Howdy, Stranger!

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

What do we think of the John Rentoul Dim Sum forecast? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,163
edited December 2022 in General
What do we think of the John Rentoul Dim Sum forecast? – politicalbetting.com

What the future holds for politics – the Dim Sum forecast https://t.co/8E6BqHc8Ir pic.twitter.com/VDg0xhLYoz

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    First like Morocco.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,567
    Second like Croatia.
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/peter-mandelson-memorial-dim-sum-supper-b1781466.html

    Predictions for 2022. Not great, no change of PM or Chancellor foreseen (but "gavin Williamson might be moved from education"), and the previous year called for Trump winning second term.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 4,587
    I missed this, from two days ago:

    https://archive.ph/7plEI

    Boris in the WSJ on Ukraine.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    I disagree with all of these excepting the next election date (or somewhere around that time) and the fact that David Miliband won't stand.
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    M45 said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/peter-mandelson-memorial-dim-sum-supper-b1781466.html

    Predictions for 2022. Not great, no change of PM or Chancellor foreseen (but "gavin Williamson might be moved from education"), and the previous year called for Trump winning second term.

    Indeed, having read the previous two years results, is it fair to assume these predictions are made after the tenth pint of Sing Tao? Is Leon on the panel?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
  • Election date - reasonable.
    Sunak PM after next election - no.
    JC and DM to stand at next election - hard to say, I'd be tempted to say yes to both.
    Pro Indy parties to win 50%+ - yes, just.
    Badenoch next Tory leader? Yes.
    Rayner next Labour leader? No.
    Next US election? Maybe, but more likely Biden doesn't stand and De Santis beats someone else.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    So I will repeat my question. You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    So I will repeat my question. You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    See above.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,526
    Election date - agreed
    Sunak PM after next election - unlikely.
    JC and DM to stand at next election - yes/no
    Pro Indy parties to win 50%+ - no
    Badenoch next Tory leader? a bit sceptical but maybe
    Rayner next Labour leader? no.
    Next US election? Maybe, like OLB I think maybe, but deSantis beating someone else more likely.
  • Election date - agreed
    Sunak PM after next election - unlikely.
    JC and DM to stand at next election - yes/no
    Pro Indy parties to win 50%+ - no
    Badenoch next Tory leader? a bit sceptical but maybe
    Rayner next Labour leader? no.
    Next US election? Maybe, like OLB I think maybe, but deSantis beating someone else more likely.

    The article itself puts a fair chunk of weight on the need for economic recovery for Rishi to win. That seems pretty unlikely.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    We have £350m a week for the NHS, which is why we can't give nurses a pay rise.

    Vote BoZo...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    edited December 2022

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    Watch Labour's polling crash if it ever gets traction that "Starmer would give up our pound".

    The problem before wasn't the message, but was the messenger - and a Blair still who walked on water then.
    If that were the only obstacle to rejoining in 10 years time I doubt many voters under 60 would die on a hill to keep the pound. It is only an obsession with the sort of people who can't get the hang of litres and kilometres.
    Er, sod of it, you condescending pillock. If you can't see how totemic our own currency is, you are doomed to lose the argument. Again.

    Plus, given the option of losing the pound, I suspect more Brits would choose the US dollar than the Euro.
    OTOH, it's only on UKIP bumf that the currency actually is totemic.
    Bugger off is it. UKIP is deader than its membership.

    But it is a key tenet for many Conservative voters.
    Charming.

    Who voted for the likes of the last PM but, how many is it now?
    Oh, please, less of the "Charming" pearl-clutching. You start making sweeping generalisations of one party being the same as another and you'll get called out.

    I'm sure the SNP will get pissed off at being called Alba-lite.
    Oh, so it's sweeping generalization to make two very precise and specific comments about two different political parties?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    IT'S OFFICIAL: Judge Cannon has dismissed Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago lawsuit on instructions from the appeals court. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1602312877867765761/photo/1
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,790
    I saw some chat on the previous thread about the energy saving slots. Just wanted to point out that turning your gas heating off doesn't really help as they're only measuring the leccy usage.
  • JK Rowling puts her money where her mouth is:

    This is Beira’s Place.

    It is a new support and advocacy service for women who have experienced sexual violence, it has been funded by J.K. Rowling, and it opens today. It has been set up to meet an unmet need from female survivors for a women-only service, as there is not one currently available in the area.  ....

    Edinburgh’s one Rape Crisis is currently already over subscribed and somewhat controversial. Its stance that survivors may need to be re-educated about trans rights as part of recovering from trauma does not suit many of its users. The idea that survivors who have “unacceptable beliefs” should have their prejudices challenged, begs the question of who the service is for.


    https://suzannemoore.substack.com/p/an-exclusive-interview-with-jk-rowling
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
    A leave voter writes...

    Whose definition, where?

    Suggest HP Grice Logic and Conversation as a starting place for your investigation, but really it shouldn't be necessary.

    If I say You pay me £x and I will give you the keys to a brand new Porsche do you think logic or the law permits me to give you just the keys and not the car?
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    So I will repeat my question. You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    See above.
    My goodness. Just give a straight answer to the question.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
    A leave voter writes...

    Whose definition, where?
    Let me google that for you.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,269
    Scott_xP said:

    IT'S OFFICIAL: Judge Cannon has dismissed Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago lawsuit on instructions from the appeals court. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1602312877867765761/photo/1

    Talking of Mar-a-Lago - what happened to the lawsuit to kick Donald Fucking Trump out of there for breaking half the rules of the place about residency etc?
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    So I will repeat my question. You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    See above.
    My goodness. Just give a straight answer to the question.
    Well done, you have worked out the Have you stopped beating your wife technique from first principles and are running with it. Yes or no? YES OR NO? YES OR NO?

    And the answer is an emphatic NO. I am not making any claim about whether "We send the EU £270m a week" would have been true, false or unknowable in 2016, why would I?
  • Levelling up, my arse. Pt. 94

  • M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
    A leave voter writes...

    Whose definition, where?

    Suggest HP Grice Logic and Conversation as a starting place for your investigation, but really it shouldn't be necessary.

    If I say You pay me £x and I will give you the keys to a brand new Porsche do you think logic or the law permits me to give you just the keys and not the car?
    It's the kind of thing that you get in a million consumer advice shows, from That's Life! onwards.

