Howdy, Stranger!

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

Like Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak uses his chopper with reckless abandon – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2023 in General
Like Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak uses his chopper with reckless abandon – politicalbetting.com

EXCL: Rishi Sunak intervened to stop officials scrapping £40 million contract that provides him with “VIP” helicopter ridesMoD planned to spend cash elsewhereBut head of RAF Squadron which runs choppers says this was “reversed at the request” of the PM https://t.co/ZkgI8ExlaC

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • First swingers, now choppers...
  • Second. Benny Hill sub-editing today.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531
    Fnar, fnar. "Chopper" :)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919
    edited December 2023
    I am sure it is a chopper commensurate with Rishi's size. So nothing too big to worry about.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466
    There was a time when Unionists tried to attack SNP politicians on what they had in their kitchens. Though I don't think a food-processor ever made it onto the agenda.
  • Forcing the taxpayer to keep paying for your helichopper is definitely the way to persuade people to keep voting for your massive tax hikes as services crumble.
  • This has Labour all over it.

    I think Sunak will come out of their spat a lot worse than Sir Keir will. Right now Sunak seems to be blowing himself up.
  • Forcing the taxpayer to keep paying for your helichopper is definitely the way to persuade people to keep voting for your massive tax hikes as services crumble.

    Probably about optimal for creating a political stink, even if it's not that much on the scale of government. (After all, it's about 50p per person across the UK.)

    People mostly accept waste on the scale of thousands of pounds, and billions sort of merge into large number blah.

    But we know that tens of millions is a lot of money
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,496
    edited December 2023
    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,874
    FPT
    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Actually I'm fascinated. @Ydoethur can you give me an example of a law of mathematics ?

    How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_cosines?
    Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
    I'll take your word for it.

    At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
    It's semantics.
    An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
    I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.

    But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
    An axiom is a property that is so basic, it is simply assumed to be true, without it being proved. Once you get more and more fundamental in mathematics, you have nothing left with which to prove that a statement is true. They are however so important they are needed. Which is why we assume them.

    This is obviously not great so they are impemented only where it is absolutely necessary. There was one axiom of set theory that was debated if it was needed, and necessary.

    The two areas I know of which rely on axioms are Set Theory, without which we can't get 1+1=2 or construct the real numbers. The other is probability. Until Kolmogorow came up with the Axioms of probability in the first half of the 20th century, every attempt at defining probability failed in some way. So all of the talk on PB about betting prices is reliant on mathematics which we just assume "must be right".

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,800

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    kind of mixing your metaphors there as they say , he got his just desserts, bloody carpetbagger.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531
    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,513
    I have experienced two helicopter journeys. From heliport to offshore platform, and back again. Bloody awful. I spent the week knowing that I had to get back on the helicopter for the return flight.

    Anyone who prefers this mode of transport to catching a train is, in my view, totally bonkers.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,492
    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Haha, you think I'm falling for that? Oh no, no way am I clicking on that link!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531
    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Actually I'm fascinated. @Ydoethur can you give me an example of a law of mathematics ?

    How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_cosines?
    Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
    I'll take your word for it.

    At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
    It's semantics.
    An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
    I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.

    But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
    An axiom is a property that is so basic, it is simply assumed to be true, without it being proved. Once you get more and more fundamental in mathematics, you have nothing left with which to prove that a statement is true. They are however so important they are needed. Which is why we assume them.

    This is obviously not great so they are impemented only where it is absolutely necessary. There was one axiom of set theory that was debated if it was needed, and necessary.

    The two areas I know of which rely on axioms are Set Theory, without which we can't get 1+1=2 or construct the real numbers. The other is probability. Until Kolmogorow came up with the Axioms of probability in the first half of the 20th century, every attempt at defining probability failed in some way. So all of the talk on PB about betting prices is reliant on mathematics which we just assume "must be right".

    Excellent post. My only minor and pedantic point is that Колмого́ров is transliterated as "Kolmogorov".
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Haha, you think I'm falling for that? Oh no, no way am I clicking on that link!
    We should remember the size of Ronnie Corbett's dongle:

    https://youtu.be/kAG39jKi0lI?si=CAg8soI9n86jY1Gy
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Haha, you think I'm falling for that? Oh no, no way am I clicking on that link!
    The link is a 60-second YouTube short involving the singer/comedian/whatever Cera Gibson, in which she holds up a tape measure and mocks those who boast about their dick length by pointing out that long dicks can be unfulfilling, painful or even cause injury. It's funny not rude, and given PBs neuroses I thought it would help.
  • Westminster Voting Intention:

    LAB: 44% (-1)
    CON: 22% (=)
    LDM: 12% (=)
    REF: 9% (+1)
    GRN: 7% (=)

    via
    @techneUK
    , 13-14 Dec

    (Changes with 7 Dec)

    BJOFans please explain?
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    edited December 2023
    FPT

    I've just watched the full Mone/Barrowman interview from this morning. Wow. 30 minutes of self-pitying, self-serving justification at the end of which they want us to feel sorry for them because of press intrusion and social media vilification.

