that all people will remember of this exchange is that you are the poster who believes Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in the attacks on them. You are an apologist for terrorism.
  • kle4 said:

    OT again.

    Interesting item on Euronews about French protesters taking action against golf courses which are staying green whilst all around them is withering away in the drought. What is the situation in the UK? Can the greens still be watered even if there is a hosepipe ban?

    For the record I detest golf but this is just a general interest enquiry.

    Golf needs to do its bit to “limit water usage as much as is reasonably practical at the current time”.

    So said the heads of two of the sport’s governing bodies as much of the UK finds itself in drought conditions following another spell of extreme hot weather.

    Tom Brooke, chief executive of the Golf Club Managers’ Association, and Jim Croxton, CEO of the British and International Golf Greenkeepers’ Association, added that players also needed to be “considerate” and understand that green playing surfaces were “quite simply not possible” as the home nations swelter under 30 degree heat...

    While golf courses have exemptions for irrigating sports turf, albeit with some restrictions on times of watering depending on the water company, Brooke and Croxton are urging the industry to consider its “social responsibility”.


    https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/gcma-bigga-uk-heatwave-warning/
    what about football pitches then ? Oh of course its the premier league innit and nothing to good for them
    If there is a drought and the water companies enforce a hosepipe ban then none of these sports should be exempt.

    That extends to cricket as well. Might be good to see English pitches behaving more like those from India and Pakistan.
  • MPartridgeMPartridge Posts: 151
    Overturning Roe vs Wade has cost the GOP massively at the upcoming midterms.

    Red wave has been dampened to a Red puddle
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
    Squirming again to try and justify your indefensible position.

    The cesspit beckons.
    Sure. good save.
    Don't worry I am going to keep hammering it home so that all people will remember of this exchange is that you are the poster who believes Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in the attacks on them. You are an apologist for terrorism.
    Have you been tested for BSE?

    do you not understand this?

    "Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo."

    I say they were culpable in attacks ON INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES, so you are going to say I said they were culpable in attacks ON THEM, because to a self important autodidact wots the diffrence?

    Happy to explain any points you are not clear about. In the meantime, "Hammer home" as much as you like, subject to the fact that doing so either makes you a vindictive liar, or means you got some serious spongiform shit going down. Sympathies.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Little Marco….

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3603940-demings-up-by-4-points-in-challenge-to-rubio-poll/
    …Rep. Val Demings (D) leads Sen. Marco Rubio (R) by 4 percentage points in Florida’s Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    The poll, released by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, shows Demings with the support of 48 percent of surveyed registered voters who said they would vote in the midterms.
    Rubio, in comparison, received 44 percent support, while 7 percent said they would choose someone else...

    There are an awful lot of "long shots" for the Dems this time around.

    Republicans have three realistic potential pick-ups:

    - Georgia
    - Arizona
    - Nevada

    And one and a half long-shots:

    - New Hampshire
    - Colorado

    But they are at risk in:

    - Pennsylvania
    - Ohio
    - Wisconsin
    - North Carolina
    and maybe even
    - Florida

    (And maybe Utah, albeit not to the Dems.)

    If Arizona is safe for the Dems (and Kelly is running up ten point leads), and Pennsylvania is a Dem gain, then there's a pretty narrow path to a Senate majority for the Republicans. They basically have to flip both Georgia and Nevada, and win everywhere else.
    Arizona is really not safe for the Dems

    "Arizona Governor Polls: Kari Lake Narrows the Lead, Trails Katie Hobbs By 1%"

    Lake is a genius, and I want to spank her. She has a pretty good chance

    https://crowdwisdom.live/us-politics/arizona-governor-race-2022-polls/
    That's because you're looking at the Gubernatorial race, and not the Senate race.

    For the Senate, the Republicans chose someone who had a charisma bypass operation.
    Ahh yes. The spankable Ms Lake distracts me in multiple ways
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
    Squirming again to try and justify your indefensible position.

    The cesspit beckons.
    Sure. good save.
    Don't worry I am going to keep hammering it home so that all people will remember of this exchange is that you are the poster who believes Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in the attacks on them. You are an apologist for terrorism.
    Have you been tested for BSE?

    do you not understand this?

    "Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo."

    I say they were culpable in attacks ON INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES, so you are going to say I said they were culpable in attacks ON THEM, because to a self important autodidact wots the diffrence?

    Happy to explain any points you are not clear about. In the meantime, "Hammer home" as much as you like, subject to the fact that doing so either makes you a vindictive liar, or means you got some serious spongiform shit going down. Sympathies.
    Ishmael. The apologist for terrorism. Has a nice ring to it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
    Squirming again to try and justify your indefensible position.

    The cesspit beckons.
    Sure. good save.
    Don't worry I am going to keep hammering it home so that all people will remember of this exchange is that you are the poster who believes Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in the attacks on them. You are an apologist for terrorism.
    Have you been tested for BSE?

    do you not understand this?

    "Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo."

    I say they were culpable in attacks ON INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES, so you are going to say I said they were culpable in attacks ON THEM, because to a self important autodidact wots the diffrence?

    Happy to explain any points you are not clear about. In the meantime, "Hammer home" as much as you like, subject to the fact that doing so either makes you a vindictive liar, or means you got some serious spongiform shit going down. Sympathies.
    Ishmael. The apologist for terrorism. Has a nice ring to it.
    you the guy who was bragging that your uncle had your fingers broken in your youth?

    Chavs gonna chav. You can take the X out of the Y, but you can't take the Y out of the X.

    But you've done very well, considering. Respect.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    538 is predicting the Democrats to win 50.3 seats (including the independents). Not much margin of error for the party.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate

    There's not much margin of error for either party, to be honest.
    True.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    Overturning Roe vs Wade has cost the GOP massively at the upcoming midterms.

    Red wave has been dampened to a Red puddle

    But think of all the babies that will be saved in pro life majority states, for pro life evangelicals that is all that matters
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    edited August 2022
    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Little Marco….

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3603940-demings-up-by-4-points-in-challenge-to-rubio-poll/
    …Rep. Val Demings (D) leads Sen. Marco Rubio (R) by 4 percentage points in Florida’s Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    The poll, released by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, shows Demings with the support of 48 percent of surveyed registered voters who said they would vote in the midterms.
    Rubio, in comparison, received 44 percent support, while 7 percent said they would choose someone else...