    Shyster X sells a sizzle to hopeless rube Y who then protests that they thought they were going to get a sausage.

    The punchline is usually that the rube is a rube and there's nothing to be done. But whilst we pity Y, X is never a hero.

    The Brexit coalition was a coalition of shysters and rubes, often the same people at once. Take the Liberal Leavers who smiled at a "control our borders" campaign to win Brexit, but then wanted an EEA solution that wouldn't have delivered the border control that most of the 52% wanted. Shysters, rubes or both?
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
    A leave voter writes...

    Whose definition, where?
    Let me google that for you.
    Lmgtfy is always an infallible plonker indicator, but you take matters a stage further than most by linking to a definition of lie meaning be horizontal on the ground.

    Do you think that, say, Plato wasted his time writing whole dialogues searching for a definition of, say, truth or courage or justice when he had a dictionary to hand?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,317
    1000 people cross the US border: pretty much all at once

    BREAKING: A huge migrant caravan of over 1,000 people crossed illegally into El Paso, TX last night, making it the largest single group we have ever seen. The city of El Paso reports Border Patrol now has over 5,000 in custody & has released hundreds to city streets.
    @FoxNews

    https://twitter.com/BillFOXLA/status/1602301863822491650?s=20&t=WyNMOf23qlslr_DDFngbCw

    This issue is growing in domestic salience. Not good for the Dems
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,419
    edited December 2022
    ohnotnow said:

    I saw some chat on the previous thread about the energy saving slots. Just wanted to point out that turning your gas heating off doesn't really help as they're only measuring the leccy usage.

    Gas central heating requires electricity to power the pump among other things. Switching the gas heating off seems to reduce our total electricity consumption by around 100W.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990

    The Brexit coalition was a coalition of shysters and rubes, often the same people at once. Take the Liberal Leavers who smiled at a "control our borders" campaign to win Brexit, but then wanted an EEA solution that wouldn't have delivered the border control that most of the 52% wanted. Shysters, rubes or both?

    Yes, the entire Brexit coalition was made up of people who didn't know what they were doing, or did know and were doing it in bad faith.

    They delivered a generational shitshow.

    And still Labour can't bring themselves to say so...
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,005
    Not sure if this has been posted before but it is a Russian interview with Viktor Bout. Amongst his many hardships in US prisons (setup by the Nazis, don't you know?) was how he didn't have garlic for 12 years and they brought him a hamburger with over-cooked fries every Wednesday.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHLBenKNjJA
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
    A leave voter writes...

    Whose definition, where?
    Let me google that for you.
    Lmgtfy is always an infallible plonker indicator, but you take matters a stage further than most by linking to a definition of lie meaning be horizontal on the ground.

    Do you think that, say, Plato wasted his time writing whole dialogues searching for a definition of, say, truth or courage or justice when he had a dictionary to hand?
    I figured you were clever enough to find and click the "more definitions" button, but since you're apparently dumb enough to need a screenshot:


  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,269
    AlistairM said:

    Not sure if this has been posted before but it is a Russian interview with Viktor Bout. Amongst his many hardships in US prisons (setup by the Nazis, don't you know?) was how he didn't have garlic for 12 years and they brought him a hamburger with over-cooked fries every Wednesday.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHLBenKNjJA

    This reminds me of the neo-Nazi mass murder complaining that the biros they gave him to write with in prison hurt his hand because they were the wrong shape.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792
    edited December 2022
    "Pro-indy parties to win 50% Scottish votes at general election: No" - This is probably correct.
    In 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019 they got 21%, 51%, 37%, 46%, and Johnson probably won them a few pp.

    "Next leader of the Labour party: Angela Rayner." This too. Labour should find a way to make this charismatic northern female from the lower orders (tick, tick, tick, tick) the leader before the election.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    DJ41 said:

    "Pro-indy parties to win 50% Scottish votes at general election: No" - This is probably correct.
    In 2010, 2015, 2017, 2019 they got 21%, 51%, 37%, 46%, and Johnson probably won them a few pp.

    "Next leader of the Labour party: Angela Rayner." Yes. Labour should find a way to make this charismatic northern female from the lower orders (tick, tick, tick, tick) the leader before the election.

    One word from her should derail her chances: "scum".
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,790

    ohnotnow said:

    I saw some chat on the previous thread about the energy saving slots. Just wanted to point out that turning your gas heating off doesn't really help as they're only measuring the leccy usage.

    Gas central heating requires electricity to power the pump among other things. Switching the gas heating off seems to reduce our total electricity consumption by around 100W.
    Ah! I never realised they were quite that hungry for power - thanks!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    PS @Driver trying to claim the number was too low on the previous thread - would that be from Boris in the committee meeting when challenged on it? Are you really going to rely on someone who lied so often you would be better believing the opposite of what he says always?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    edited December 2022
    kjh said:

    Honestly WillG and Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    PS Driver trying to claim the number was too low on the previous thread - would that be from Boris in the committee meeting when challenged on it? Are you really going to rely on someone who lied so often you would be better believing the opposite of what he says always?

    There's no need to tag me, I'm reading the discussion.

    I'm only defending it because people who still haven't gotten over losing more than six years later are still calling it a lie, which it was not. It's their crutch for a reason why they lost.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    So I will repeat my question. You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    See above.
    My goodness. Just give a straight answer to the question.
    Well done, you have worked out the Have you stopped beating your wife technique from first principles and are running with it. Yes or no? YES OR NO? YES OR NO?

    And the answer is an emphatic NO. I am not making any claim about whether "We send the EU £270m a week" would have been true, false or unknowable in 2016, why would I?
    What a terrible analogy. There is no implied premise to my question, so the beating your wife line is completely bogus.

    Clearly, to anyone that isn't a complete Remainer partisan, the claim that "We send $270m a week to the EU" would not have been a lie and would have passed the fact checkers. So the answer to my question of "how many people would have been swayed by the 70m difference in numbers" is a good sign of how consequential the "lie" of using a gross number vs a net number.

    Of course, I won't get an answer to it, just as no Remainer on here ever gives an answer to "when was the last time a democratic election changed EU policy".
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    I wonder if Peter Mandelson realises that 'dim sum*' in Welsh means 'won't add up.'

    *'sum' would normally be spelled 'swm' but it sounds the same.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    kjh said:

    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    PS @Driver trying to claim the number was too low on the previous thread - would that be from Boris in the committee meeting when challenged on it? Are you really going to rely on someone who lied so often you would be better believing the opposite of what he says always?

