Howdy, Stranger!

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

Have we seen peak SNP? – politicalbetting.com

24

Comments

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,106
    ydoethur said:

    Given it never seems to have been used I think it's pretty inexplicable whatever their motives.

    It never moved.

    We don't know if it was ever used
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966

    Hope you have a splendid evening. Mr. Sandpit.

    I rather hope they both do!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,409
    edited April 2023
    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    Tres said:

    Stocky said:

    Question for those better informed.

    Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

    Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?
    The scottish public have decided that Salmond is a sleaze ball Putin apologist.
    bollocks, you obviously have no clue
    One striking thing about Scottish politics is how former leaders disappear so totally. Salmond and now Sturgeon have names like mud, as do former leaders of the Unionist parties.

    I suppose it does allow new names to come forward, but the total destruction of reputations is quite a phenomenon.
    No House of Lords for them to hang around in, must be a factor. Edit: especially at public expense.

  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Hmm ... why buy a 'battlebus' with the money way ahead of any sign of another referendum? You could earn interest on the money, or you could watch the motorhome devalue a lot in the first couple of years. Who was the treasurer? Mickey Mouse?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,285
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well it certainly did so for me.

    Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
    Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

    I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

    If it gets people thinking about the essential truth of Tory record on crime then that particular ad might have made people think more negatively of Keir whilst still helping Labour's chances later.
    That's not really how ads work, though.
    The emotional tends to trump the rational both in politics and advertising.

    The idea of an attack campaign was probably sound. Its execution was botched.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Nigelb said:

    Well it certainly did so for me.

    Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
    Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

    I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

    We expect it from the Conservatives and their shills at the Daily Mail and Guido, and we love them all the more for it. It's a bit of fun. I do not expect parties who are not the Conservatives to enter the gutter with them.
    Never seen a LibDem bar chart?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited April 2023
    DavidL said:

    I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

    What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

    Yes, it seems a poor investment even if it was used. Since it wasn't and wasn't going to be, why wasn't it gotten rid of?

    At best Murrell seems to have been incompetent with the party's finances, and resistant to providing details to the elected representatives of the party, aided by Sturgeon who I note in the clip talks about the strong finances in the context of their membership - I wonder if she and he knew of the membership details at that time,and if the numbers were indeed still where they were claiming at that point.

    I do also love the bit in the video which is essentially saying if people leak then it prevents free and open discussion of ideas, in a clip whose intent seems to be to tell them to stop discussing certain matters at all.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,547
    edited April 2023
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    pigeon said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

    Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

    Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

    Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

    It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

    www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

    It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

    The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?
    Because the people doing the complaining just want something to complain about (and, having found discrimination in some places, begin to see it everywhere.)

    Besides, if they were really that bothered about diversity rather than offence taking, why wouldn't they try to popularise other historical figures who have fascinating stories, and where we can be pretty confident that they were actually black - like the Nubian pharoahs of Egypt, or Queen Candace?
    It would be great to have a drama series about Akhenaton. Or from the other end of Africa, Cetshwayo.
    Or historic Mali, Dahomey or Benin.

    Dahomey would be great, in an eldritch, Lovecraftian way. What’s not to like about human sacrifice, black magic, enslavement, and female soldiers?

    Best of all would be 18th/19th century Ethiopia.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,156
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

    What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

    Given it never seems to have been used I think it's pretty inexplicable whatever their motives.
    I think what may have happened is when Sturgeon saw how macho and butch Ian Blackford was in the Commons, she told her aides that they need a camper man in Westminster.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966
    CD13 said:

    Hmm ... why buy a 'battlebus' with the money way ahead of any sign of another referendum? You could earn interest on the money, or you could watch the motorhome devalue a lot in the first couple of years. Who was the treasurer? Mickey Mouse?

    Or perhaps a motor-home salesman?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516

    malcolmg said:

    Tres said:

    Stocky said:

    Question for those better informed.

    Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

    Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?
    The scottish public have decided that Salmond is a sleaze ball Putin apologist.
    bollocks, you obviously have no clue
    Regardless of whether you are pro or anti independence, he IS a sleazeball Putin apologist. I also enjoyed my brief conversation with him where he (incorrectly) asserted the law didn't apply to him with regards to parking your liveried campaign car 3 feet from the entrance to the polling station.

    Salmond is the past, and like so many fallen politicians (cough Blair) has soiled himself badly after leaving office. Surely there has to be someone else the movement can get behind?

    Because if the choice is sleaze or corruption, there is no choice. People will only excuse crap government and failing services for so long no matter how they feel about independence. Especially when its vividly clear that independence is a long way off.
    For someone who supports the pathetic ACH led Lib Dum London donkeys, I think I can ignore your biased and totally crap opinion. Lucky there is a losers list seat to save them becoming totally extinct.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,285
    Interesting thread.
    Although the cases are very different indeed, this might also resonate with Scottish Nationalists.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/TheStanislawski/status/1647182174687305730
    It’s hard to articulate the depth of Russia’s imperial influence in Ukraine, and how important it is for us to finally remove this legacy from our social fabric.

    So I have a personal story about one of my childhood’s favorite streets in Kyiv and its ever-changing name...
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

    There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

    From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

    Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.
    Good morning

    There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th
    Also a teachers' strike on the 2nd May which I imagine will close the majority of schools.

    (Also one on the 27th April. I wonder how many children will not be in on the 28th as well?)
    The 28th is a Sunday - not sure many children go to school on Sundays ??

    Not it isn't. The 27th April is a Thursday. 28th is a Friday. I think you may be looking at May's calendar.
    Yes - sorry I misread your comment
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516
    DavidL said:

    I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

    What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

    How long could they pay all the grifters and staff without it though David. The MP's would have to fund out of their own pockets and fat chance of that with these grifters.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966
    Nigelb said:

    Fortunately the virus does not (yet) appear to be particularly infectious.

    Equatorial Guinea: The case count is up to 38 confirmed & probable #Marburg cases; at least 89% are dead. Authorities don't know the identify/whereabouts/disease outcome of 1 case. (shudder)
    The most recent case tested positive on April 7. Not yet clear how s/he got infected...

    https://mobile.twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1647319552575848448

    "Most of the #Marburg cases have been in Bata, a large port (pop. ~455,000) with an international airport. "

    Eeeeek....

    (Any other pb-ers been to Equatorial Guinea? Although I have only been to Bioko Island, not that part on the mainland where the Marburg outbreak is happening.)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    malcolmg said:

    Tres said:

    Stocky said:

    Question for those better informed.

    Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

    Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?
    The scottish public have decided that Salmond is a sleaze ball Putin apologist.
    bollocks, you obviously have no clue
    One striking thing about Scottish politics is how former leaders disappear so totally. Salmond and now Sturgeon have names like mud, as do former leaders of the Unionist parties.

    I suppose it does allow new names to come forward, but the total destruction of reputations is quite a phenomenon.
    No House of Lords for them to hang around in, must be a factor. Edit: especially at public expense.

    There may be something in that. Without some connection to the formal political processes of the day you're just some person chiming in. You'll get some attention, a la John Major or Tony Blair, but it's harder to claim relevance.

    Perhaps one reason Salmond has a new party to lead - it denotes active involvement rather than just carping, even if it has not currently had success.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    Nigelb said:

    Well it certainly did so for me.

    Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
    Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

    I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

    We expect it from the Conservatives and their shills at the Daily Mail and Guido, and we love them all the more for it. It's a bit of fun. I do not expect parties who are not the Conservatives to enter the gutter with them.
    Never seen a LibDem bar chart?
    My local ones have in all recent elections had accurate proportions. It's like tradition means nothing anymore.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    Stocky said:

    Question for those better informed.

    Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

    Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?
    Not seen numbers but supposedly a lot of new members, whatever a lot is.
    If they've tripled their membership would that get it to double figures?
    2nd largest party members in Scotland and rising unlike the London sockpuppets
    But you keep telling us Malcolm there are no Scottish parties except Alba, the SNP and the Greens...
    ISP as well, NO Labour or Conservative parties registered in Scotland for sure, but you could compare with the regional offices of the London parties if you were looking at it in an unbiased way.
    So correct whether you count just real Scottish parties or include London regional office memberships
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,285

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well it certainly did so for me.

    Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
    Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

    I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

    If attack ads captured an "essential truth" they would be statements of the bleeding obvious and unnecessary. The truth is this version of the Tories are ineffective on crime and have no idea how to change that.

    I would expect the aim of the campaign is to get swing voters thinking along the lines of "they are all as bad as each other" on crime rather than the traditional Tories better than Labour (at fighting it, not commiting it...although could be either).

    Labour strategists won't care whether people think they are nice or not, it is about making people who normally vote Tory but have had enough feel comfortable in voting in Labour.
    And these failed in their intended purpose.

    ...attack ads captured an "essential truth" they would be statements of the bleeding obvious ..
    No, truth can be relevatory. Or make explicit something which is in the back if everyone's minds anyway.

    The classic example is the "Labour isn't working" poster from decades ago.

    A good attack ad is one which even its target has grudgingly to acknowledge.



    Is it the best attack ad since 1978? No
    Is it in bad taste? Yes
    Is its impact more or less likely to see Starmer become PM? More likely

    I'd answer no to that last question.
    I hope they learn from the mistake and improve.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,157
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well it certainly did so for me.

    Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
    Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

    I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

    If it gets people thinking about the essential truth of Tory record on crime then that particular ad might have made people think more negatively of Keir whilst still helping Labour's chances later.
    If discussing Tory failure, then Brexit should be where Labour attacks, and it would have the advantage of making Starmer sound authentic and honest.

    There is polling evidence that this would be significantly to Labour's advantage, and nowhere near as damaging in the "Red Wall" as some would have us believe.

    https://consoc.org.uk/publications/red-wall-polling-2023/
  • The people attacking those Labour ads consistently refuse to accept that this was their retaliation against the Tories own smears - which obviously were starting to work.

    "Eugh that Labour ad is racist" makes it sound like the Tories haven't already weaponised racism and are using it as a lodestone to attract the dumbest voters.

    I don't like the Labour ads. But to suggest they have lowered the bar is to ignore that the Tories buried the bar under the gutter already. Its going to be a horrible election campaign, pandering to the very stupidest voters.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,285

    Nigelb said:

    Fortunately the virus does not (yet) appear to be particularly infectious.

    Equatorial Guinea: The case count is up to 38 confirmed & probable #Marburg cases; at least 89% are dead. Authorities don't know the identify/whereabouts/disease outcome of 1 case. (shudder)
    The most recent case tested positive on April 7. Not yet clear how s/he got infected...

    https://mobile.twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1647319552575848448

    "Most of the #Marburg cases have been in Bata, a large port (pop. ~455,000) with an international airport. "

    Eeeeek....

    (Any other pb-ers been to Equatorial Guinea? Although I have only been to Bioko Island, not that part on the mainland where the Marburg outbreak is happening.)
    There is a vaccine in development.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,285

    The people attacking those Labour ads consistently refuse to accept that this was their retaliation against the Tories own smears - which obviously were starting to work...

    No, I noted that the day they came out.
  • malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Tres said:

    Stocky said:

    Question for those better informed.

    Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

    Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?
    The scottish public have decided that Salmond is a sleaze ball Putin apologist.
    bollocks, you obviously have no clue
    Regardless of whether you are pro or anti independence, he IS a sleazeball Putin apologist. I also enjoyed my brief conversation with him where he (incorrectly) asserted the law didn't apply to him with regards to parking your liveried campaign car 3 feet from the entrance to the polling station.

    Salmond is the past, and like so many fallen politicians (cough Blair) has soiled himself badly after leaving office. Surely there has to be someone else the movement can get behind?

    Because if the choice is sleaze or corruption, there is no choice. People will only excuse crap government and failing services for so long no matter how they feel about independence. Especially when its vividly clear that independence is a long way off.
    For someone who supports the pathetic ACH led Lib Dum London donkeys, I think I can ignore your biased and totally crap opinion. Lucky there is a losers list seat to save them becoming totally extinct.
    Lol you don't need to attack ACH and the SLDs - I am already doing so in ways that would make your head spin. We're about three bars below useless at the moment.

    But that has no relevance to the reality that Salmond is a sleazeball Putin apologist whose party has even less support than we do. If as you suggest I am biased and totally crap, why isn't Mr RTE attracting loads of votes?

    We're becoming extinct? That means we existed at some point. Our "losers list seat" - did Alba even win one of these? If we're losers (and we ARE, no debating that), what does that make the party that doesn't even manage to pick up a losers seat?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,285
    LATEST SEAT PREDICTION: UXBRIDGE AND SOUTH RUISLIP

    LAB @DannyBeales GAIN FROM CON
    @BorisJohnson

    MAJ: 13.7%
    https://mobile.twitter.com/PollingReportUK/status/1647210703567069185
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,916
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

    What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

    Yes, it seems a poor investment even if it was used. Since it wasn't and wasn't going to be, why wasn't it gotten rid of?