    Should we feel sorry for them? One phone call to Gove from the Baroness led inexorably to PPE contracts worth £202m on which Barrowman admitted the profit was £61M. 30% profit on a government contract at a time of need strikes me as grotesque even if all the goods supplied were fine. A new company (PPE Medpro) set up which completely disguised Mone/Barrowman's involvement in it, even in Companies House data etc. Then they persistently lied about their involvement. And they base themselves in the Isle of Man to, they say, avoid publicity. Now they're panicking.

    So no, I don't feel sorry for them.

    One firm in Cannock produced hand sanitiser and disinfectant wipes throughout the pandemic. Normally they sell cleaning chemicals to industry.

    They sold it to schools, hospitals and care homes at cost only.

    Admittedly, they made a decent mark up on selling it to other clients, but the owner took the view that he should do his bit to help out essential public services in the emergency.

    His product was turned down by several hospital trusts in the West Midlands because they had contracted with another firm to buy a product that wasn't as good at a much higher price.

    This had nothing to do with the fact one person on the board of this other company was married to somebody on the boards of these trusts...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    First swingers, now choppers...

    We're on a rotor.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,042
    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    He should pledge to make his main home in Hartlepool.

    That would get him some comedy gold...
  • viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
    'Vote Tory for Cash in Hand' wouldn't have been a winner in Stone...
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    He should pledge to make his main home in Hartlepool.

    That would get him some comedy gold...
    True😂

    Izzard deleted all those campaign tweets too. What an embarrassment 😂😂😂😂

    https://x.com/wirespy22/status/1736402478160126148?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Haha, you think I'm falling for that? Oh no, no way am I clicking on that link!
    The link is a 60-second YouTube short involving the singer/comedian/whatever Cera Gibson, in which she holds up a tape measure and mocks those who boast about their dick length by pointing out that long dicks can be unfulfilling, painful or even cause injury. It's funny not rude, and given PBs neuroses I thought it would help.
    Which is why I only ever talk about the girth of my penis.
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    ydoethur said:

    FPT

    I've just watched the full Mone/Barrowman interview from this morning. Wow. 30 minutes of self-pitying, self-serving justification at the end of which they want us to feel sorry for them because of press intrusion and social media vilification.

    Should we feel sorry for them? One phone call to Gove from the Baroness led inexorably to PPE contracts worth £202m on which Barrowman admitted the profit was £61M. 30% profit on a government contract at a time of need strikes me as grotesque even if all the goods supplied were fine. A new company (PPE Medpro) set up which completely disguised Mone/Barrowman's involvement in it, even in Companies House data etc. Then they persistently lied about their involvement. And they base themselves in the Isle of Man to, they say, avoid publicity. Now they're panicking.

    So no, I don't feel sorry for them.

    One firm in Cannock produced hand sanitiser and disinfectant wipes throughout the pandemic. Normally they sell cleaning chemicals to industry.

    They sold it to schools, hospitals and care homes at cost only.

    Admittedly, they made a decent mark up on selling it to other clients, but the owner took the view that he should do his bit to help out essential public services in the emergency.

    His product was turned down by several hospital trusts in the West Midlands because they had contracted with another firm to buy a product that wasn't as good at a much higher price.

    This had nothing to do with the fact one person on the board of this other company was married to somebody on the boards of these trusts...
    I’d guess in Private Eye terms it was just a ‘happy coincidence’
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    Izzard is actually quite an accomplished actor these days.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,940
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    Someone managed to really offend the singer Pink with a tweet suggesting they have a resemblance.

    https://www.nme.com/news/music/pink-hits-back-troll-compare-her-suzy-eddie-izzard-3496828

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,038

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    He should pledge to make his main home in Hartlepool.

    That would get him some comedy gold...
    The guacamole in the chip shops is terrible, there, so they say.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    He should pledge to make his main home in Hartlepool.