    The reason this debate comes up time and time again is because Remainers can't get over it and keep bringing it up. In this thread, it was a passing joke that inflamed one Remainer's sensitivity about it. If you actually followed my argument at all, it was that the number was inconsequential. You lost not because of some bus slogan but because voters like democracy and immigration control.
  • Interesting from Sky's climate correspondent

    Big bet on wind

    Even if the world reaches net zero soon after 2050, limiting the rise in temperature, winds will weaken significantly in the northern hemisphere. It's called global stilling. And it's caused by the rapid warming of the Arctic, which is narrowing the temperature difference with the tropics, a gap that drives wind.

    In the UK, the average wind speed is expected to drop by 2% to 3% by 2050, and 10% by the end of the century.

    That matters because the UK is taking a big bet on wind.

    We have 14.2GW of onshore wind turbines, with another 13.7GW offshore. The government has a target to increase offshore capacity to 50GW by 2030, and to turn off gas and coal power stations by 2035.

    However, having the turbines doesn't make them turn - as we are finding out now.

    Although the government also plans to expand nuclear energy to 24GW by 2050, up from about 6GW now, that would not fill the gap left by the lack of wind.

    We will need to find some way of storing vast amounts of energy, invest in new sources, such as tidal power, or import much more through long distance cables.

    Only then can we be sure the lights will stay on without fossil fuels.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    Driver said:

    kjh said:

    Honestly WillG and Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    PS Driver trying to claim the number was too low on the previous thread - would that be from Boris in the committee meeting when challenged on it? Are you really going to rely on someone who lied so often you would be better believing the opposite of what he says always?

    There's no need to tag me, I'm reading the discussion.

    I'm only defending it because people who still haven't gotten over losing more than six years later are still calling it a lie, which it was not. It's their crutch for a reason why they lost.
    It is a lie. I don't care that it is a lie, but to argue that it isn't is just bizarre. Even the people who thought it up agree with that. That is the whole point. It was a clever campaign strategy, because then Remain focused on the lie relentlessly which highlighted it. I mean there has been endless discussion on this as a campaigning strategy.

    Re tagging you. I have already covered this previously. I (as do most people) tag someone when they are not replying directly to a post. It is courtesy. I can't sit here having to remember if someone doesn't want tagging.
  • Scott_xP said:

    The Brexit coalition was a coalition of shysters and rubes, often the same people at once. Take the Liberal Leavers who smiled at a "control our borders" campaign to win Brexit, but then wanted an EEA solution that wouldn't have delivered the border control that most of the 52% wanted. Shysters, rubes or both?

    Yes, the entire Brexit coalition was made up of people who didn't know what they were doing, or did know and were doing it in bad faith.

    They delivered a generational shitshow.

    And still Labour can't bring themselves to say so...
    And arrogant remainers who failed spectacularly to make the case for remain and simply have not recovered from their failure as is daily evident on PB
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    So I will repeat my question. You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    See above.
    My goodness. Just give a straight answer to the question.
    Well done, you have worked out the Have you stopped beating your wife technique from first principles and are running with it. Yes or no? YES OR NO? YES OR NO?

    And the answer is an emphatic NO. I am not making any claim about whether "We send the EU £270m a week" would have been true, false or unknowable in 2016, why would I?
    What a terrible analogy. There is no implied premise to my question, so the beating your wife line is completely bogus.

    Clearly, to anyone that isn't a complete Remainer partisan, the claim that "We send $270m a week to the EU" would not have been a lie and would have passed the fact checkers. So the answer to my question of "how many people would have been swayed by the 70m difference in numbers" is a good sign of how consequential the "lie" of using a gross number vs a net number.

    Of course, I won't get an answer to it, just as no Remainer on here ever gives an answer to "when was the last time a democratic election changed EU policy".
    You are arguing with yourself, and losing. Nothing you say has the remotest bearing on anything I have said nor any argument I have made.

    You are talking nonsense anyway. Cummings knew he was lying and that was the point, it was a "classic dom" manoeuvre to keep people talking about it. 4D. You deserve either pity for not grasping that, or repulsion if you do.
  • ydoethur said:

    I wonder if Peter Mandelson realises that 'dim sum*' in Welsh means 'won't add up.'

    *'sum' would normally be spelled 'swm' but it sounds the same.

    Sums done by the dim rarely do add up. Even if they have PhD's in economic history.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    WillG said:

    kjh said:

    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    PS @Driver trying to claim the number was too low on the previous thread - would that be from Boris in the committee meeting when challenged on it? Are you really going to rely on someone who lied so often you would be better believing the opposite of what he says always?

    The reason this debate comes up time and time again is because Remainers can't get over it and keep bringing it up. In this thread, it was a passing joke that inflamed one Remainer's sensitivity about it. If you actually followed my argument at all, it was that the number was inconsequential. You lost not because of some bus slogan but because voters like democracy and immigration control.
    I can only see two people going on and on about it at present and claiming black is white.
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
    A leave voter writes...

    Whose definition, where?
    Let me google that for you.
    Lmgtfy is always an infallible plonker indicator, but you take matters a stage further than most by linking to a definition of lie meaning be horizontal on the ground.

    Do you think that, say, Plato wasted his time writing whole dialogues searching for a definition of, say, truth or courage or justice when he had a dictionary to hand?
    I figured you were clever enough to find and click the "more definitions" button, but since you're apparently dumb enough to need a screenshot:


    Lmgfy = no further interaction.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    WillG said:

    kjh said:

    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    PS @Driver trying to claim the number was too low on the previous thread - would that be from Boris in the committee meeting when challenged on it? Are you really going to rely on someone who lied so often you would be better believing the opposite of what he says always?

    The reason this debate comes up time and time again is because Remainers can't get over it and keep bringing it up. In this thread, it was a passing joke that inflamed one Remainer's sensitivity about it. If you actually followed my argument at all, it was that the number was inconsequential. You lost not because of some bus slogan but because voters like democracy and immigration control.
    And what a pyrrhic victory it is turning out to be. Enjoy
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
    A leave voter writes...

    Whose definition, where?
    Let me google that for you.
    Lmgtfy is always an infallible plonker indicator, but you take matters a stage further than most by linking to a definition of lie meaning be horizontal on the ground.