    At best Murrell seems to have been incompetent with the party's finances, and resistant to providing details to the elected representatives of the party, aided by Sturgeon who I note in the clip talks about the strong finances in the context of their membership - I wonder if she and he knew of the membership details at that time,and if the numbers were indeed still where they were claiming at that point.

    I do also love the bit in the video which is essentially saying if people leak then it prevents free and open discussion of ideas, in a clip whose intent seems to be to tell them to stop discussing certain matters at all.
    I think one of the important lessons to draw from the SNP's experience is that the reason for having openness, and procedures, and auditors, etc, is that they work, while putting your trust solely in individuals does not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987
    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    pigeon said:

    If you are in the shit with the Electoral Commission, for example for not having auditors, does there come a point at which you can't stand candidates?

    The Electoral Commission doesn't seem to be the fastest-moving organisation, so I'd guess the SNP would have enough time to sort things out, or set up a successor organisation, before that became an issue.
    If things turn out to be as bad as they look then successor organisation it is. Of course, that brings its own problems. Name recognition is very powerful and voters are frequently inattentive, extremely thick, or both. I distinctly recall a story from many years back - I think it was a European Parliament election in Cornwall - where a bloke stood as a "Literal Democrat" and managed to win over 10,000 votes, mostly from complete imbeciles who thought they were voting Lib Dem. Should the SNP become defunct, is there anything from stopping a mischief maker with reasonably deep pockets from setting up the Scottish Nationalist Party or the Scotland National Party, and running a slate of candidates to split the vote?
    Yeah, that's potentially an issue that will make a difference at the margins for the next election, if it comes to it. But if it gets that bad, and Sturgeon is dragged into it too, then it's the actual loss of support that will be more significant than any Electoral Commission related issues.
    Well, we shall see. Is the pro-independence vote going to troop back to Labour en masse just because the SNP have been exposed as a total shambles? They've not exactly been covering themselves in glory for most of the past sixteen years, and yet they keep winning every election they fight.
    It's more likely to split between three or four pro-independence parties - Alba, Greens, post-SNP (pro-Sturgeon faction), post-SNP (anti-Sturgeon faction) - than to return to Labour en masse, but that would still give Labour lots of Scottish seats at Westminster, and in the FPTP section of the Holyrood elections.

    After that, it depends on what Labour do with those extra MPs and MSPs.

    It will be interesting to see whether there's a slice of the pro-indy/SNP vote that's been on the basis that the SNP government in Scotland has looked more sane and competent than Westminster, and if that is eroded. I don't think that current levels of support for Independence or the Union are as set in stone as sometimes supposed.
    Is there any real likelihood of a significant chunk of the 45% of the Scottish electorate that voted to be rid of the rest of us not very long ago changing their minds, and deciding that this Britain thing might be a good idea after all? Colour me sceptical.
    It was a binary vote and people not particularly sure one way or another had to make a choice. There will definitely be those among the 45% who are more open to changing their minds than others, just as there is the potential for some of the 55% to be persuaded to give Independence a go.

    Why do you expect support to stay fixed at its current level?
    As much as I believe that opinion polls are an unreliable indicator, all those Yes/No questions have indicated a reasonably close contest for most of the period between 2014 and now. The reason? A massive chunk of the Scottish population are sovereigntists. They don't care that the Scottish Government's prospectus for separation is paper thin - no answers about trade, the border, the transfer payments, the currency - and they've clearly not been put off by everything that has gone wrong with Brexit, either. They just want to go.

    The remarkable thing isn't that the 45% hasn't started to slide, it's that the blocking majority still exists.

    Scottish electoral politics is stuck. For as long as the Union exists the SNP will win every single election - unless the SNP ceases to exist, in which case whatever clone is created to replace it will probably win every single election. Scotland ain't Quebec - just look at the proportion of the Scottish population that answered the national identity question in the 2011 census as "Scottish only," and then ask yourself how much further that value will have increased if the authorities ever get round to publishing the 2022 data. This isn't going away.
    Scotland ain't Quebec only in the sense 49% of Quebecois voted for independence in 1995 but only 45% of Scots voted for independence in 2014.

    More Quebecois speak French than Scots speak Gaelic too.

    It is also perfectly possible on current polling Scottish Labour will overtake the SNP again within a few years
  • I don't think unionists cheering on the demise of the SNP is a good look, long term. Obviously the SNP leadership have got greedy and complacent and the independence train has run out of steam a bit, but independence for Scotland is still a big thing. What is it now 40ish % still fancy it? The SNP or whatever replaces it will get its act together, and this time maybe the leadership don't let it go to their heads. They'd also use Westminster laughing at them as ammunition to fire them up.
    Be careful what you wish for!
  • Interesting a representative of comparethemarket has just said between 90,000 and 100,000 new applications a month are being received by for health insurance
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,966

    The people attacking those Labour ads consistently refuse to accept that this was their retaliation against the Tories own smears - which obviously were starting to work.

    "Eugh that Labour ad is racist" makes it sound like the Tories haven't already weaponised racism and are using it as a lodestone to attract the dumbest voters.

    I don't like the Labour ads. But to suggest they have lowered the bar is to ignore that the Tories buried the bar under the gutter already. Its going to be a horrible election campaign, pandering to the very stupidest voters.

    "The Tories are racist" trope just makes the person saying it look 20 years out of date. Because, clearly, unless you are a white member of the Church of England, you stand no chance of advancement in the Conservative Party.

    Grow up.
  • Have we had this yet? Wowsers from Greg Hands

    https://twitter.com/GregHands/status/1647354707898146819?t=F7WkpplKegU7PCnW0EDrPw&s=19

    A few basic points:
    1. Juries convict, the CPS prosecute. Not the DPP.
    2. If as suggested one man was responsible for all criminal prosecution then 55% seems like a decent score.
    3. If 45% of "sex offenders" weren't convicted then they aren't sex offenders - they were acquitted.

    Problem is that some voters have been gas lit so hard they have no clue how anything works and the most stupid believe what they are told...
  • I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045
    CD13 said:

    Hmm ... why buy a 'battlebus' with the money way ahead of any sign of another referendum? You could earn interest on the money, or you could watch the motorhome devalue a lot in the first couple of years. Who was the treasurer? Mickey Mouse?

    The weirdest thing is that it doesn’t appear to have moved for two years. You’d at least expect someone to have ‘borrowed’ it for a Highlands tour in that time, knowing it was there.

    Fancy motor homes are also some of the most unreliable machines around - they’re full of electrics and plumbing that’s low-volume manufacturing, and need constant maintenance. If it’s been sitting there for two years, it probably needs thousands of pounds in servicing before it’s in a fit state to go anywhere.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,285

    The people attacking those Labour ads consistently refuse to accept that this was their retaliation against the Tories own smears - which obviously were starting to work.