    That would get him some comedy gold...
    The guacamole in the chip shops is terrible, there, so they say.
    You mousse be joking.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Haha, you think I'm falling for that? Oh no, no way am I clicking on that link!
    The link is a 60-second YouTube short involving the singer/comedian/whatever Cera Gibson, in which she holds up a tape measure and mocks those who boast about their dick length by pointing out that long dicks can be unfulfilling, painful or even cause injury. It's funny not rude, and given PBs neuroses I thought it would help.
    Which is why I only ever talk about the girth of my penis.
    Hence circumscribing the conversation... :)
  • viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
    Lembit Opik, allegedly.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,001
    edited December 2023
    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    I didn't want to click, viewcode, so what does it say?

    Edit: Ah ok I've seen your follow-up now. Very interesting.
  • Network Rail manager quits after passengers stranded
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67742682

    It's a start but perhaps shows the futility of the cult of generalist managers.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,038
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    He should pledge to make his main home in Hartlepool.

    That would get him some comedy gold...
    The guacamole in the chip shops is terrible, there, so they say.
    You mousse be joking.
    You’re fried, for that comment
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,455
    edited December 2023
    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Actually I'm fascinated. @Ydoethur can you give me an example of a law of mathematics ?

    How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_cosines?
    Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
    I'll take your word for it.

    At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
    It's semantics.
    An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
    I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.

    But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
    An axiom is a property that is so basic, it is simply assumed to be true, without it being proved. Once you get more and more fundamental in mathematics, you have nothing left with which to prove that a statement is true. They are however so important they are needed. Which is why we assume them.

    This is obviously not great so they are impemented only where it is absolutely necessary. There was one axiom of set theory that was debated if it was needed, and necessary.

    The two areas I know of which rely on axioms are Set Theory, without which we can't get 1+1=2 or construct the real numbers. The other is probability. Until Kolmogorow came up with the Axioms of probability in the first half of the 20th century, every attempt at defining probability failed in some way. So all of the talk on PB about betting prices is reliant on mathematics which we just assume "must be right".

    It is an issue across basic disciplines. I don't know how contested it is in maths, but in philosophy the issues arise in logic (of course) and in knowledge - in which case it is the question of whether beliefs rest upon the validity of other beliefs, and whether some beliefs are 'properly basic' so that they can be justifiably believed on no basis of other beliefs at all. This is foundationalism. Naturally there are anti-foundationalists too, of which Wittgenstein may well have been one. Their positions inevitably have a spherical - no end point - rather than a pyramid conceptual geometry.

    Does physics have axioms?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,001

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
    My brain read Michael Portillo for John Profumo there. That could mean something or it could mean nothing.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    algarkirk said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Actually I'm fascinated. @Ydoethur can you give me an example of a law of mathematics ?

    How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_cosines?
    Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
    I'll take your word for it.

    At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
    It's semantics.
    An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
    I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.

    But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
    An axiom is a property that is so basic, it is simply assumed to be true, without it being proved. Once you get more and more fundamental in mathematics, you have nothing left with which to prove that a statement is true. They are however so important they are needed. Which is why we assume them.

    This is obviously not great so they are impemented only where it is absolutely necessary. There was one axiom of set theory that was debated if it was needed, and necessary.

    The two areas I know of which rely on axioms are Set Theory, without which we can't get 1+1=2 or construct the real numbers. The other is probability. Until Kolmogorow came up with the Axioms of probability in the first half of the 20th century, every attempt at defining probability failed in some way. So all of the talk on PB about betting prices is reliant on mathematics which we just assume "must be right".

    It is an issue across basic disciplines. I don't know how contested it is in maths, but in philosophy the issues arise in logic (of course) and in knowledge - in which case it is the question of whether beliefs rest upon the validity of other beliefs, and whether some beliefs are 'properly basic' so that they can be justifiably believed on no basis of other beliefs at all. This is foundationalism. Naturally there are anti-foundationalists too, of which Wittgenstein may well have been one. Their positions inevitably have a spherical - no end point - rather than a pyramid conceptual geometry.

    Does physics have axioms?
    I apologise unreservedly for getting us into this rather sterile debate.

    It's only a matter of time after this post before we're onto the verification principle and then we're in trouble.
  • malcolmg said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    kind of mixing your metaphors there as they say , he got his just desserts, bloody carpetbagger.
    Almost as if Lab want to win the seat.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,455
    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Actually I'm fascinated. @Ydoethur can you give me an example of a law of mathematics ?

    How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_cosines?
    Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
    I'll take your word for it.