    Do you think that, say, Plato wasted his time writing whole dialogues searching for a definition of, say, truth or courage or justice when he had a dictionary to hand?
    I figured you were clever enough to find and click the "more definitions" button, but since you're apparently dumb enough to need a screenshot:


    Lmgfy = no further interaction.
    Translation: "I have no counter argument, but I won't admit I am wrong".
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,994

    Interesting from Sky's climate correspondent

    Big bet on wind

    Even if the world reaches net zero soon after 2050, limiting the rise in temperature, winds will weaken significantly in the northern hemisphere. It's called global stilling. And it's caused by the rapid warming of the Arctic, which is narrowing the temperature difference with the tropics, a gap that drives wind.

    In the UK, the average wind speed is expected to drop by 2% to 3% by 2050, and 10% by the end of the century.

    That matters because the UK is taking a big bet on wind.

    We have 14.2GW of onshore wind turbines, with another 13.7GW offshore. The government has a target to increase offshore capacity to 50GW by 2030, and to turn off gas and coal power stations by 2035.

    However, having the turbines doesn't make them turn - as we are finding out now.

    Although the government also plans to expand nuclear energy to 24GW by 2050, up from about 6GW now, that would not fill the gap left by the lack of wind.

    We will need to find some way of storing vast amounts of energy, invest in new sources, such as tidal power, or import much more through long distance cables.

    Only then can we be sure the lights will stay on without fossil fuels.

    Wind turbines will be considerably more than 2 or 3% or even 10% more efficient in converting wind to energy by the end of the
    century.

    Thankfully one other feature of climate change is greater sunshine amounts in Western Europe so solar should compensate.
  • M45M45 Posts: 216
    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
    A leave voter writes...

    Whose definition, where?
    Let me google that for you.
    Lmgtfy is always an infallible plonker indicator, but you take matters a stage further than most by linking to a definition of lie meaning be horizontal on the ground.

    Do you think that, say, Plato wasted his time writing whole dialogues searching for a definition of, say, truth or courage or justice when he had a dictionary to hand?
    I figured you were clever enough to find and click the "more definitions" button, but since you're apparently dumb enough to need a screenshot:


    Lmgfy = no further interaction.
    Translation: "I have no counter argument, but I won't admit I am wrong".
    Read what I wrote
  • Imagine if we didn't talk about Brexit or IndyRef2 on here. We would just be talking about cricket or football!

    😈
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    edited December 2022

    ydoethur said:

    I wonder if Peter Mandelson realises that 'dim sum*' in Welsh means 'won't add up.'

    *'sum' would normally be spelled 'swm' but it sounds the same.

    Sums done by the dim rarely do add up. Even if they have PhD's in economic history.
    Such PhDs are usually D.Phil in a shit sandwich if arrogance, ignorance and wealth.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    M45 said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/peter-mandelson-memorial-dim-sum-supper-b1781466.html

    Predictions for 2022. Not great, no change of PM or Chancellor foreseen (but "gavin Williamson might be moved from education"), and the previous year called for Trump winning second term.

    Still did better than my 2022 predictions (though tbf it was hard not to):

    1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. X
    2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. ✓
    3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. X
    4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. X
    5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. X
    6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. X
    7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. X
    8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. X
    9. Bitcoin to collapse. X
    10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year. X

    I just need the Tories to make a dramatic recovery in the polls for a clean sweep.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,362

    Interesting from Sky's climate correspondent

    Big bet on wind

    Even if the world reaches net zero soon after 2050, limiting the rise in temperature, winds will weaken significantly in the northern hemisphere. It's called global stilling. And it's caused by the rapid warming of the Arctic, which is narrowing the temperature difference with the tropics, a gap that drives wind.

    In the UK, the average wind speed is expected to drop by 2% to 3% by 2050, and 10% by the end of the century.

    That matters because the UK is taking a big bet on wind.

    We have 14.2GW of onshore wind turbines, with another 13.7GW offshore. The government has a target to increase offshore capacity to 50GW by 2030, and to turn off gas and coal power stations by 2035.

    However, having the turbines doesn't make them turn - as we are finding out now.

    Although the government also plans to expand nuclear energy to 24GW by 2050, up from about 6GW now, that would not fill the gap left by the lack of wind.

    We will need to find some way of storing vast amounts of energy, invest in new sources, such as tidal power, or import much more through long distance cables.

    Only then can we be sure the lights will stay on without fossil fuels.

    The implication is that the faster we can install wind turbines, and so the faster we stop using fossil fuels and the less global warming there will be, the more effective wind turbines will be.

    So even if it costs more to install wind turbines more quickly, we'll get more wind energy or if then as a result, and so it's worth doing besides the other impacts on climate change.
  • The EU have their own corruption issues apparently

    Monday 12 December 2022 13:25

    EU corruption scandal of 'utmost concern' after four charged over alleged bribes from Qatar, von der Leyen says
    Belgian investigators are looking into allegations 2022 World Cup host Qatar lavished cash and gifts on European Parliament officials to influence decision-making.

    The EU corruption scandal is of the "utmost concern" after investigators charged four people with allegedly receiving money and gifts from Qatar, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has said.

    Germany's foreign minister Annalena Baerbock has said "the credibility of Europe" is at stake due to the allegations which the EU's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has described as "very worrisome".

    Belgian investigators are looking into allegations 2022 World Cup host Qatar lavished cash and gifts on European Parliament officials to influence decision-making.

    Prosecutors searched 16 houses and seized €600,000 (£516,000) in Brussels on Friday as part of the probe.

    Four people were arrested and charged with "participation in a criminal organisation, money laundering and corruption", prosecutors said in a statement on Sunday.

    They did not name the suspects, but a source close to the case said one of the European Parliament's vice presidents, Greek socialist Eva Kaili, was among those charged.

    The European Parliament said at the weekend it had suspended Ms Kaili from her duties in light of the investigation, while the Greek socialist PASOK party announced it was expelling her from its ranks.

    Prosecutors said they had suspected for months that a Gulf state was trying to influence decision-making in Brussels.

    A source with knowledge of the case said the state was Qatar.

  • Yeah, yeah, but funny tho innit?

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397

    Imagine if we didn't talk about Brexit or IndyRef2 on here. We would just be talking about cricket or football!