    "Eugh that Labour ad is racist" makes it sound like the Tories haven't already weaponised racism and are using it as a lodestone to attract the dumbest voters.

    I don't like the Labour ads. But to suggest they have lowered the bar is to ignore that the Tories buried the bar under the gutter already. Its going to be a horrible election campaign, pandering to the very stupidest voters.

    "The Tories are racist" trope just makes the person saying it look 20 years out of date. Because, clearly, unless you are a white member of the Church of England, you stand no chance of advancement in the Conservative Party.

    Grow up.
    That wasn't what Rochdale, or members of your own party, were saying.
    https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/13/senior-conservatives-hit-out-at-suella-bravermans-racist-rhetoric

    Grow up yourself.

  • kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

    What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

    Yes, it seems a poor investment even if it was used. Since it wasn't and wasn't going to be, why wasn't it gotten rid of?

    At best Murrell seems to have been incompetent with the party's finances, and resistant to providing details to the elected representatives of the party, aided by Sturgeon who I note in the clip talks about the strong finances in the context of their membership - I wonder if she and he knew of the membership details at that time,and if the numbers were indeed still where they were claiming at that point.

    I do also love the bit in the video which is essentially saying if people leak then it prevents free and open discussion of ideas, in a clip whose intent seems to be to tell them to stop discussing certain matters at all.
    I think one of the important lessons to draw from the SNP's experience is that the reason for having openness, and procedures, and auditors, etc, is that they work, while putting your trust solely in individuals does not.
    I've had the need for an audit trail drilled into me - have it in writing so that if the shit hits the fan you are covered.

    A client I did some work for had a major criminal issue with one of their team elsewhere, and suddenly they wanted copies of *everything*.

    I was able to email them the links to the directory on the shared drive where I already had uploaded copies of every agreement and contract, plus the email authorisations from the client where necessary. Nothing to hide, everything on show.

    Of course you can only do that if there is nothing to hide.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited April 2023

    I don't think unionists cheering on the demise of the SNP is a good look, long term. Obviously the SNP leadership have got greedy and complacent and the independence train has run out of steam a bit, but independence for Scotland is still a big thing. What is it now 40ish % still fancy it? The SNP or whatever replaces it will get its act together, and this time maybe the leadership don't let it go to their heads. They'd also use Westminster laughing at them as ammunition to fire them up.
    Be careful what you wish for!

    There's a risk, sure, but come on, people are allowed a brief period of schadenfreude.

    It's like when people moan about GE winners celebrating too much on election night itself being offputting or annoying.

    Interesting a representative of comparethemarket has just said between 90,000 and 100,000 new applications a month are being received by for health insurance

    Was thinking of going for that myself. Can't be too careful.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,049
    edited April 2023

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Yes. It’s high time the license fee was abolished. Transmission was funded from general taxation and the BBC seeks its funding by other means.
  • The people attacking those Labour ads consistently refuse to accept that this was their retaliation against the Tories own smears - which obviously were starting to work.

    "Eugh that Labour ad is racist" makes it sound like the Tories haven't already weaponised racism and are using it as a lodestone to attract the dumbest voters.

    I don't like the Labour ads. But to suggest they have lowered the bar is to ignore that the Tories buried the bar under the gutter already. Its going to be a horrible election campaign, pandering to the very stupidest voters.

    "The Tories are racist" trope just makes the person saying it look 20 years out of date. Because, clearly, unless you are a white member of the Church of England, you stand no chance of advancement in the Conservative Party.

    Grow up.
    The Braverman "Pakistani men are paedo" attack is explicitly racist. At least that's what senior Tories are telling the newspapers.

    Grow up? Is it adult to sweep explicit racism under the carpet? Braverman briefed the press that she had reprimanded Essicksinnit police for the Grays Golliwog raid. The Home Office apologise to the police, who say no such thing happened.

    So Braverman the racist put out an untrue story. Why? To pander to more racists who don't think there is anything wrong with a pub where the landlord posts racist stuff on Facebook and has a bar full of Golliwogs.

    Not all Tories are racist. Most aren't. But a few are - and some of their voters are. Demonstrably so. Calling it out is not childish.
  • I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    They are going to hire some proper journalists from CBeebies instead. Let's have that right wing vicar doing the 6 o'clock news. Impartial reporting for once.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

    What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

    How long could they pay all the grifters and staff without it though David. The MP's would have to fund out of their own pockets and fat chance of that with these grifters.
    True, there would be cash flow issues very quickly. Looking at the 2020 accounts it is possible to identify when the excrement met the fan. They show that in that year the audit fee went £26,290 the previous year to £57,235. The party was also given an extension of 3 months for preparing the accounts and by the end of that period the auditors have made it clear that they are unwilling to deal with the subsequent year's audit, something kept secret from the NEC.

    What that suggests to me is that major discrepancies were discovered in that period which doubled the work being undertaken and the results of which were unsatisfactory, even if they did not lead to a formal qualification of the audit report in the accounts.. The auditors usually provide a letter confirming that they are not aware of any undisclosed issues. Without that, getting new auditors is going to be difficult.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,499
    moonshine said:

    Wrt to claims that Ukraine are losing 7 soldiers per Russian and are “losing the war”… it’s curious that Tucker Carlson and co are choosing to so vividly promote this view when we might be only weeks away from the facts on the ground showing it was rubbish. I suppose he’ll just pretend that he never said it if we see a hot knife cutting through butter.

    What future for these characters when Putin is not around to shill for I wonder.

    What surprises me is that they’re people here who still regurgitate what Carlson has to say on other topics.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,014

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
  • ..
    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    The letters are bollocks, just save yourself some hassle and tell them you don't need a licence. Just be polite to the fella at the door and say no thanks.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    Your courage in outing yourself as a Bay City Roller fan needs to be acknowledged.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,045

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    They should concentrate on hiring more journalists to go and find news, rather than paying people £300k to read the autocue.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,558

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    They are going to hire some proper journalists from CBeebies instead. Let's have that right wing vicar doing the 6 o'clock news. Impartial reporting for once.
    It’s not necessarily having to replace with CBeebies presenters (I know you aren’t being entirely serious). A good exampl I th today programme where graduall on of the chaps who did the business segment is getting more and more hosting sessions for the whole show.

    He might not have the experience of Nick Robinson but I ind him switched on and engaging whereas Obinson is a bit of a joke now and seems to spend most of his air time blathering about Man Utd.