    There are an awful lot of "long shots" for the Dems this time around.

    Republicans have three realistic potential pick-ups:

    - Georgia
    - Arizona
    - Nevada

    And one and a half long-shots:

    - New Hampshire
    - Colorado

    But they are at risk in:

    - Pennsylvania
    - Ohio
    - Wisconsin
    - North Carolina
    and maybe even
    - Florida

    (And maybe Utah, albeit not to the Dems.)

    If Arizona is safe for the Dems (and Kelly is running up ten point leads), and Pennsylvania is a Dem gain, then there's a pretty narrow path to a Senate majority for the Republicans. They basically have to flip both Georgia and Nevada, and win everywhere else.
    Arizona is really not safe for the Dems

    "Arizona Governor Polls: Kari Lake Narrows the Lead, Trails Katie Hobbs By 1%"

    Lake is a genius, and I want to spank her. She has a pretty good chance

    https://crowdwisdom.live/us-politics/arizona-governor-race-2022-polls/
    That's because you're looking at the Gubernatorial race, and not the Senate race.

    For the Senate, the Republicans chose someone who had a charisma bypass operation.
    Ahh yes. The spankable Ms Lake distracts me in multiple ways
    Blake Masters is the dream candidate for the Democrats. He is a Peter Thiel acolyte who won the Republican Primary by a narrow margin after Thiel's PAC put millions of dollars into the race. He speaks in a slightly strange monotone with pauses at all the wrong moments. I suspect he's actually secretly competent. But he comes across as an early - failed - attempt to create an android who can pass the Turing test.

    By contrast, Mark Kelly is on the extreme moderate end of the Democrats, and is an engaging ex-astronaut, who works very hard to be seen as bipartisan.

    I could well see Ms Lake winning by two points, and Mr Kelly by five.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    edited August 2022

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    Excellent plan. Helps reduce bicycle theft, and identify rogue cyclists who spoil the scene for all the normal cyclists. They'll get me voting Tory at this rate. What seems to be the problem?
    The reason I don't drive and do cycle is mainly because I don't have to engage with any bureaucracy with bicycles. I would give up cycling if this plan comes into force and probably use taxis more.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344
    @elonmusk
    Also, I’m buying Manchester United ur welcome


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1559691922725281800
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 1,059
    I don't know what you do in Britain, but in America children Kari Lake's age are rarely spanked (however much they deserve it). They may be "grounded" (kept home for a week or two), or have their time on Facebook limited, and so forth.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,231
    edited August 2022

    @elonmusk
    Also, I’m buying Manchester United ur welcome


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1559691922725281800

    LOL, about as good an 'investment' as Twitter. 🤣

    Their players being misfunctioning bots would explain a lot though ... 🤔
  • Liz Cheney concedes in Wyoming.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    Liz Cheney concedes in Wyoming.

    Unsurprising outcome, but taking a firm stand at least means she has retained her dignity. Office just isnt worth some things.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,522

    pm215 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    Excellent plan. Helps reduce bicycle theft, and identify rogue cyclists who spoil the scene for all the normal cyclists. They'll get me voting Tory at this rate. What seems to be the problem?
    The problem I think is that any (even minor) obstacle to people cycling means in practice fewer people getting a bit of exercise, more traffic congestion, and more car pollution. Plus it's going to cost civil service and government time to set up, money to implement, money to enforce, and it doesn't really get you much of a payback to justify that.
    As the government recently said;
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/585474

    The Government considers that the costs of a formal registration system for cycle ownership would outweigh the benefits. The safety case for such a system is not as strong as that for drivers since, by contrast with motorised vehicles, cycles involved in collisions on the highway are highly unlikely to cause serious injury to other road users.

    Cycling provides clear benefits, both for those cycling (particularly in terms of health) and for wider society (tackling congestion, reducing CO2 emissions and improved air quality). The introduction of a licensing system would significantly reduce these benefits, especially over the short term. Over the long term, it would deny children and young adults from enjoying the mobility and health benefits cycling brings until they were old enough to pass a formal test.


    But Boris didn't really carry the party with him when he tried to do stuff for cycling/walking/scooting. Not what Proper Tories do, and it annoys drivers in general and taxi drivers in particular.
    A quick google shows that the only countries that require registration of cycles are Japan and Switzerland. And there it for prevention (or detection) of theft rather than road safety reasons. It does seem rather OTT to me.
    Yeah, Japan does it for anti-theft reasons and I don't think it's compulsory. There aren't any numberplates or anything, I think you get a teensy little sticker to put on the frame somewhere if you want to.
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    Well done Emma Raducanu!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825

    Overturning Roe vs Wade has cost the GOP massively at the upcoming midterms.

    Red wave has been dampened to a Red puddle

    It does look as if the Republican takeover has been oversold. Everyone has written off the Dems, but if it turns out that inflation has already peaked in the USA, and the Republicans remain split between the Trumpites and the sane we could be looking at some unexpected good results for the Democrats.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Cycle license plates:

    Back in the 50s in a particular suburb of Chicago (where and when Republicans were blue and Democrats were red) bicycles were mot-eed and given mini license plates attached under the seat post. Modern digital technology could improve this hugely and indeed does for motorbikes.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Sean_F said:

    Leon said:

    Just trying to work out if it is better to have Trump or the Woke, sorry, Pinochet or Chavez
    So I had a look at Venezuela's economy. OMFG. I had no idea

    Their GDP per capita went from around $12,000 in 2010 to $1,900 now


    https://www.statista.com/statistics/371876/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-venezuela/


    It is better to have Pinochet than Chavez

    Just trying to work out whether it is better to have Hitler or Stalin.

    Answer: choose FDR or Churchill.
    Hitler v Stalin is the choice between a sadistic savage and a mafia boss. The latter is slightly preferable to the former. Like choosing between Morgoth and Sauron.
    Hitler v Stalin is actually quite hard

    Both are, to me, examples of pure evil

    Mao is another, likewise Pol Pot

    All brought catastrophe on their nations, and killed millions. Deliberately

    Perhaps Hitler's evil was of a uniquely Satanic kind, even worse than Stalin? But was it tho? The Holodomor was pretty out there, and the immense system of state torture under Stalin was bigger than anything Hitler did to the German people

    Tough call
    I guess Pol Pot is worst for the sheer lunacy of his government, and for the harm he did in such a short period of time (killing 25% of the population in three years).