    😈

    No way was that a catch.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    kjh said:

    Driver said:

    kjh said:

    Honestly WillG and Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    PS Driver trying to claim the number was too low on the previous thread - would that be from Boris in the committee meeting when challenged on it? Are you really going to rely on someone who lied so often you would be better believing the opposite of what he says always?

    There's no need to tag me, I'm reading the discussion.

    I'm only defending it because people who still haven't gotten over losing more than six years later are still calling it a lie, which it was not. It's their crutch for a reason why they lost.
    It is a lie. I don't care that it is a lie, but to argue that it isn't is just bizarre. Even the people who thought it up agree with that. That is the whole point. It was a clever campaign strategy, because then Remain focused on the lie relentlessly which highlighted it. I mean there has been endless discussion on this as a campaigning strategy.

    Re tagging you. I have already covered this previously. I (as do most people) tag someone when they are not replying directly to a post. It is courtesy. I can't sit here having to remember if someone doesn't want tagging.
    It's not courteous to fill up someone's notifications. You do realise it gives a ping every time someone quotes it as well, right?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    Driver said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    M45 said:

    WillG said:

    OllyT said:

    Driver said:

    OllyT said:

    This is all fanciful. We are not going to rejoin for decades. No PM will give up Sterling

    I don't think that "saving the British pound" is quite the killer punch you believe it to be, at least with voters under 60. It didn't do much for William Hague's as I recall and that was 20 years ago.
    It did enough to persuade Blair that he couldn't join the euro without a referendum, and to persuade him not to call such a referendum because he would lose it.
    Hague's save-the-pound was the most stupid campaign in election history
    Nah. The Remain campaign beats it by a country mile.

    FFS, it got beaten by the side of a bus.
    I agree, assuming that "the side of a bus" is shorthand for lies..
    How many people do you think we're swayed by the number being 350m a week rather than the accurate number of 270m? Genuine question.
    Why accurate? The argument against the claim is that whatever our contribution was, saving it is more than offset by reduced gdp as a result of Brexit. So no number would be accurate.
    You are honestly trying to claim that saying "We send the EU £270m a week", as of 2016, would be a "lie"?
    Is that what the bus said?
    No, the bus said £350m. I asked how many people did Remainers on here think were swayed by that number vs. £270m. Do keep up.
    The lie wasn't in the number, it was in the implication of a net saving of the whole of whatever the number was.
    Ah, so the number wasn't a lie at all! Is that scraping sound I hear the moving of goalposts?
    Dear me, is the distinction between literal meaning and natural implication a closed book to you? If one poster says to another on here I have a bridge to sell you, do you take it that that poster in fact has legal title to a structure crossing a body of water?

    The lie is and always was in the implication that all or indeed any of the 365m or 270m would be available to be paid to Our Beloved NHS. It's like me saying I will stop driving to work and spend all the money I save on petrol, on drink, without netting off the increased expenditure on train fares.

    I was astonished by the thought that you have had six years to grasp that point, and failed to grasp it. Then I thought: Leave voter, of course, must make allowances.
    The definition of a lie is "an intentionally false statement". This emphatically does not include misleading implications (or incorrect inferences).
    A leave voter writes...

    Whose definition, where?
    Let me google that for you.
    Lmgtfy is always an infallible plonker indicator, but you take matters a stage further than most by linking to a definition of lie meaning be horizontal on the ground.

    Do you think that, say, Plato wasted his time writing whole dialogues searching for a definition of, say, truth or courage or justice when he had a dictionary to hand?
    I figured you were clever enough to find and click the "more definitions" button, but since you're apparently dumb enough to need a screenshot:


    Lmgfy = no further interaction.
    Translation: "I have no counter argument, but I won't admit I am wrong".
    Read what I wrote
    Well, what you wrote was "no further interaction", and yet here is further interaction.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,497
    Scott_xP said:

    The Brexit coalition was a coalition of shysters and rubes, often the same people at once. Take the Liberal Leavers who smiled at a "control our borders" campaign to win Brexit, but then wanted an EEA solution that wouldn't have delivered the border control that most of the 52% wanted. Shysters, rubes or both?

    Yes, the entire Brexit coalition was made up of people who didn't know what they were doing, or did know and were doing it in bad faith.

    They delivered a generational shitshow.

    And still Labour can't bring themselves to say so...
    Reality is more complicated. There wasn't and isn't any sort of relationship with what the EU had become since the referendum in 1975 which was both available and commanded a clear majority in the UK.

    That was what led to Ref2016, and it is just as true now. It will remain true until a Black Swan arrives or the plate tectonics shift.

    If blame seeking, look at the failure of statecraft by UK governments from 1970s until 2016 which had got us to that place we are still at.

    If SKS thought there were any solutions he would hint at what they are. There aren't. So he doesn't.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,154
    edited December 2022
    Brexit, interesting to think that before the unfulfilled ghost of Grexit, no-one would have thought of such a term.

    Now the hard cadences, which sound more saxon than latinate, of "Brexiters", conjure up John Bull.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    OllyT said:

    WillG said:

    kjh said:

    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    PS @Driver trying to claim the number was too low on the previous thread - would that be from Boris in the committee meeting when challenged on it? Are you really going to rely on someone who lied so often you would be better believing the opposite of what he says always?

    The reason this debate comes up time and time again is because Remainers can't get over it and keep bringing it up. In this thread, it was a passing joke that inflamed one Remainer's sensitivity about it. If you actually followed my argument at all, it was that the number was inconsequential. You lost not because of some bus slogan but because voters like democracy and immigration control.
    And what a pyrrhic victory it is turning out to be. Enjoy
    It's not a pyrrhic victory because it's still better to be outside the EU with some democratic pressure to take advantage of it, rather than being inside the EU without the possibility of that. Not to mention that, if we had not had the debate, we probably would have handed over even more powers by now.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,803

    Interesting from Sky's climate correspondent

    Big bet on wind

    Even if the world reaches net zero soon after 2050, limiting the rise in temperature, winds will weaken significantly in the northern hemisphere. It's called global stilling. And it's caused by the rapid warming of the Arctic, which is narrowing the temperature difference with the tropics, a gap that drives wind.

    In the UK, the average wind speed is expected to drop by 2% to 3% by 2050, and 10% by the end of the century.

    That matters because the UK is taking a big bet on wind.

    We have 14.2GW of onshore wind turbines, with another 13.7GW offshore. The government has a target to increase offshore capacity to 50GW by 2030, and to turn off gas and coal power stations by 2035.