    I’m guessing that the new chap costs the beeb significantly less than Nick Robinson and for that matter Amol Rajan and Mishal Hussein so the BBC can do things as well for less if they try.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,014

    ..

    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    The letters are bollocks, just save yourself some hassle and tell them you don't need a licence. Just be polite to the fella at the door and say no thanks.
    I tried that last place I lived....moved in went to the website and told them didn't need one, the letters continued and the escalation continued. It is now a point of principle as doing the right thing doesn't deter them anyway.

    I was polite to the guy I merely voiced the fact I was recording them because there have been cases where the visiting agent has put a signature on a form despite the home owner never signing it can't remember the form number but it basically puts you on the hook and the agent gets 20£ for each form signed.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,014
    DavidL said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    Your courage in outing yourself as a Bay City Roller fan needs to be acknowledged.
    I am far too young to have been a bay city rollers fan thankfully so will never have that shame on my record
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,987

    The people attacking those Labour ads consistently refuse to accept that this was their retaliation against the Tories own smears - which obviously were starting to work.

    "Eugh that Labour ad is racist" makes it sound like the Tories haven't already weaponised racism and are using it as a lodestone to attract the dumbest voters.

    I don't like the Labour ads. But to suggest they have lowered the bar is to ignore that the Tories buried the bar under the gutter already. Its going to be a horrible election campaign, pandering to the very stupidest voters.

    "The Tories are racist" trope just makes the person saying it look 20 years out of date. Because, clearly, unless you are a white member of the Church of England, you stand no chance of advancement in the Conservative Party.

    Grow up.
    The Braverman "Pakistani men are paedo" attack is explicitly racist. At least that's what senior Tories are telling the newspapers.

    Grow up? Is it adult to sweep explicit racism under the carpet? Braverman briefed the press that she had reprimanded Essicksinnit police for the Grays Golliwog raid. The Home Office apologise to the police, who say no such thing happened.

    So Braverman the racist put out an untrue story. Why? To pander to more racists who don't think there is anything wrong with a pub where the landlord posts racist stuff on Facebook and has a bar full of Golliwogs.

    Not all Tories are racist. Most aren't. But a few are - and some of their voters are. Demonstrably so. Calling it out is not childish.
    Actually now with the Tories led by Rishi the most racist voters are either voting RefUK or not voting at all
  • HYUFD said:

    The people attacking those Labour ads consistently refuse to accept that this was their retaliation against the Tories own smears - which obviously were starting to work.

    "Eugh that Labour ad is racist" makes it sound like the Tories haven't already weaponised racism and are using it as a lodestone to attract the dumbest voters.

    I don't like the Labour ads. But to suggest they have lowered the bar is to ignore that the Tories buried the bar under the gutter already. Its going to be a horrible election campaign, pandering to the very stupidest voters.

    "The Tories are racist" trope just makes the person saying it look 20 years out of date. Because, clearly, unless you are a white member of the Church of England, you stand no chance of advancement in the Conservative Party.

    Grow up.
    The Braverman "Pakistani men are paedo" attack is explicitly racist. At least that's what senior Tories are telling the newspapers.

    Grow up? Is it adult to sweep explicit racism under the carpet? Braverman briefed the press that she had reprimanded Essicksinnit police for the Grays Golliwog raid. The Home Office apologise to the police, who say no such thing happened.

    So Braverman the racist put out an untrue story. Why? To pander to more racists who don't think there is anything wrong with a pub where the landlord posts racist stuff on Facebook and has a bar full of Golliwogs.

    Not all Tories are racist. Most aren't. But a few are - and some of their voters are. Demonstrably so. Calling it out is not childish.
    Actually now with the Tories led by Rishi the most racist voters are either voting RefUK or not voting at all
    Hence the desperate gaslighting by the racist security risk Home Secretary to try and win them back.

    Golliwogs. Your party is desperate to win votes of people who like Golliwogs.
  • Pagan2 said:

    ..

    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    The letters are bollocks, just save yourself some hassle and tell them you don't need a licence. Just be polite to the fella at the door and say no thanks.
    I tried that last place I lived....moved in went to the website and told them didn't need one, the letters continued and the escalation continued. It is now a point of principle as doing the right thing doesn't deter them anyway.

    I was polite to the guy I merely voiced the fact I was recording them because there have been cases where the visiting agent has put a signature on a form despite the home owner never signing it can't remember the form number but it basically puts you on the hook and the agent gets 20£ for each form signed.
    Don't engage with them at all apart from informing them you don't need one. Don't let them in, say nothing and sign nothing. Just be sure you don't need a licence!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,246
    Nigelb said:

    Well it certainly did so for me.

    Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
    Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

    I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

    Moral of the story: never attack an opponent on their attitude to paedophiles. Simple rule. Starmer should have someone to tell him, "No" for this kind of thing.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,157

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    They are going to hire some proper journalists from CBeebies instead. Let's have that right wing vicar doing the 6 o'clock news. Impartial reporting for once.
    I can't see his face without this coming to mind:

    https://twitter.com/KuntiePlopkins/status/1642917494280052738?t=djhm1wLGTkRxkc3CEtErfA&s=19
  • HYUFD said:

    The people attacking those Labour ads consistently refuse to accept that this was their retaliation against the Tories own smears - which obviously were starting to work.

    "Eugh that Labour ad is racist" makes it sound like the Tories haven't already weaponised racism and are using it as a lodestone to attract the dumbest voters.

    I don't like the Labour ads. But to suggest they have lowered the bar is to ignore that the Tories buried the bar under the gutter already. Its going to be a horrible election campaign, pandering to the very stupidest voters.

    "The Tories are racist" trope just makes the person saying it look 20 years out of date. Because, clearly, unless you are a white member of the Church of England, you stand no chance of advancement in the Conservative Party.

    Grow up.
    The Braverman "Pakistani men are paedo" attack is explicitly racist. At least that's what senior Tories are telling the newspapers.

    Grow up? Is it adult to sweep explicit racism under the carpet? Braverman briefed the press that she had reprimanded Essicksinnit police for the Grays Golliwog raid. The Home Office apologise to the police, who say no such thing happened.

    So Braverman the racist put out an untrue story. Why? To pander to more racists who don't think there is anything wrong with a pub where the landlord posts racist stuff on Facebook and has a bar full of Golliwogs.

    Not all Tories are racist. Most aren't. But a few are - and some of their voters are. Demonstrably so. Calling it out is not childish.
    Actually now with the Tories led by Rishi the most racist voters are either voting RefUK or not voting at all
    Hence the desperate gaslighting by the racist security risk Home Secretary to try and win them back.