    Hitler lost, and Stalin won. Had Hitler won, he would not have just wiped out the Jews, but about 60% of the slavs as well, save for those lucky enough either to be Germanised, or kept for slave labour.
    Hitler had genocide as a matter of state policy, whereas for Stalin such decisions were more tactical, but ethically there's virtually nothing between them - both were merciless and ruthless tyrants.

    Up until 1942 at least, everyday life for an ethnic German in the Reich was certainly superior to that in the Soviet Union - which explains why Hitler initially found allies upon launch of Barbarossa, for example.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    On tax cuts, it's interesting that those who argue they don't offer a fiscal stimulus are often precisely those who say extra public spending does.

    They both do (or can) and both load onto the national debt if not budgeted. It's just one is a private sector stimulus, likely directed more towards consumption and property, and the latter to infrastructure projects, public services and often direct welfare payments too (a sort of negative income tax).

    The important thing is that unless they lead to a structural improvement in economic efficiency, they eventually need to be paid for by rebalancing the public purse.
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    Even times radio taking the piss re: the period dignity officer story.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,268
    The BBC is utterly screwed. Reports the BBC:

    "Young people now watch almost seven times less broadcast television than people aged over 65, according to a report from regulator Ofcom.

    It said 16 to 24-year-olds spend just 53 minutes watching TV each day, a two-thirds decrease in the past 10 years.

    Meanwhile, those aged 65 and over spend just under six hours on average watching TV daily."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62506041
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Liz Cheney concedes in Wyoming.

    I will say this for Liz Cheney: She was wrong about all but one thing, but that one thing was the most important thing. And she gave up more than most of us have to try to save it.
    https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1559717290953818112
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    The BBC is utterly screwed. Reports the BBC:

    "Young people now watch almost seven times less broadcast television than people aged over 65, according to a report from regulator Ofcom.

    It said 16 to 24-year-olds spend just 53 minutes watching TV each day, a two-thirds decrease in the past 10 years.

    Meanwhile, those aged 65 and over spend just under six hours on average watching TV daily."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62506041

    I'm amazed its that much.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020

    The BBC is utterly screwed. Reports the BBC:

    "Young people now watch almost seven times less broadcast television than people aged over 65, according to a report from regulator Ofcom.

    It said 16 to 24-year-olds spend just 53 minutes watching TV each day, a two-thirds decrease in the past 10 years.

    Meanwhile, those aged 65 and over spend just under six hours on average watching TV daily."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62506041

    But video content across all devices is about the same.

    It's just the young watch videos on TikTok and Youtube rather than scheduled broadcasting.

    Has the BBC considered generating (non-patronising) content for those?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    BREAKING: GERMANY TO POSTPONE NUCLEAR CLOSURES

    From @bopanc at the Wall Street Journal.

    "Temporary" move that is easy because reactors are ready to roll with no modifications or upgrades or even new fuel at the moment.

    https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1559558637068206081
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    edited August 2022
    Inflation 10.1% (CPI)

    Above expectations of 9.6-9.8%
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322

    OT again.

    Interesting item on Euronews about French protesters taking action against golf courses which are staying green whilst all around them is withering away in the drought. What is the situation in the UK? Can the greens still be watered even if there is a hosepipe ban?

    For the record I detest golf but this is just a general interest enquiry.

    No ban yet - Golf is played at least twice a month by 2 million people (mainly older people for which it is an ideal form of exercise and social interaction )-
    Not sure what difference that makes. Many millions of people get exercise and pleasure from their gardens and no one is suggesting they be exempted from bans.
    AIUI the exemption in France was just for the greens, the fairways etc were not watered. Seems a fair compromise imo.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036

    The BBC is utterly screwed. Reports the BBC:

    "Young people now watch almost seven times less broadcast television than people aged over 65, according to a report from regulator Ofcom.

    It said 16 to 24-year-olds spend just 53 minutes watching TV each day, a two-thirds decrease in the past 10 years.

    Meanwhile, those aged 65 and over spend just under six hours on average watching TV daily."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62506041

    Wow, the oldsters are watching a lot of TV! I probably average an hour a day. The only TV we watch live is football matches and Strictly, but we do watch a lot on iPlayer as well as Netflix and Disney+.
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    RPI 12.3%
  • pingping Posts: 3,297
    edited August 2022
    Come on BoE

    Stop taking the piss. We need base rates at 5%, at least.

    You need to take this shit seriously.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036

    On tax cuts, it's interesting that those who argue they don't offer a fiscal stimulus are often precisely those who say extra public spending does.

    They both do (or can) and both load onto the national debt if not budgeted. It's just one is a private sector stimulus, likely directed more towards consumption and property, and the latter to infrastructure projects, public services and often direct welfare payments too (a sort of negative income tax).

    The important thing is that unless they lead to a structural improvement in economic efficiency, they eventually need to be paid for by rebalancing the public purse.

    Tax cuts will definitely give a short term boost to the economy, although probably less than a spending increase if they are directed towards corporates and the better off, who have lower marginal propensities to spend. The question is whether it is wise to boost aggregate demand when the economy is experiencing double digit inflation and a huge negative supply shock, especially as the BOE will likely have to raise rates more to offset the additional inflation it would create.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,268

    The BBC is utterly screwed. Reports the BBC:

    "Young people now watch almost seven times less broadcast television than people aged over 65, according to a report from regulator Ofcom.

    It said 16 to 24-year-olds spend just 53 minutes watching TV each day, a two-thirds decrease in the past 10 years.

    Meanwhile, those aged 65 and over spend just under six hours on average watching TV daily."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62506041

    But video content across all devices is about the same.

    It's just the young watch videos on TikTok and Youtube rather than scheduled broadcasting.

    Has the BBC considered generating (non-patronising) content for those?
    BBC content that would require the young to buy a Licence to watch.

    Or they could continue to watch the stuff they watch for free.

    The BBC's answer to this problem has included bringing back BBC3. Which has failed:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/15/bbc-three-relaunched-live-tv-channel-struggles-to-win-viewers
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322

    The BBC is utterly screwed. Reports the BBC:

    "Young people now watch almost seven times less broadcast television than people aged over 65, according to a report from regulator Ofcom.