    At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
    It's semantics.
    An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
    I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.

    But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
    An axiom is a property that is so basic, it is simply assumed to be true, without it being proved. Once you get more and more fundamental in mathematics, you have nothing left with which to prove that a statement is true. They are however so important they are needed. Which is why we assume them.

    This is obviously not great so they are impemented only where it is absolutely necessary. There was one axiom of set theory that was debated if it was needed, and necessary.

    The two areas I know of which rely on axioms are Set Theory, without which we can't get 1+1=2 or construct the real numbers. The other is probability. Until Kolmogorow came up with the Axioms of probability in the first half of the 20th century, every attempt at defining probability failed in some way. So all of the talk on PB about betting prices is reliant on mathematics which we just assume "must be right".

    It is an issue across basic disciplines. I don't know how contested it is in maths, but in philosophy the issues arise in logic (of course) and in knowledge - in which case it is the question of whether beliefs rest upon the validity of other beliefs, and whether some beliefs are 'properly basic' so that they can be justifiably believed on no basis of other beliefs at all. This is foundationalism. Naturally there are anti-foundationalists too, of which Wittgenstein may well have been one. Their positions inevitably have a spherical - no end point - rather than a pyramid conceptual geometry.

    Does physics have axioms?
    I apologise unreservedly for getting us into this rather sterile debate.

    It's only a matter of time after this post before we're onto the verification principle and then we're in trouble.
    I would bet that verificationism has no consistent defenders on PB, especially as merely to state it is self referentially incoherent. Moving on swiftly to Brexit, railways and polling.....
  • Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    Izzard is actually quite an accomplished actor these days.
    I thought I had one too many when I saw him in "Valkyrie" (re. the anti-Hitler plot in 1944), but then I remembered I'm tee-total :lol:
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    And the Labour Party is a ******' circus!
  • rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Haha, you think I'm falling for that? Oh no, no way am I clicking on that link!
    The link is a 60-second YouTube short involving the singer/comedian/whatever Cera Gibson, in which she holds up a tape measure and mocks those who boast about their dick length by pointing out that long dicks can be unfulfilling, painful or even cause injury. It's funny not rude, and given PBs neuroses I thought it would help.
    Which is why I only ever talk about the girth of my penis.
    I hope you practise girth control!
  • viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
    Three guesses who said this:

    "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3.”
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,001

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
    Three guesses who said this:

    "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3.”
    Rory Stewart?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466

    I have experienced two helicopter journeys. From heliport to offshore platform, and back again. Bloody awful. I spent the week knowing that I had to get back on the helicopter for the return flight.

    Anyone who prefers this mode of transport to catching a train is, in my view, totally bonkers.

    Mind, not easy to get to the Forties or Brent by BR, especially with Sealink sold off.

    I blame Beeching, personally.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,466

    Network Rail manager quits after passengers stranded
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67742682

    It's a start but perhaps shows the futility of the cult of generalist managers.

    I like the wording here: one hopes the snark is deliberate.

    "She was paid a salary of £330,000 and commuted to work from Aberdeen.

    A rail insider said Ms Handforth had chosen to resign of her own accord after recognising the challenges of the role."
  • I'd just as Sunak/Hunt got in
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,798

    I'd just as Sunak/Hunt got in

    Mind if I ask why?
  • viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
    Three guesses who said this:

    "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3.”
    It was Boris, of course! Back in 2005!
  • stodge said:

    I'd just as Sunak/Hunt got in

    Mind if I ask why?
    Just for the sake of a filthy holorhyme
  • isamisam Posts: 40,848

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    Someone managed to really offend the singer Pink with a tweet suggesting they have a resemblance.

    https://www.nme.com/news/music/pink-hits-back-troll-compare-her-suzy-eddie-izzard-3496828

    image
    Wow I didn’t know Pink was a fat shaming, ageist TERF?!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,798
    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,300
    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
  • Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Carnyx said:

    Network Rail manager quits after passengers stranded
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67742682

    It's a start but perhaps shows the futility of the cult of generalist managers.

    I like the wording here: one hopes the snark is deliberate.

    "She was paid a salary of £330,000 and commuted to work from Aberdeen.

    A rail insider said Ms Handforth had chosen to resign of her own accord after recognising the challenges of the role."
    Every civil servant at the DfE, OFSTED, OFQUAL, DfT, DoH and DLU must hate her guts right now.

    How dare she resign just for being utterly shit and living hundreds of miles away from the thing she's in charge of?

    That sets a really dangerous precedent.
  • Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
    Have you seen this?