    Golliwogs. Your party is desperate to win votes of people who like Golliwogs.
    Possibly more accurately, people who pretend to like golliwogs so they can signal their racism while pretending to be the ones persecuted..
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,014

    Pagan2 said:

    ..

    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    The letters are bollocks, just save yourself some hassle and tell them you don't need a licence. Just be polite to the fella at the door and say no thanks.
    I tried that last place I lived....moved in went to the website and told them didn't need one, the letters continued and the escalation continued. It is now a point of principle as doing the right thing doesn't deter them anyway.

    I was polite to the guy I merely voiced the fact I was recording them because there have been cases where the visiting agent has put a signature on a form despite the home owner never signing it can't remember the form number but it basically puts you on the hook and the agent gets 20£ for each form signed.
    Don't engage with them at all apart from informing them you don't need one. Don't let them in, say nothing and sign nothing. Just be sure you don't need a licence!
    Don't worry, when I decided to be difficult this time due to them refusing an "I don't need a licence" last time I checked out all the processes and legal obligations and frankly I am not even going to tell them I don't need a licence at the door. I regard it now as hobby making life difficult for them.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,948
    edited April 2023
    DavidL said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    Your courage in outing yourself as a Bay City Roller fan needs to be acknowledged.
    My wife is a bay city roller fan. She does have some redeeming characteristics though. Two of mine are tolerance and open mindedness. I put it down to her being Scottish.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,246
    DavidL said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    Your courage in outing yourself as a Bay City Roller fan needs to be acknowledged.
    I defy anyone to participate in a Sha-la-la-la without a big smile on their face
  • Wasn't one of the Rollers convicted for downloading indecent images of kids "for research purposes"?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    edited April 2023
    Morning all.

    The end-of-Smart-Motorways thing is interesting. What next? The future is not in widening motorways. I think there is space for a hard shoulder by narrowing lanes and reducing speed limits in such sections to 50mph - for everyone except Andy Burnham, who will be driving along at 70 with his head in the clouds.

    The one thing I'll guarantee is that this Government won't do any more than kick it down the road, and won't take responsibility for implementing a long-term solution, any more than they are willing to take responsibility for addressing anything else to do with road safety.

    The last serious "Smart Motorway" death-collision I have seen here, which is the one that caused the change, was where a broken down van was out of the running lane having been pulled up on the left, and a driver driving the LH white line rather than the centre of the lane, who admitted she did not even see it, hit it and killed her own husband, and somebody else's husband. Here's the 'just before' piccie:


  • MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The end-of-Smart-Motorways thing is interesting. What next? The future is not in widening motorways. I might suggest narrowing lanes and reducing speed limits in such sections to 50mph - for everyone except Andy Burnham, who will be driving along at 70 with his head in the clouds.

    The one thing I'll guarantee is that this Government won't do any more than kick it down the road, and won't take responsibility for implementing a long-term solution, any more than they are willing to take responsibility for addressing anything else to do with road safety.

    The last serious "Smart Motorway" death-collision I have seen here was where a broken down van was out of the running lane having been pulled up on the left, and a pensioner driving the LH white line rather than the centre of the lane, who admitted she did not see it, hit it and killed her own husband, and somebody else's husband. Here's the piccie:


    We were never keen on Smart Motorways. A Motorway needs a hard shoulder for emergency services to use when getting to incidents, and it gives the public a little bit of safety if they have to stop.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,014

    Wasn't one of the Rollers convicted for downloading indecent images of kids "for research purposes"?

    I thought it was a guy from the Who
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    kjh said:

    DavidL said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    Your courage in outing yourself as a Bay City Roller fan needs to be acknowledged.
    My wife is a bay city roller fan. She does have some redeeming characteristics though. Two of mine are tolerance and open mindedness. I put it down to her being Scottish.
    My wife was a Bay City Roller fan back in the day, wearing tartan to school with almost everyone else. But, as @Pagan2 rather unkindly points out, that was a long time ago.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,478
    edited April 2023
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well it certainly did so for me.

    Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
    Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

    I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

    Moral of the story: never attack an opponent on their attitude to paedophiles. Simple rule. Starmer should have someone to tell him, "No" for this kind of thing.
    While I agree with you and didn't like the attack ad on Sunak, a friend gave a different view. He'd been out canvassing for Labour on a local council estate, and reported that the ad had gone down really well. I wonder if the middle-class sensibilities that most posters on here have about what is 'bad taste' are not necessarily shared across the social spectrum.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,156
    SNP = The Darien Party
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,916
    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The end-of-Smart-Motorways thing is interesting. What next? The future is not in widening motorways. I think there is space for a hard shoulder by narrowing lanes and reducing speed limits in such sections to 50mph - for everyone except Andy Burnham, who will be driving along at 70 with his head in the clouds.

    ...

    HS2 opens and the extra capacity results in less freight and cars on the crowded motorway network, making the case for extending HS2 north and east?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,843
    Smart motorways would be fine if it wasn't for car drivers. I would avoid them like the plague at busy times . Smart motorways are about Govt saving money . Deaths are inevitable.....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516
    Pagan2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Pagan2 said:

    I know it's the Mail, and I feel dirty posting it, but the BBC really need to get the licence fee sorted out. It's only going one way.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html

    Well I am happily costing the bbc money or possibly capita by refusing to engage with them on the subject of whether I need a tv licence or not. They have already sent a guy to knock on my door, who seemed curiously reluctant to talk once I said "hang on before you say more than you are from licencing let me just set my phone to record for use in any possible legal action". Apparently now I am the subject of an official investigation according to the letter but can head it off by buying a licence.....I am so scared I am quaking in my tartan zipup booties.
    Your courage in outing yourself as a Bay City Roller fan needs to be acknowledged.
    I am far too young to have been a bay city rollers fan thankfully so will never have that shame on my record
    No shame in it at all, legends.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Mr. Password, I admite the optimism in your suggestion HS2 will be expanded north and west. As this would involve transport money being spent further away from London than Birmingham, it seems improbable.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,478
    Pagan2 said:

    Wasn't one of the Rollers convicted for downloading indecent images of kids "for research purposes"?

    I thought it was a guy from the Who
    Pete Townshend. I was devastated, as he was my childhood hero.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,516

    Wasn't one of the Rollers convicted for downloading indecent images of kids "for research purposes"?

    Few dodgy ones re drugs etc, especially the manager who was a real roaster
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 10,014

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The end-of-Smart-Motorways thing is interesting. What next? The future is not in widening motorways. I think there is space for a hard shoulder by narrowing lanes and reducing speed limits in such sections to 50mph - for everyone except Andy Burnham, who will be driving along at 70 with his head in the clouds.