    However, having the turbines doesn't make them turn - as we are finding out now.

    Although the government also plans to expand nuclear energy to 24GW by 2050, up from about 6GW now, that would not fill the gap left by the lack of wind.

    We will need to find some way of storing vast amounts of energy, invest in new sources, such as tidal power, or import much more through long distance cables.

    Only then can we be sure the lights will stay on without fossil fuels.

    Well I don't disagree with the need to find new energy sources.

    But I'm slightly sceptical of modelling which shows a decline in wind speed. I'm sceptical climate models are accurate enough to confidently predict that. And surely wind is just a fact of life on a spinning planet?
  • M45M45 Posts: 216

    Brexit, interesting to think that before the unfulfilled ghost of Grexit, no-one would have thought of such a term.

    Now the hard cadences, which sound more saxon than latin , of "Brexiters", conjure up John Bull.

    Bresco, Brexi, Brexiti sumus.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    Cookie said:

    Interesting from Sky's climate correspondent

    Big bet on wind

    Even if the world reaches net zero soon after 2050, limiting the rise in temperature, winds will weaken significantly in the northern hemisphere. It's called global stilling. And it's caused by the rapid warming of the Arctic, which is narrowing the temperature difference with the tropics, a gap that drives wind.

    In the UK, the average wind speed is expected to drop by 2% to 3% by 2050, and 10% by the end of the century.

    That matters because the UK is taking a big bet on wind.

    We have 14.2GW of onshore wind turbines, with another 13.7GW offshore. The government has a target to increase offshore capacity to 50GW by 2030, and to turn off gas and coal power stations by 2035.

    However, having the turbines doesn't make them turn - as we are finding out now.

    Although the government also plans to expand nuclear energy to 24GW by 2050, up from about 6GW now, that would not fill the gap left by the lack of wind.

    We will need to find some way of storing vast amounts of energy, invest in new sources, such as tidal power, or import much more through long distance cables.

    Only then can we be sure the lights will stay on without fossil fuels.

    Well I don't disagree with the need to find new energy sources.

    But I'm slightly sceptical of modelling which shows a decline in wind speed. I'm sceptical climate models are accurate enough to confidently predict that. And surely wind is just a fact of life on a spinning planet?
    As long as we have a government we'll not be short of wind.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The Brexit coalition was a coalition of shysters and rubes, often the same people at once. Take the Liberal Leavers who smiled at a "control our borders" campaign to win Brexit, but then wanted an EEA solution that wouldn't have delivered the border control that most of the 52% wanted. Shysters, rubes or both?

    Yes, the entire Brexit coalition was made up of people who didn't know what they were doing, or did know and were doing it in bad faith.

    They delivered a generational shitshow.

    And still Labour can't bring themselves to say so...
    Reality is more complicated. There wasn't and isn't any sort of relationship with what the EU had become since the referendum in 1975 which was both available and commanded a clear majority in the UK.

    That was what led to Ref2016, and it is just as true now. It will remain true until a Black Swan arrives or the plate tectonics shift.

    If blame seeking, look at the failure of statecraft by UK governments from 1970s until 2016 which had got us to that place we are still at.

    If SKS thought there were any solutions he would hint at what they are. There aren't. So he doesn't.
    It's only really since 1992. From Maastricht onwards, politicians on both sides were desperate to avoid the British people having a say because they knew what they would say.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,317

    Brexit, interesting to think that before the unfulfilled ghost of Grexit, no-one would have thought of such a term.

    Now the hard cadences, which sound more saxon than latinate, of "Brexiters", conjure up John Bull.

    Brexiteer: Google Hits: 659,000

    Brexiter: Google Hits: 85,000

    It's BrexitEER. Those who say BrexitER come across as bitterly twisted Remoaners
  • M45 said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/peter-mandelson-memorial-dim-sum-supper-b1781466.html

    Predictions for 2022. Not great, no change of PM or Chancellor foreseen (but "gavin Williamson might be moved from education"), and the previous year called for Trump winning second term.

    Still did better than my 2022 predictions (though tbf it was hard not to):

    1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. X
    2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. ✓
    3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. X
    4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. X
    5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. X
    6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. X
    7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. X
    8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. X
    9. Bitcoin to collapse. X
    10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year. X

    I just need the Tories to make a dramatic recovery in the polls for a clean sweep.
    This probably isn't good news, but today's dashboard has just tipped over 210k Covid deaths on the "mentioned on the death certificate" measure;

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=overview&areaName=United Kingdom
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    WillG said:

    It's not a pyrrhic victory because it's still better to be outside the EU with some democratic pressure to take advantage of it

    There is no advantage.

    Ask Truss/Kwarteng
  • Leon said:

    Brexit, interesting to think that before the unfulfilled ghost of Grexit, no-one would have thought of such a term.

    Now the hard cadences, which sound more saxon than latinate, of "Brexiters", conjure up John Bull.

    Brexiteer: Google Hits: 659,000

    Brexiter: Google Hits: 85,000

    It's BrexitEER. Those who say BrexitER come across as bitterly twisted Remoaners
    And those who say Remoaners?
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366

    kjh said:

    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    The problem is that most opponents of Brexit don't treat it as just a normal piece of political campaigning but as a Goebbelsesque Big Lie that is responsible for opening the gates of hell. It's an example of them trying to delegitimise the outcome of the original referendum rather than accepting it and moving on.
    It backfires enormously though. Delegitimizing never works because most regular people don't pay attention to it and actually resent it a bit. It gives the person or cause being delegitimized a bit of the "fighting against the establishment" chic. Always better to get into the argument and debate with logic and reason.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840

    Yeah, yeah, but funny tho innit?

    *hungry*
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    Driver said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The Brexit coalition was a coalition of shysters and rubes, often the same people at once. Take the Liberal Leavers who smiled at a "control our borders" campaign to win Brexit, but then wanted an EEA solution that wouldn't have delivered the border control that most of the 52% wanted. Shysters, rubes or both?

    Yes, the entire Brexit coalition was made up of people who didn't know what they were doing, or did know and were doing it in bad faith.

    They delivered a generational shitshow.

    And still Labour can't bring themselves to say so...
    Reality is more complicated. There wasn't and isn't any sort of relationship with what the EU had become since the referendum in 1975 which was both available and commanded a clear majority in the UK.