  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531
    isam said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    Someone managed to really offend the singer Pink with a tweet suggesting they have a resemblance.

    https://www.nme.com/news/music/pink-hits-back-troll-compare-her-suzy-eddie-izzard-3496828

    image
    Wow I didn’t know Pink was a fat shaming, ageist TERF?!
    Apparently not. Although so what: she's still a rock star, she's got her ro[Yes we get it - Ed]
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
    Three guesses who said this:

    "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3.”
    It was Boris, of course! Back in 2005!
    Did it work?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,793
    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    People chose to serve, or not to serve, or to leave based on their own positions and consciences. Starmer's shadow cabinet position was quite niche and specific.

    Personally, I'm glad not everyone abandoned positioning themselves for prominence, else we'd have genuinely only been able to choose between Blair era retreads and Rebecca Long-Bailey in 2020.

    And, what the actual hell kind of a choice would we be facing now?

    What could possibly be more ruthlessly pragmatist than biding your time.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,082
    edited December 2023
    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    Izzard is actually quite an accomplished actor these days.
    I was listening again to his 1994 show. Gut-bustingly funny and, like I believe I have discussed with @Leon who had the same reaction, I remember seeing him live many times around that time (the first time was during Gulf 1) and being in physical pain with laughter. There was simply no one funnier and most comics stood on his shoulders for observational/absurd routines.

    As a politician? Relentlessly optimistic, generous, idealistic, and therefore ultimately probably likely to be a failure.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,793

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
    Have you seen this?


    "Serving alongside Corbyn"
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,929

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
    Have you seen this?


    He looks a little like Stuart Adamson from Big Country.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,388

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
    Anyone who thinks Jezza a Corbynite has some explains to do for @BJO
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,300
    stodge said:

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    If you mean he followed what his leader said in the name of personal ambition, yes, I'm sure you're right.

    Name a politician who hasn't or doesn't or wouldn't. After all, Blair stood on the 1983 Labour election manifesto which I'm sure he had to publicly support even though privately I'm sure he knew it was nonsense.

    Sunak was loyal to Johnson right up to the point he stuck a knife in his back (along with Javid). Johnson was loyal to Cameron until he saw which way the wind was blowing on the EU and changed sides. He was loyal to May until flouncing as Foreign Secretary.

    This is how politics works - it's a rough trade as someone once said. Sometimes you have to publicly support a political direction in which you aren't personally vested in order to have the chance to be able to change that at a later date. It's fine to be consistent - some claim Corbyn has been consistent but let's not forget he stood on the Labour Manifesto in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and do you think he personally supported it?

    You can have all the principles you like but without the power or the means to enforce them they're pointless.
    Well yes. I'm merely answering your question of why natural Conservatives might expect Starmer to be worse. There are other reasons - this is just one.
    Or maybe you are going with the competence angle? To which I would reply that he may be more competent at legislating, but that's no reason for enthusiasm if you have no faith that the legislation is the right legislation. Indeed, better malign qnd incompetent than malign and competent.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
    Anyone who thinks Jezza a Corbynite has some explains to do for @BJO
    I think even BJO would accept Jezza is a Corbynite.

    D'you mean Starmer?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,082
    edited December 2023
    Just had a week of (relatively distant) funerals - end of year, end of life type things and have therefore sat through several church services including no fewer than two instances of 1 Corinthians 13.

    Plenty of The Christ Childs and Will Live Forevers and Eternal Loves Died for You so on and so forth.

    I find myself at these services staring intently at the vicar and the congregants in absolute wonder at such a set of beliefs. Each to their own, however, and good luck to them. As long as they don't do any harm all's well although a casual look through the past 5,000 years shows that this sadly has not been the case but one can hope.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,531

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
    Have you seen this?


    Who was the skull?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,388
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
    Anyone who thinks Jezza a Corbynite has some explains to do for @BJO
    I think even BJO would accept Jezza is a Corbynite.

    D'you mean Starmer?
    Yep. Too much sherry!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,045
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
    Anyone who thinks Jezza a Corbynite has some explains to do for @BJO
    I think even BJO would accept Jezza is a Corbynite.

    D'you mean Starmer?
    Yep. Too much sherry!
    Tis the season to be jolly.

    Anyway, I have an organ to fiddle with.

    And, of course, a large musical instrument to play.

    One of them has an eight foot horn on the full swell. So naff off, all you losers who think 12 inches is big.