    It said 16 to 24-year-olds spend just 53 minutes watching TV each day, a two-thirds decrease in the past 10 years.

    Meanwhile, those aged 65 and over spend just under six hours on average watching TV daily."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62506041

    But video content across all devices is about the same.

    It's just the young watch videos on TikTok and Youtube rather than scheduled broadcasting.

    Has the BBC considered generating (non-patronising) content for those?
    BBC content that would require the young to buy a Licence to watch.

    Or they could continue to watch the stuff they watch for free.

    The BBC's answer to this problem has included bringing back BBC3. Which has failed:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/15/bbc-three-relaunched-live-tv-channel-struggles-to-win-viewers
    They should try BBC5, that would be new.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036
    HYUFD said:

    Overturning Roe vs Wade has cost the GOP massively at the upcoming midterms.

    Red wave has been dampened to a Red puddle

    But think of all the babies that will be saved in pro life majority states, for pro life evangelicals that is all that matters
    Mostly poor babies who Republicans will work their hardest to starve of a well resourced education, give no government financial assistance to, send to jail and prevent from voting. Life starts at conception but compassion ends at birth for these people.
  • The UK’s productivity problems are largely down to piss-poor, penny-pinching, short-termist managers, not lazy workers.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,348
    Nigelb said:

    Liz Cheney concedes in Wyoming.

    I will say this for Liz Cheney: She was wrong about all but one thing, but that one thing was the most important thing. And she gave up more than most of us have to try to save it.
    https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1559717290953818112
    Liz Cheney:
    "The great and original champion of our party, Abraham Lincoln, was defeated in elections for the Senate and the House before he won the most important election of all"
    "Our work is far from over."
  • kle4 said:

    Liz Cheney concedes in Wyoming.

    Unsurprising outcome, but taking a firm stand at least means she has retained her dignity. Office just isnt worth some things.
    The mental thing about the US Congress is that a term lasts 2 years. Endless campaigning can't make for good lawmaking and scrutiny.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,863
    Ccgt still at 60% just wind has replaced solar
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
    Squirming again to try and justify your indefensible position.

    The cesspit beckons.
    Sure. good save.
    Don't worry I am going to keep hammering it home so that all people will remember of this exchange is that you are the poster who believes Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in the attacks on them. You are an apologist for terrorism.
    Have you been tested for BSE?

    do you not understand this?

    "Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo."

    I say they were culpable in attacks ON INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES, so you are going to say I said they were culpable in attacks ON THEM, because to a self important autodidact wots the diffrence?

    Happy to explain any points you are not clear about. In the meantime, "Hammer home" as much as you like, subject to the fact that doing so either makes you a vindictive liar, or means you got some serious spongiform shit going down. Sympathies.
    Ishmael. The apologist for terrorism. Has a nice ring to it.
    you the guy who was bragging that your uncle had your fingers broken in your youth?

    Chavs gonna chav. You can take the X out of the Y, but you can't take the Y out of the X.

    But you've done very well, considering. Respect.
    My Uncle was John Tyndall the founder of the National Front. If you are going to have enemies they might as well be really nasty ones as it makes them easier to hate.

    At least I have stood for something rather than being a craven apologist.
    Ouch, that is quite the black sheep. I know someone who punched your uncle in the face.
  • kle4 said:

    Liz Cheney concedes in Wyoming.

    Unsurprising outcome, but taking a firm stand at least means she has retained her dignity. Office just isnt worth some things.
    The mental thing about the US Congress is that a term lasts 2 years. Endless campaigning can't make for good lawmaking and scrutiny.
    The Chartists would be happy.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    On tax cuts, it's interesting that those who argue they don't offer a fiscal stimulus are often precisely those who say extra public spending does.

    They both do (or can) and both load onto the national debt if not budgeted. It's just one is a private sector stimulus, likely directed more towards consumption and property, and the latter to infrastructure projects, public services and often direct welfare payments too (a sort of negative income tax).

    The important thing is that unless they lead to a structural improvement in economic efficiency, they eventually need to be paid for by rebalancing the public purse.

    Raising interest rates to take money out of individual and company pockets at the same time as cutting taxes to put money back in isn’t, however, the optimum combination. Stimulus from public spending works in a different way and can be deployed counter-cyclically as per Keynes.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036

    kle4 said:

    Liz Cheney concedes in Wyoming.

    Unsurprising outcome, but taking a firm stand at least means she has retained her dignity. Office just isnt worth some things.
    The mental thing about the US Congress is that a term lasts 2 years. Endless campaigning can't make for good lawmaking and scrutiny.
    It doesn't! The Chartists called for annual parliaments I seem to recall, which is the one thing I think they were wrong about.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    The UK’s productivity problems are largely down to piss-poor, penny-pinching, short-termist managers, not lazy workers.

    And politicians!
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,968
    Jeez that inflation figure.

    This is going to destroy the incompetent sleazy Tories!
  • I hope that one outcome of the coming Winter Of Hell is that when we come out the other side, English voters wake up to the realities of their problems and start demanding political solutions.

    They identified the right issue with Brexit - a democratic deficit - but chose the wrong target - Brussels instead of Westminster.

    We have so many structural problems in the UK that can't be solved with the elect idiots / get lied to / make voters even less connected to reality / elect even bigger idiots cycle. And Keir Starmer is not the solution by himself.

    Create fit for purpose structures - starting with an English parliament - and we have a chance to work these issues through. Constitutional matters can't be seen as a distraction from the day to day issues because it drives so much of them...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,869
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, alas, I think an English Parliament will not even be up for discussion come the next election.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,863
    IanB2 said:

    On tax cuts, it's interesting that those who argue they don't offer a fiscal stimulus are often precisely those who say extra public spending does.

    They both do (or can) and both load onto the national debt if not budgeted. It's just one is a private sector stimulus, likely directed more towards consumption and property, and the latter to infrastructure projects, public services and often direct welfare payments too (a sort of negative income tax).

    The important thing is that unless they lead to a structural improvement in economic efficiency, they eventually need to be paid for by rebalancing the public purse.

    Raising interest rates to take money out of individual and company pockets at the same time as cutting taxes to put money back in isn’t, however, the optimum combination. Stimulus from public spending works in a different way and can be deployed counter-cyclically as per Keynes.
    The great wind turbine stimulus package
  • murali_s said:

    Jeez that inflation figure.