    That was what led to Ref2016, and it is just as true now. It will remain true until a Black Swan arrives or the plate tectonics shift.

    If blame seeking, look at the failure of statecraft by UK governments from 1970s until 2016 which had got us to that place we are still at.

    If SKS thought there were any solutions he would hint at what they are. There aren't. So he doesn't.
    It's only really since 1992. From Maastricht onwards, politicians on both sides were desperate to avoid the British people having a say because they knew what they would say.
    Since 1992? Why didn't UKIP win an election then?
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    Scott_xP said:

    WillG said:

    It's not a pyrrhic victory because it's still better to be outside the EU with some democratic pressure to take advantage of it

    There is no advantage.

    Ask Truss/Kwarteng
    Nonsense. Truss and Kwarteng took us in the opposite direction, wanting to be all libertarian. That's why they failed. The advantage is through a better immigration policy, not letting ever more in.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,154
    edited December 2022
    Leon said:

    Brexit, interesting to think that before the unfulfilled ghost of Grexit, no-one would have thought of such a term.

    Now the hard cadences, which sound more saxon than latinate, of "Brexiters", conjure up John Bull.

    Brexiteer: Google Hits: 659,000

    Brexiter: Google Hits: 85,000

    It's BrexitEER. Those who say BrexitER come across as bitterly twisted Remoaners
    Brexiteer, ofcourse , more self-serving and Romantic. Sir Nigel Farage with a huge elizabethan moustache-beard, Francis Drake-style.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,317

    Leon said:

    Brexit, interesting to think that before the unfulfilled ghost of Grexit, no-one would have thought of such a term.

    Now the hard cadences, which sound more saxon than latinate, of "Brexiters", conjure up John Bull.

    Brexiteer: Google Hits: 659,000

    Brexiter: Google Hits: 85,000

    It's BrexitEER. Those who say BrexitER come across as bitterly twisted Remoaners
    And those who say Remoaners?
    I just realised my tautologous statement implies that there are Remoaners who are NOT bitter and twisted. Apols
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 3,790
    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-63947246

    "Two NHS Scotland unions accept 7.5% pay deal

    Members of two major NHS unions in Scotland have voted to accept an improved pay offer.

    This ends the risk of strike action in the health service by members of Unison and Unite but a ballot of Royal College of Nursing members is still under way.

    An improved pay offer averaging 7.5% was made to health workers threatening industrial action last month."
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,779

    M45 said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/peter-mandelson-memorial-dim-sum-supper-b1781466.html

    Predictions for 2022. Not great, no change of PM or Chancellor foreseen (but "gavin Williamson might be moved from education"), and the previous year called for Trump winning second term.

    Still did better than my 2022 predictions (though tbf it was hard not to):

    1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. X
    2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. ✓
    3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. X
    4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. X
    5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. X
    6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. X
    7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. X
    8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. X
    9. Bitcoin to collapse. X
    10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year. X

    I just need the Tories to make a dramatic recovery in the polls for a clean sweep.
    You're being a very harsh marker there - I'd mark 9 as correct - if a fall from 46,000 to 17,000 isn't a collapse then I'm not sure what would have counted?
  • M45 said:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/peter-mandelson-memorial-dim-sum-supper-b1781466.html

    Predictions for 2022. Not great, no change of PM or Chancellor foreseen (but "gavin Williamson might be moved from education"), and the previous year called for Trump winning second term.

    Still did better than my 2022 predictions (though tbf it was hard not to):

    1. Boris to still be PM on 31 December 2022. X
    2. Labour to end the year ahead in the polls. ✓
    3. Valérie Pécresse to win the French Presidential election. X
    4. Dems to lose control of the Senate but narrowly retain the House in November. X
    5. Donald Trump indicted for at least one offence. X
    6. Two more covid ‘variants of significance’ to sweep the world. X
    7. Official number of UK covid deaths to reach 210k by year end. X
    8. Russia-Ukraine stand-off to continue. X
    9. Bitcoin to collapse. X
    10. FTSE 100 to peak above 8,000 before falling back by the end of the year. X

    I just need the Tories to make a dramatic recovery in the polls for a clean sweep.
    Bitcoin is down 66% since the end of last year. I don't know if that's a collapse or not but I'm certainly glad not to have bought into it. And you could argue that the Russia-Ukraine standoff is continuing, just in a different form. Don't be too harsh on yourself!
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Brexit, interesting to think that before the unfulfilled ghost of Grexit, no-one would have thought of such a term.

    Now the hard cadences, which sound more saxon than latinate, of "Brexiters", conjure up John Bull.

    Brexiteer: Google Hits: 659,000

    Brexiter: Google Hits: 85,000

    It's BrexitEER. Those who say BrexitER come across as bitterly twisted Remoaners
    And those who say Remoaners?
    I just realised my tautologous statement implies that there are Remoaners who are NOT bitter and twisted. Apols
    Nothing worse than a bad winner.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,317

    Leon said:

    Brexit, interesting to think that before the unfulfilled ghost of Grexit, no-one would have thought of such a term.

    Now the hard cadences, which sound more saxon than latinate, of "Brexiters", conjure up John Bull.

    Brexiteer: Google Hits: 659,000

    Brexiter: Google Hits: 85,000

    It's BrexitEER. Those who say BrexitER come across as bitterly twisted Remoaners
    Brexiteer, ofcourse , more self-serving and Romantic. Sir Nigel Farage with a huge elizabethan moustache-beard, Francis Drake-style.
    The Brexiteers really won the lexical game

    See also "Remain" and "Remainers", boring and crabbed and cowardly, and with an unpleasant hint of "human remains". Basic fail. Should have gone with the warm, friendly, hospitable STAY. Stay a while for another dram! Awww
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,317
    Positively Satanic scenes in Camden as the pathetic light fades into a dark, frigid, foreboding sky, charcoal grey, and the sleet falls on the bleakness of the empty pavements. It is 0C
  • 'Tis the bleak midwinter, n'est-ce-pas.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,157

    kjh said:

    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    The problem is that most opponents of Brexit don't treat it as just a normal piece of political campaigning but as a Goebbelsesque Big Lie that is responsible for opening the gates of hell. It's an example of them trying to delegitimise the outcome of the original referendum rather than accepting it and moving on.
    No, it's the banal bovine stupidity of it that rankles.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    WillG said:

    The advantage is through a better immigration policy, not letting ever more in.