    ...

    HS2 opens and the extra capacity results in less freight and cars on the crowded motorway network, making the case for extending HS2 north and east?
    I will believe that when I see it frankly only 4.8% of freight is currently moved by rail and I don't see it changing. Bulk freight like coal made sense to move by rail but we don't do that much of that type of freight anymore. I also don't see many moving from car to rail due to it because frankly going by car is mostly cheaper and more convenient for most.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    IanB2 said:

    The Sunday Rawnsley, the last one coming to you from the UK for a little while....

    If this affair has swayed opinion, it is likely to have made people even more cynical about politicians than they were before. Which is not ultimately beneficial for Labour when its core proposition is supposed to be that politics can be a force for good. You can’t point to the stars from the sewer.

    Many moons ago the company I worked for got into a huge public dispute (front pages, TV) with its major competitor. While some were all gung ho for giving as good as we got the head honcho shut it down remarking “two whores brawling in public will do none of us any good.”
  • malcolmg said:

    Wasn't one of the Rollers convicted for downloading indecent images of kids "for research purposes"?

    Few dodgy ones re drugs etc, especially the manager who was a real roaster
    Wrong 'un!

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2000/mar/04/kirstyscott1
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,156
    Nigelb said:

    LATEST SEAT PREDICTION: UXBRIDGE AND SOUTH RUISLIP

    LAB @DannyBeales GAIN FROM CON
    @BorisJohnson

    MAJ: 13.7%
    https://mobile.twitter.com/PollingReportUK/status/1647210703567069185

    Interesting to see TWO known unknowns in the running :lol:
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,916

    Mr. Password, I admite the optimism in your suggestion HS2 will be expanded north and west. As this would involve transport money being spent further away from London than Birmingham, it seems improbable.

    My natural optimism may have taken a battering over my two score years and two, but it can't help escaping from time to time.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The end-of-Smart-Motorways thing is interesting. What next? The future is not in widening motorways. I think there is space for a hard shoulder by narrowing lanes and reducing speed limits in such sections to 50mph - for everyone except Andy Burnham, who will be driving along at 70 with his head in the clouds.

    ...

    HS2 opens and the extra capacity results in less freight and cars on the crowded motorway network, making the case for extending HS2 north and east?
    That's my view, as one affected, but the modal shift/capacity objectives of HS2 have been killed for the current Govt term.

    The current govt are just continuing to give more subsidies to motor traffic on the roads, as we saw in the budget.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,921
    kjh said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well it certainly did so for me.

    Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
    Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

    I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

    We expect it from the Conservatives and their shills at the Daily Mail and Guido, and we love them all the more for it. It's a bit of fun. I do not expect parties who are not the Conservatives to enter the gutter with them.
    Never seen a LibDem bar chart?
    Our bar charts are always accurate. Outrageously misleading I grant you, but accurate nevertheless.
    Why "misleading", Mr KJH? Especially if they are accurate.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,158


    While I agree with you and didn't like the attack ad on Sunak, a friend gave a different view. He'd been out canvassing for Labour on a local council estate, and reported that the ad had gone down really well. I wonder if the middle-class sensibilities that most posters on here have about what is 'bad taste' are not necessarily shared across the social spectrum.

    There certainly has to be some group of voters out there that approve -- I assume there's no way a party puts out something like this without it getting through focus-group testing...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    ydoethur said:

    Recent events in Scotland really have been suboptimal for the SNP

    Do I detect a hint of irony there, Mr Eagles?

    The traditional form of words is

    “The situation has developed not necessarily to {insert name here}'s advantage”

    This is only applicable after the entity in question has been treated like a step mother working in the port social entertainment sector, whilst advertising on certain portions of social media.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,725

    Nigelb said:

    LATEST SEAT PREDICTION: UXBRIDGE AND SOUTH RUISLIP

    LAB @DannyBeales GAIN FROM CON
    @BorisJohnson

    MAJ: 13.7%
    https://mobile.twitter.com/PollingReportUK/status/1647210703567069185

    Interesting to see TWO known unknowns in the running :lol:
    Wouldn't be a 'Portillo moment', though; 'cos we'll be waiting, watching and HOPING.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Well it certainly did so for me.

    Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
    Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

    I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

    Moral of the story: never attack an opponent on their attitude to paedophiles. Simple rule. Starmer should have someone to tell him, "No" for this kind of thing.
    While I agree with you and didn't like the attack ad on Sunak, a friend gave a different view. He'd been out canvassing for Labour on a local council estate, and reported that the ad had gone down really well. I wonder if the middle-class sensibilities that most posters on here have about what is 'bad taste' are not necessarily shared across the social spectrum.

    The Opinium polling found the ad made more respondents feel negatively about the Tories than Labour.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    There goes the Oxford comma, then.

    A Tennessee bill that allows students to report professors who teach "divisive concepts" passes House and Senate

    The list of "divisive concepts" bars discussions on biases, white privilege and racism's role in slavery

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1647349439265140741

    How does one discuss slavery in the USA without bringing up racism? I think talk on implicit biases and white privilege can all too easily verge into absurdity, but these Tennessee reps really need to dial down their snowflakiness several notches.
    You redesignate the slaves as “immigrants”, who were well-treated, and slavery as a kind of finishing school. You claim that black soldiers fought for the Confederacy and that the Confederate leaders favoured gradual emancipation. You claim the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, but was rather, a dispute about tariffs. You state that the South’s problems were caused by Reconstruction, which poisoned previously harmonious relationships between blacks and whites.

    I have actually read such arguments.
    AKA The Lost Cause

    Did you know that the Microsoft Zune lasted longer, in production, than the Confederacy existed for?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672

    HYUFD said:

    The people attacking those Labour ads consistently refuse to accept that this was their retaliation against the Tories own smears - which obviously were starting to work.

    "Eugh that Labour ad is racist" makes it sound like the Tories haven't already weaponised racism and are using it as a lodestone to attract the dumbest voters.

    I don't like the Labour ads. But to suggest they have lowered the bar is to ignore that the Tories buried the bar under the gutter already. Its going to be a horrible election campaign, pandering to the very stupidest voters.

    "The Tories are racist" trope just makes the person saying it look 20 years out of date. Because, clearly, unless you are a white member of the Church of England, you stand no chance of advancement in the Conservative Party.

    Grow up.
    The Braverman "Pakistani men are paedo" attack is explicitly racist. At least that's what senior Tories are telling the newspapers.