    This is going to destroy the incompetent sleazy Tories!

    Their response:
    1) We are doing NOTHING until we elect a new leader and your new PM in a few weeks
    2) That includes barely even shrugging at the new $1m energy price cap being announced next week
    3) The new PM Mistress Truss will feel your pain. She knows a lot about inflicting it. But will tell you that her tax cuts are the solution
    4) Commentators will point out that the proposed tax cut would cover about 3 days of power at the new prices.
    5) Tory MPs will attack commentators, insist it is a New Government, blame the people struggling for not having better jobs which would have a higher tax bill and thus a bigger saving to offset energy bills

    Meanwhile, in the red wall and even the blue wall, normals scratch their heads and think "why don't they get it?"

    And it isn't just energy bills. Is there a single service that works properly? Trains? Schools? Doctors? Getting a passport?
  • I never thought I'd say Scott Morrison is the new Duke of Wellington.

    Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resisted calls to resign from parliament, after news emerged that he had secretly assumed five additional roles during his tenure.

    He defended his decision - which was taken during the pandemic - as "necessary" in "extraordinary times".

    Mr Morrison is currently the member of parliament for Cook.

    The revelations caused uproar amongst the public and his colleagues, with one calling his behaviour "dictatorial".

    Mr Morrison became joint minister for the health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources portfolios from March 2020 and May 2021.

    In a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Morrison defended his decision by saying he was "acting in the national interest in a crisis" in the event a minister was incapacitated with Covid-19.

    "I believed it was necessary to have authority, to have what were effectively emergency powers, to exercise in extreme situations," he said.

    He added he had never acted as minister despite being secretly sworn into those portfolios.

    "I did not instruct any department that I was to have jurisdiction for carriage of any of the issues that the ministers were dealing with on a day-to-day basis," he said.

    When queried about why he had not disclosed the expansion of portfolios to cabinet or to the broader public, he argued there was a risk the powers he took on could have been misconstrued.

    "I think there was a great risk that ... those powers could be misinterpreted and misunderstood, which would have caused unnecessary angst in the middle of a pandemic," he said.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62462281
  • IanB2 said:

    The UK’s productivity problems are largely down to piss-poor, penny-pinching, short-termist managers, not lazy workers.

    And politicians!
    Who pander to the above.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, alas, I think an English Parliament will not even be up for discussion come the next election.

    We need regional parliaments. We don't need a bunch of Southerners and Mancs telling us in Yorkshire where we can spend money.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Little Marco….

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3603940-demings-up-by-4-points-in-challenge-to-rubio-poll/
    …Rep. Val Demings (D) leads Sen. Marco Rubio (R) by 4 percentage points in Florida’s Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    The poll, released by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, shows Demings with the support of 48 percent of surveyed registered voters who said they would vote in the midterms.
    Rubio, in comparison, received 44 percent support, while 7 percent said they would choose someone else...

    There are an awful lot of "long shots" for the Dems this time around.

    Republicans have three realistic potential pick-ups:

    - Georgia
    - Arizona
    - Nevada

    And one and a half long-shots:

    - New Hampshire
    - Colorado

    But they are at risk in:

    - Pennsylvania
    - Ohio
    - Wisconsin
    - North Carolina
    and maybe even
    - Florida

    (And maybe Utah, albeit not to the Dems.)

    If Arizona is safe for the Dems (and Kelly is running up ten point leads), and Pennsylvania is a Dem gain, then there's a pretty narrow path to a Senate majority for the Republicans. They basically have to flip both Georgia and Nevada, and win everywhere else.
    Arizona is really not safe for the Dems

    "Arizona Governor Polls: Kari Lake Narrows the Lead, Trails Katie Hobbs By 1%"

    Lake is a genius, and I want to spank her. She has a pretty good chance

    https://crowdwisdom.live/us-politics/arizona-governor-race-2022-polls/
    That's because you're looking at the Gubernatorial race, and not the Senate race.

    For the Senate, the Republicans chose someone who had a charisma bypass operation.
    Ahh yes. The spankable Ms Lake distracts me in multiple ways
    Blake Masters is the dream candidate for the Democrats. He is a Peter Thiel acolyte who won the Republican Primary by a narrow margin after Thiel's PAC put millions of dollars into the race. He speaks in a slightly strange monotone with pauses at all the wrong moments. I suspect he's actually secretly competent. But he comes across as an early - failed - attempt to create an android who can pass the Turing test.

    By contrast, Mark Kelly is on the extreme moderate end of the Democrats, and is an engaging ex-astronaut, who works very hard to be seen as bipartisan.

    I could well see Ms Lake winning by two points, and Mr Kelly by five.

    I thought Herschel Walker was the dream candidate for the Democrats?

    Wait, maybe I am thinking of JD Vance.

    No, no, it's Doctor Oz who is the Dream candidate.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,874
    IanB2 said:

    On tax cuts, it's interesting that those who argue they don't offer a fiscal stimulus are often precisely those who say extra public spending does.

    They both do (or can) and both load onto the national debt if not budgeted. It's just one is a private sector stimulus, likely directed more towards consumption and property, and the latter to infrastructure projects, public services and often direct welfare payments too (a sort of negative income tax).

    The important thing is that unless they lead to a structural improvement in economic efficiency, they eventually need to be paid for by rebalancing the public purse.

    Raising interest rates to take money out of individual and company pockets at the same time as cutting taxes to put money back in isn’t, however, the optimum combination. Stimulus from public spending works in a different way and can be deployed counter-cyclically as per Keynes.
    The problem with that is that Keynes contemplated such measures when there was a shortage of demand leading to recession and reducing prices such as the UK and in particular the US suffered in the early 30s. We already have a horrendous trade deficit which suggests excess demand in the system sucking in imports and increasing inflation suggesting a money supply that is out of control. We also currently have pretty much full employment. If the government borrows even more to finance that stimulus it risks aggravating all of these problems boosting inflation yet higher.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    I never thought I'd say Scott Morrison is the new Duke of Wellington.

    Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resisted calls to resign from parliament, after news emerged that he had secretly assumed five additional roles during his tenure.

    He defended his decision - which was taken during the pandemic - as "necessary" in "extraordinary times".

    Mr Morrison is currently the member of parliament for Cook.