    OK, ask Braverman about the 'advantages' then

    Brexit is a shitshow. Will be a shitshow.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,567
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    The problem is that most opponents of Brexit don't treat it as just a normal piece of political campaigning but as a Goebbelsesque Big Lie that is responsible for opening the gates of hell. It's an example of them trying to delegitimise the outcome of the original referendum rather than accepting it and moving on.
    No, it's the banal bovine stupidity of it that rankles.
    In which case, it should have been really easy to defeat.

    Or just perhaps, there's a lot more behind Brexit than Remainer simpletons ever understood?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    The problem is that most opponents of Brexit don't treat it as just a normal piece of political campaigning but as a Goebbelsesque Big Lie that is responsible for opening the gates of hell. It's an example of them trying to delegitimise the outcome of the original referendum rather than accepting it and moving on.
    No, it's the banal bovine stupidity of it that rankles.
    If it was that banal and stupid, surely the Remain campaign should have been able to counter it effectively?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,397
    Leon said:

    Positively Satanic scenes in Camden as the pathetic light fades into a dark, frigid, foreboding sky, charcoal grey, and the sleet falls on the bleakness of the empty pavements. It is 0C

    But is there an AI to record it?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,317
    edited December 2022

    'Tis the bleak midwinter, n'est-ce-pas.

    It is the still, dull dead pivot of the year: St Lucy's Eve



    'Tis the year's midnight, and it is the day's,
    Lucy's, who scarce seven hours herself unmasks;
    The sun is spent, and now his flasks
    Send forth light squibs, no constant rays;
    The world's whole sap is sunk;
    The general balm th' hydroptic earth hath drunk,
    Whither, as to the bed's feet, life is shrunk,
    Dead and interr'd; yet all these seem to laugh,
    Compar'd with me, who am their epitaph.

    Study me then, you who shall lovers be
    At the next world, that is, at the next spring;
    For I am every dead thing,
    In whom Love wrought new alchemy.
    For his art did express
    A quintessence even from nothingness,
    From dull privations, and lean emptiness;
    He ruin'd me, and I am re-begot
    Of absence, darkness, death: things which are not.

    All others, from all things, draw all that's good,
    Life, soul, form, spirit, whence they being have;
    I, by Love's limbec, am the grave
    Of all that's nothing. Oft a flood
    Have we two wept, and so
    Drown'd the whole world, us two; oft did we grow
    To be two chaoses, when we did show
    Care to aught else; and often absences
    Withdrew our souls, and made us carcasses.

    But I am by her death (which word wrongs her)
    Of the first nothing the elixir grown;
    Were I a man, that I were one
    I needs must know; I should prefer,
    If I were any beast,
    Some ends, some means; yea plants, yea stones detest,
    And love; all, all some properties invest;
    If I an ordinary nothing were,
    As shadow, a light and body must be here.

    But I am none; nor will my sun renew.
    You lovers, for whose sake the lesser sun
    At this time to the Goat is run
    To fetch new lust, and give it you,
    Enjoy your summer all;
    Since she enjoys her long night's festival,
    Let me prepare towards her, and let me call
    This hour her vigil, and her eve, since this
    Both the year's, and the day's deep midnight is.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,567
    Leon said:

    Positively Satanic scenes in Camden as the pathetic light fades into a dark, frigid, foreboding sky, charcoal grey, and the sleet falls on the bleakness of the empty pavements. It is 0C

    Truly Satanic scenes require the sound of Iranian drones overhead....

    Wake me up when Camden gets that bad. Although, no promises I won't turn over and go back to hibernating.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    The southerners seem astounded by this white stuff that falls from the sky.

    "Has there been a disaster in an expanded polystyrene factory?", one asks.
  • M45M45 Posts: 216

    kjh said:

    Honestly @WillG and @Driver trying to defend the amount on the side of the bus is pathetic. Look you won. The side of the bus was an excellent bit of campaigning. It got Remain up in arms on the amount being inaccurate and hence just highlighted it a bit more. So job done. It's in the past. You don't need to defend it. It was a lie, just like all politicians tell and it worked. Let it go.

    The problem is that most opponents of Brexit don't treat it as just a normal piece of political campaigning but as a Goebbelsesque Big Lie that is responsible for opening the gates of hell. It's an example of them trying to delegitimise the outcome of the original referendum rather than accepting it and moving on.
    If it's normal, it is a new normal.

    What you did there, is promote "lie" to "Goebbelsesque Big Lie that is responsible for opening the gates of hell", which is kind of an instance of what it seeks to condemn, quite cleverly. I will settle for just "lie.2 People shouldn't lie, I don't like liars, and to try to explain away, condone or minimise lies is to demean yourself.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,317

    Leon said:

    Positively Satanic scenes in Camden as the pathetic light fades into a dark, frigid, foreboding sky, charcoal grey, and the sleet falls on the bleakness of the empty pavements. It is 0C

    Truly Satanic scenes require the sound of Iranian drones overhead....

    Wake me up when Camden gets that bad. Although, no promises I won't turn over and go back to hibernating.
    I am withdrawing from a Diphenydramine addiction, so I may be prone to anxious moogswings

    I really am, btw!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    ohnotnow said:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-63947246

    "Two NHS Scotland unions accept 7.5% pay deal

    Members of two major NHS unions in Scotland have voted to accept an improved pay offer.

    This ends the risk of strike action in the health service by members of Unison and Unite but a ballot of Royal College of Nursing members is still under way.

    An improved pay offer averaging 7.5% was made to health workers threatening industrial action last month."

    I'm old enough to remembewr when PB Tories thought that the SG not reaching pay agreements promptly to stop/halt public sector strikes was SNP BAAAAD.

    For some reason, the logic does not seem to apply south of Lamberton Toll.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    Driver said:

    If it was that banal and stupid, surely the Remain campaign should have been able to counter it effectively?

    How?

    What is the Brexiteers cunning formula for combating their lies that the remain campaign didn't try?

    Share your wisdom...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,175
    Leon said:

    Positively Satanic scenes in Camden as the pathetic light fades into a dark, frigid, foreboding sky, charcoal grey, and the sleet falls on the bleakness of the empty pavements. It is 0C

    Dom Jolly about again?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr1bqeHOeBc
This discussion has been closed.