    Grow up? Is it adult to sweep explicit racism under the carpet? Braverman briefed the press that she had reprimanded Essicksinnit police for the Grays Golliwog raid. The Home Office apologise to the police, who say no such thing happened.

    So Braverman the racist put out an untrue story. Why? To pander to more racists who don't think there is anything wrong with a pub where the landlord posts racist stuff on Facebook and has a bar full of Golliwogs.

    Not all Tories are racist. Most aren't. But a few are - and some of their voters are. Demonstrably so. Calling it out is not childish.
    Actually now with the Tories led by Rishi the most racist voters are either voting RefUK or not voting at all
    Hence the desperate gaslighting by the racist security risk Home Secretary to try and win them back.

    Golliwogs. Your party is desperate to win votes of people who like Golliwogs.
    Possibly more accurately, people who pretend to like golliwogs so they can signal their racism while pretending to be the ones persecuted..

    It's a really bizarre one to choose. Golliwogs are racist, just as cartoons of Jewish people with thick lips and long noses are anti-Semitic.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177

    Nigelb said:

    Fortunately the virus does not (yet) appear to be particularly infectious.

    Equatorial Guinea: The case count is up to 38 confirmed & probable #Marburg cases; at least 89% are dead. Authorities don't know the identify/whereabouts/disease outcome of 1 case. (shudder)
    The most recent case tested positive on April 7. Not yet clear how s/he got infected...

    https://mobile.twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1647319552575848448

    Probably caught it from a policeman as some of the big pharmas have been doing trials recently with guinea pigs.
    BA Airline pilot surely?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,964
    "Top BBC presenters including Huw Edwards, Reeta Chakrabarti, Clive Myrie and Sophie Raworth get bombshell redundancy letters as the Beeb tries to save millions"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11976973/Top-BBC-presenters-including-Huw-Edwards-Sophie-Raworth-redundancy-letters.html
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,106
    Bizarre SNP story du jour

    Apparently Nippy has been pictured recently without her wedding ring.

    Not because she is about to dump PM, but cos the rozzers have it (allegedly) !
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    https://cornerstonebarristers.com/government-announces-draft-regulations-to-except-newly-procured-asylum-seeker-accommodation-from-hmo-licensing/

    An interesting story for those of us who are interested in the proliferation of regulation on housing.
    Housing for asylum seekers is to be exempt from HMO standards and licensing.
    I suppose it creates a lot of opportunities for low end slumlords?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177

    Question for those better informed.

    Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

    Their leader, Alex Salmond, is less popular in Scotland than Boris Johnson.

    This is in a country which loves to hates English poshos.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    edited April 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The end-of-Smart-Motorways thing is interesting. What next? The future is not in widening motorways. I think there is space for a hard shoulder by narrowing lanes and reducing speed limits in such sections to 50mph - for everyone except Andy Burnham, who will be driving along at 70 with his head in the clouds.

    ...

    HS2 opens and the extra capacity results in less freight and cars on the crowded motorway network, making the case for extending HS2 north and east?
    I will believe that when I see it frankly only 4.8% of freight is currently moved by rail and I don't see it changing. Bulk freight like coal made sense to move by rail but we don't do that much of that type of freight anymore. I also don't see many moving from car to rail due to it because frankly going by car is mostly cheaper and more convenient for most.
    I'd certainly agree it would be one to make happen, rather than inevitably to develop under prevailing conditions - as for the changes to active travel we are seeing in some places.

    We have seen passenger rail journeys more than double since privatisation, which is a huge increase for rail but relatively small overall, so these changes can happen. I'd be inclined to aim for a similar increase in freight, and policies to support it.

    I have a couple of other bees in my bonnet - one is metropolitan area networks which have been a success where built, and another is the exclusion of huge chunks of our community from almost all public footpaths which is a scandal, but perhaps it's one to develop in a header !
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,937
    darkage said:

    https://cornerstonebarristers.com/government-announces-draft-regulations-to-except-newly-procured-asylum-seeker-accommodation-from-hmo-licensing/

    An interesting story for those of us who are interested in the proliferation of regulation on housing.
    Housing for asylum seekers is to be exempt from HMO standards and licensing.
    I suppose it creates a lot of opportunities for low end slumlords?

    I'd say it will be corporates, and those converting office buildings under Permitted Development - especially the latter.

    The PRS has been shrunk under the Osborne cosh, and especially in Scotland, and there is little or no need for ordinary LLs to take on the increased risks.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,804

    Interesting a representative of comparethemarket has just said between 90,000 and 100,000 new applications a month are being received by for health insurance

    Which should be regarded as a good thing by all those who want more spending on health services.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    DavidL said:

    I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

    What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

    I can’t come up with a reason - and I’ve worked in startups where spending could be utterly demented. But there was always some way to justify it, albeit you’d have to be clinically insane to accept the premiss.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    On topic if you google up how much money we're talking about it them raising in a normal year it seems to be single-digit millions of pounds? I'm not sure what the rules are but those are the kind of sums you could raise that off a single rich person, or failing that a moderately imaginative NFT sale.

    https://www.thenational.scot/news/20668792.snp-accounts-published-electoral-commission-show-party-finances/

    If people don't want to vote for them any more then obviously that's the end of that but if it's just the money it seems weird to put a stop to a grand cause like an independent Scotland, or for that matter a decade of surprisingly competent government, over these relatively piddling sums.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,804

    DavidL said:

    I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

    What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

    I can’t come up with a reason - and I’ve worked in startups where spending could be utterly demented. But there was always some way to justify it, albeit you’d have to be clinically insane to accept the premiss.
    Easier to do so when working in an echo chamber and regarding yourself as the righteous.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177
    CD13 said:

    Hmm ... why buy a 'battlebus' with the money way ahead of any sign of another referendum? You could earn interest on the money, or you could watch the motorhome devalue a lot in the first couple of years. Who was the treasurer? Mickey Mouse?

    As a founder member of the Royal Society For The Protection Of The Fiscal Reputation Of Anthropomorphic Rodents, i must object to this remark.

    In all the documented history of M Mouse, he never invested anywhere nearly so badly.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 51,177

    DavidL said:

    I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

    What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

    I can’t come up with a reason - and I’ve worked in startups where spending could be utterly demented. But there was always some way to justify it, albeit you’d have to be clinically insane to accept the premiss.
    Easier to do so when working in an echo chamber and regarding yourself as the righteous.
    Even then - “Why buy, brand new a large, expensive motor home?”

    If it sat there for 2 years, then was it a meeting place? But a ridiculously obvious one. The neighbours of the old lady must have googled the make of the motor home - talk about standing out. It is a good fraction of the price of house….
This discussion has been closed.