    The revelations caused uproar amongst the public and his colleagues, with one calling his behaviour "dictatorial".

    Mr Morrison became joint minister for the health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources portfolios from March 2020 and May 2021.

    In a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Morrison defended his decision by saying he was "acting in the national interest in a crisis" in the event a minister was incapacitated with Covid-19.

    "I believed it was necessary to have authority, to have what were effectively emergency powers, to exercise in extreme situations," he said.

    He added he had never acted as minister despite being secretly sworn into those portfolios.

    "I did not instruct any department that I was to have jurisdiction for carriage of any of the issues that the ministers were dealing with on a day-to-day basis," he said.

    When queried about why he had not disclosed the expansion of portfolios to cabinet or to the broader public, he argued there was a risk the powers he took on could have been misconstrued.

    "I think there was a great risk that ... those powers could be misinterpreted and misunderstood, which would have caused unnecessary angst in the middle of a pandemic," he said.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62462281

    He's had time to come up with a reason why he had to do this secretly, and he still hasn't managed to come up with a credible one I see.

    I mean 'I am arranging for contingency power arrangements in the event a minister is incapacited' would cause less angst. And that apparently he thinks he would have been incapable of preventing that from being misunderstood suggests he rates his own capabilities pretty lowly, in which case perhaps he should not have taken on more powers.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, alas, I think an English Parliament will not even be up for discussion come the next election.

    Indeed. Instead of accepting that a lack of English representation or nation or even understanding that English is not British won't be addressed. Instead of fixing the democracy gap by creating an English national parliament, we will go the other way.

    Freeports? Taking Teesside and other places and privatising them - lets have a shadowy private company allowed to make its own laws and rules and not give the voters a say. Then they want to go further - Charter Cities where English laws and regulations don't have to apply at all.

    And all the time, they will say your lack of control is he fault of the other - Brussels imposing rules still, the bloody Irish stopping us doing what we want, whining Sturgeon who should be ignored (but not allowed to leave) etc etc.
  • murali_s said:

    Jeez that inflation figure.

    This is going to destroy the incompetent sleazy Tories!

    Their response:
    1) We are doing NOTHING until we elect a new leader and your new PM in a few weeks
    2) That includes barely even shrugging at the new $1m energy price cap being announced next week
    3) The new PM Mistress Truss will feel your pain. She knows a lot about inflicting it. But will tell you that her tax cuts are the solution
    4) Commentators will point out that the proposed tax cut would cover about 3 days of power at the new prices.
    5) Tory MPs will attack commentators, insist it is a New Government, blame the people struggling for not having better jobs which would have a higher tax bill and thus a bigger saving to offset energy bills

    Meanwhile, in the red wall and even the blue wall, normals scratch their heads and think "why don't they get it?"

    And it isn't just energy bills. Is there a single service that works properly? Trains? Schools? Doctors? Getting a passport?
    Not really, and plenty of services are about to get worse.
    It's also the political equivalent of stagflation; there's no way of improving things that doesn't make other things worse. And whilst an English Parliament might help, it might also turn into the embodiment of the "don't you know who I am?" shouty entitlement that underlies so many of our problems.

    The definition of a con trick is to promise something for nothing, then deliver nothing for something. We have had lots of the first for decades, now we're getting the second and are running out of excuses.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Cheney defeated in primary.

    Sounds an awful lot like she will do something in 2024.

    Third party run as Indie GOP?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    murali_s said:

    Jeez that inflation figure.

    This is going to destroy the incompetent sleazy Tories!

    Their response:
    1) We are doing NOTHING until we elect a new leader and your new PM in a few weeks
    2) That includes barely even shrugging at the new $1m energy price cap being announced next week
    3) The new PM Mistress Truss will feel your pain. She knows a lot about inflicting it. But will tell you that her tax cuts are the solution
    4) Commentators will point out that the proposed tax cut would cover about 3 days of power at the new prices.
    5) Tory MPs will attack commentators, insist it is a New Government, blame the people struggling for not having better jobs which would have a higher tax bill and thus a bigger saving to offset energy bills

    Meanwhile, in the red wall and even the blue wall, normals scratch their heads and think "why don't they get it?"

    And it isn't just energy bills. Is there a single service that works properly? Trains? Schools? Doctors? Getting a passport?
    Tax collection (rich and corporations not included).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,869
    Mr. Eagles, slicing England into little pieces is a wretched idea.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    .
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Little Marco….

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3603940-demings-up-by-4-points-in-challenge-to-rubio-poll/
    …Rep. Val Demings (D) leads Sen. Marco Rubio (R) by 4 percentage points in Florida’s Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    The poll, released by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, shows Demings with the support of 48 percent of surveyed registered voters who said they would vote in the midterms.
    Rubio, in comparison, received 44 percent support, while 7 percent said they would choose someone else...

    There are an awful lot of "long shots" for the Dems this time around.

    Republicans have three realistic potential pick-ups:

    - Georgia
    - Arizona
    - Nevada

    And one and a half long-shots:

    - New Hampshire
    - Colorado

    But they are at risk in:

    - Pennsylvania
    - Ohio
    - Wisconsin
    - North Carolina
    and maybe even
    - Florida

    (And maybe Utah, albeit not to the Dems.)

    If Arizona is safe for the Dems (and Kelly is running up ten point leads), and Pennsylvania is a Dem gain, then there's a pretty narrow path to a Senate majority for the Republicans. They basically have to flip both Georgia and Nevada, and win everywhere else.
    Arizona is really not safe for the Dems

    "Arizona Governor Polls: Kari Lake Narrows the Lead, Trails Katie Hobbs By 1%"

    Lake is a genius, and I want to spank her. She has a pretty good chance

    https://crowdwisdom.live/us-politics/arizona-governor-race-2022-polls/
    That's because you're looking at the Gubernatorial race, and not the Senate race.

    For the Senate, the Republicans chose someone who had a charisma bypass operation.
    Ahh yes. The spankable Ms Lake distracts me in multiple ways
    Blake Masters is the dream candidate for the Democrats. He is a Peter Thiel acolyte who won the Republican Primary by a narrow margin after Thiel's PAC put millions of dollars into the race. He speaks in a slightly strange monotone with pauses at all the wrong moments. I suspect he's actually secretly competent. But he comes across as an early - failed - attempt to create an android who can pass the Turing test.

    By contrast, Mark Kelly is on the extreme moderate end of the Democrats, and is an engaging ex-astronaut, who works very hard to be seen as bipartisan.

    I could well see Ms Lake winning by two points, and Mr Kelly by five.

    I thought Herschel Walker was the dream candidate for the Democrats?

    Wait, maybe I am thinking of JD Vance.

    No, no, it's Doctor Oz who is the Dream candidate.
    I see from his groceries encounter yesterday that Doc Oz has the same familiarity with supermarkets as does Rishi.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    I never thought I'd say Scott Morrison is the new Duke of Wellington.

    Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resisted calls to resign from parliament, after news emerged that he had secretly assumed five additional roles during his tenure.

    He defended his decision - which was taken during the pandemic - as "necessary" in "extraordinary times".

    Mr Morrison is currently the member of parliament for Cook.

    The revelations caused uproar amongst the public and his colleagues, with one calling his behaviour "dictatorial".

    Mr Morrison became joint minister for the health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources portfolios from March 2020 and May 2021.

    In a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Morrison defended his decision by saying he was "acting in the national interest in a crisis" in the event a minister was incapacitated with Covid-19.

    "I believed it was necessary to have authority, to have what were effectively emergency powers, to exercise in extreme situations," he said.

    He added he had never acted as minister despite being secretly sworn into those portfolios.

    "I did not instruct any department that I was to have jurisdiction for carriage of any of the issues that the ministers were dealing with on a day-to-day basis," he said.

    When queried about why he had not disclosed the expansion of portfolios to cabinet or to the broader public, he argued there was a risk the powers he took on could have been misconstrued.

    "I think there was a great risk that ... those powers could be misinterpreted and misunderstood, which would have caused unnecessary angst in the middle of a pandemic," he said.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62462281

    During his first election campaign, he was asked who would have the final say on any policy. He replied simply, 'Me.'

    I don't think anybody expected him to take it quite so literally though!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Mr. Eagles, slicing England into little pieces is a wretched idea.

    So is an English Parliament.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,869
    Mr. B, opposed to devolution in Scotland and Wales, or just for England?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036
    ydoethur said:

    I never thought I'd say Scott Morrison is the new Duke of Wellington.

    Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resisted calls to resign from parliament, after news emerged that he had secretly assumed five additional roles during his tenure.

    He defended his decision - which was taken during the pandemic - as "necessary" in "extraordinary times".

    Mr Morrison is currently the member of parliament for Cook.

    The revelations caused uproar amongst the public and his colleagues, with one calling his behaviour "dictatorial".

    Mr Morrison became joint minister for the health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources portfolios from March 2020 and May 2021.

    In a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Morrison defended his decision by saying he was "acting in the national interest in a crisis" in the event a minister was incapacitated with Covid-19.

    "I believed it was necessary to have authority, to have what were effectively emergency powers, to exercise in extreme situations," he said.

    He added he had never acted as minister despite being secretly sworn into those portfolios.

    "I did not instruct any department that I was to have jurisdiction for carriage of any of the issues that the ministers were dealing with on a day-to-day basis," he said.

    When queried about why he had not disclosed the expansion of portfolios to cabinet or to the broader public, he argued there was a risk the powers he took on could have been misconstrued.

    "I think there was a great risk that ... those powers could be misinterpreted and misunderstood, which would have caused unnecessary angst in the middle of a pandemic," he said.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62462281

    During his first election campaign, he was asked who would have the final say on any policy. He replied simply, 'Me.'

    I don't think anybody expected him to take it quite so literally though!
    I think we need an urgent review to check if similar behaviour is possible here (I assume it is) and put measures in place to prevent it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    kle4 said:

    I never thought I'd say Scott Morrison is the new Duke of Wellington.

    Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resisted calls to resign from parliament, after news emerged that he had secretly assumed five additional roles during his tenure.

    He defended his decision - which was taken during the pandemic - as "necessary" in "extraordinary times".

    Mr Morrison is currently the member of parliament for Cook.

    The revelations caused uproar amongst the public and his colleagues, with one calling his behaviour "dictatorial".

    Mr Morrison became joint minister for the health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources portfolios from March 2020 and May 2021.

    In a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Morrison defended his decision by saying he was "acting in the national interest in a crisis" in the event a minister was incapacitated with Covid-19.

    "I believed it was necessary to have authority, to have what were effectively emergency powers, to exercise in extreme situations," he said.

    He added he had never acted as minister despite being secretly sworn into those portfolios.

    "I did not instruct any department that I was to have jurisdiction for carriage of any of the issues that the ministers were dealing with on a day-to-day basis," he said.

    When queried about why he had not disclosed the expansion of portfolios to cabinet or to the broader public, he argued there was a risk the powers he took on could have been misconstrued.

    "I think there was a great risk that ... those powers could be misinterpreted and misunderstood, which would have caused unnecessary angst in the middle of a pandemic," he said.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62462281

    He's had time to come up with a reason why he had to do this secretly, and he still hasn't managed to come up with a credible one I see.

    I mean 'I am arranging for contingency power arrangements in the event a minister is incapacited' would cause less angst. And that apparently he thinks he would have been incapable of preventing that from being misunderstood suggests he rates his own capabilities pretty lowly, in which case perhaps he should not have taken on more powers.
    He still didn't do anything illegal, so he still won't resign from parliament
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    ydoethur said:

    I never thought I'd say Scott Morrison is the new Duke of Wellington.

    Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resisted calls to resign from parliament, after news emerged that he had secretly assumed five additional roles during his tenure.

    He defended his decision - which was taken during the pandemic - as "necessary" in "extraordinary times".

    Mr Morrison is currently the member of parliament for Cook.

    The revelations caused uproar amongst the public and his colleagues, with one calling his behaviour "dictatorial".

    Mr Morrison became joint minister for the health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources portfolios from March 2020 and May 2021.

    In a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Morrison defended his decision by saying he was "acting in the national interest in a crisis" in the event a minister was incapacitated with Covid-19.

    "I believed it was necessary to have authority, to have what were effectively emergency powers, to exercise in extreme situations," he said.

    He added he had never acted as minister despite being secretly sworn into those portfolios.

    "I did not instruct any department that I was to have jurisdiction for carriage of any of the issues that the ministers were dealing with on a day-to-day basis," he said.

    When queried about why he had not disclosed the expansion of portfolios to cabinet or to the broader public, he argued there was a risk the powers he took on could have been misconstrued.

    "I think there was a great risk that ... those powers could be misinterpreted and misunderstood, which would have caused unnecessary angst in the middle of a pandemic," he said.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62462281

    During his first election campaign, he was asked who would have the final say on any policy. He replied simply, 'Me.'

    I don't think anybody expected him to take it quite so literally though!
    It's purely the secrecy though, even within much of his Cabinet, which is so weird. I don't think anyone would even have cared that the PM was taking on additional portfolios, shared or otherwise. I know it is not as common now, in the UK at least, but it is hardly uncommon historically for PMs to also to hold other roles.

    His explanations have just been bizarrely not addressing the actual point. By talking about it being misinterpreted and misunderstood he's insulting his own Cabinet not in the know, as well as the public. So no wonder some of them are pissed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,813

    I hope that one outcome of the coming Winter Of Hell is that when we come out the other side, English voters wake up to the realities of their problems and start demanding political solutions.

    They identified the right issue with Brexit - a democratic deficit - but chose the wrong target - Brussels instead of Westminster.

    We have so many structural problems in the UK that can't be solved with the elect idiots / get lied to / make voters even less connected to reality / elect even bigger idiots cycle. And Keir Starmer is not the solution by himself.

    Create fit for purpose structures - starting with an English parliament - and we have a chance to work these issues through. Constitutional matters can't be seen as a distraction from the day to day issues because it drives so much of them...

    "English voters wake up to the realities of their problems and start demanding political solutions."

    For that to work, they'd have to wake up to the reality that there are few, if any, easy solutions. There are no *magic* solutions.

    Instead, Labour will just sell 'easy' solutions that won't work. Because that's what all parties do.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    I never thought I'd say Scott Morrison is the new Duke of Wellington.

    Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resisted calls to resign from parliament, after news emerged that he had secretly assumed five additional roles during his tenure.

    He defended his decision - which was taken during the pandemic - as "necessary" in "extraordinary times".

    Mr Morrison is currently the member of parliament for Cook.

    The revelations caused uproar amongst the public and his colleagues, with one calling his behaviour "dictatorial".

    Mr Morrison became joint minister for the health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources portfolios from March 2020 and May 2021.

    In a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Morrison defended his decision by saying he was "acting in the national interest in a crisis" in the event a minister was incapacitated with Covid-19.

    "I believed it was necessary to have authority, to have what were effectively emergency powers, to exercise in extreme situations," he said.

    He added he had never acted as minister despite being secretly sworn into those portfolios.

    "I did not instruct any department that I was to have jurisdiction for carriage of any of the issues that the ministers were dealing with on a day-to-day basis," he said.

    When queried about why he had not disclosed the expansion of portfolios to cabinet or to the broader public, he argued there was a risk the powers he took on could have been misconstrued.

    "I think there was a great risk that ... those powers could be misinterpreted and misunderstood, which would have caused unnecessary angst in the middle of a pandemic," he said.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62462281

    If it wasn't for the Duke of Wellington Napoleon would have been unstoppable in 1815
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, alas, I think an English Parliament will not even be up for discussion come the next election.

    We need regional parliaments. We don't need a bunch of Southerners and Mancs telling us in Yorkshire where we can spend money.
    I get the fear of "breaking up England", but England as a unit is too big to be reflective of, and responsible to, people. So it does risk being a rather shouty talking shop. And shouty England is a real thing and a problem we English need to grow out of. Unfortunately, most counties are too small to do a lot of stuff.

    But whilst most of the English regions draw themselves, there's a blob, roughly Reading-Oxford-Cambridge that doesn't mean much. And that blob is full of important people. So we're stuck.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,874
    Pulpstar said:

    Ccgt still at 60% just wind has replaced solar

    We are currently exporting nearly 10% of our total production with France once again the biggest recipient. Wind is the best it has been for a while and solar will pick up maybe another 10% in the next hour or so. I think that LPG is being burnt in UK power stations because it is easier transporting the power to the EU than the cargo. This is exaggerating our dependency on gas right now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    Liz Cheney concedes in Wyoming.

    Trumpism continues its march through the GOP
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    I never thought I'd say Scott Morrison is the new Duke of Wellington.

    Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resisted calls to resign from parliament, after news emerged that he had secretly assumed five additional roles during his tenure.

    He defended his decision - which was taken during the pandemic - as "necessary" in "extraordinary times".

    Mr Morrison is currently the member of parliament for Cook.

    The revelations caused uproar amongst the public and his colleagues, with one calling his behaviour "dictatorial".

    Mr Morrison became joint minister for the health, finance, treasury, home affairs and resources portfolios from March 2020 and May 2021.

    In a press conference on Wednesday, Mr Morrison defended his decision by saying he was "acting in the national interest in a crisis" in the event a minister was incapacitated with Covid-19.

    "I believed it was necessary to have authority, to have what were effectively emergency powers, to exercise in extreme situations," he said.

    He added he had never acted as minister despite being secretly sworn into those portfolios.

    "I did not instruct any department that I was to have jurisdiction for carriage of any of the issues that the ministers were dealing with on a day-to-day basis," he said.

    When queried about why he had not disclosed the expansion of portfolios to cabinet or to the broader public, he argued there was a risk the powers he took on could have been misconstrued.

    "I think there was a great risk that ... those powers could be misinterpreted and misunderstood, which would have caused unnecessary angst in the middle of a pandemic," he said.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-62462281

    He's had time to come up with a reason why he had to do this secretly, and he still hasn't managed to come up with a credible one I see.

    I mean 'I am arranging for contingency power arrangements in the event a minister is incapacited' would cause less angst. And that apparently he thinks he would have been incapable of preventing that from being misunderstood suggests he rates his own capabilities pretty lowly, in which case perhaps he should not have taken on more powers.
    He still didn't do anything illegal, so he still won't resign from parliament
    Behaving legally is not the only thing that matters, especially in matters of trust. As a politician yourself - and I presume someone who believes in both loyalty to the leader and for the leader to act appropriately for their members - do you think his explanation of why he did not even trust his own Cabinet, or the public, with details of the potential use of executive authority, was a decent thing to do?
This discussion has been closed.