    But I'll leave that to your imagination...
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,818
    viewcode said:

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    And Sunak was happy to serve in a cabinet with BoJo. But SKS kicked Jezza out for good.
    Have you seen this?


    Who was the skull?
    Peter Bone.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,880
    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    I must admit, Jordan Petersen could actually swing my vote.

    If he promised to not visit the UK if Starmer becomes PM... well... I'd definitely want to vote for Starmer.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,127
    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years of Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    The death throes of the centre right? The centre-right is alive and well, and will continue to thrive headquartered in Chancellor Reeves' Treasury.

    The fact that Labour is essentially offering the same prospectus as the current Government - hosing down pensioners with cash, tax rises and spending cuts for everyone else - and that its electoral offer therefore boils down to Continuity Conservatism, delivered slightly less incompetently, continues to receive remarkably little attention.

    Labour's economic prospectus - essentially, that it will magic growth out of austerity and prayer and this will solve all of our other problems - is as fantastical as the sunlit uplands that "Brexit freedoms" were supposed to bring about. Relieving poverty and doing something meaningful to tackle the tsunami of working age sick cases - largely caused by obesity and mental ill-health, much of which can also be traced back to impoverishment - is a necessary precondition for economic success. How in the name of God are we meant to succeed when a fifth of the working population is part-time or living off benefits because they are knackered, and when we don't have the housing or other infrastructure to solve the problem by importing five or ten million fit immigrants?

    Dealing with these problems, along with the tremendous complications resulting from the collapse of health and social care provision, has to come first, and therefore the money to help tackle it can only come from a pretty thoroughgoing program of redistribution, which Labour would have presented as just in the past but now regards as the work of the Devil. The current version of Labour is an essentially conservative party, focusing on the conservation of the wealth of those - principally the minted grey vote - who believe that they shouldn't be asked to pay for anything and whom Starmer and Reeves are too afraid to ask to pay for anything, either. And so on we go, circling the plughole.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,213
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    Network Rail manager quits after passengers stranded
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67742682

    It's a start but perhaps shows the futility of the cult of generalist managers.

    I like the wording here: one hopes the snark is deliberate.

    "She was paid a salary of £330,000 and commuted to work from Aberdeen.

    A rail insider said Ms Handforth had chosen to resign of her own accord after recognising the challenges of the role."
    Every civil servant at the DfE, OFSTED, OFQUAL, DfT, DoH and DLU must hate her guts right now.

    How dare she resign just for being utterly shit and living hundreds of miles away from the thing she's in charge of?

    That sets a really dangerous precedent.
    It wasn't the distance: it was the fact that they made her travel by train.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,798
    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    If you mean he followed what his leader said in the name of personal ambition, yes, I'm sure you're right.

    Name a politician who hasn't or doesn't or wouldn't. After all, Blair stood on the 1983 Labour election manifesto which I'm sure he had to publicly support even though privately I'm sure he knew it was nonsense.

    Sunak was loyal to Johnson right up to the point he stuck a knife in his back (along with Javid). Johnson was loyal to Cameron until he saw which way the wind was blowing on the EU and changed sides. He was loyal to May until flouncing as Foreign Secretary.

    This is how politics works - it's a rough trade as someone once said. Sometimes you have to publicly support a political direction in which you aren't personally vested in order to have the chance to be able to change that at a later date. It's fine to be consistent - some claim Corbyn has been consistent but let's not forget he stood on the Labour Manifesto in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and do you think he personally supported it?

    You can have all the principles you like but without the power or the means to enforce them they're pointless.
    Well yes. I'm merely answering your question of why natural Conservatives might expect Starmer to be worse. There are other reasons - this is just one.
    Or maybe you are going with the competence angle? To which I would reply that he may be more competent at legislating, but that's no reason for enthusiasm if you have no faith that the legislation is the right legislation. Indeed, better malign qnd incompetent than malign and competent.
    I'm not 100% sure what a "natural Conservative" is. Is the current Government an example of natural Conservatism? I suspect not - @HYUFD for example is a party loyalist who will for the most part follow the party line on anything and everything.

    The current incarnation (to this observer) of Conservative thinking is social conservatism mixed with economic liberalism whereas previous incarnations have been both more socially liberal and less economically liberal (protectionism for example).
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,874
    viewcode said:

    eristdoof said:

    FPT

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Actually I'm fascinated. @Ydoethur can you give me an example of a law of mathematics ?

    How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_cosines?
    Theorem defined from the axioms of Euclidean geometry.
    I'll take your word for it.

    At what point does a theorem become a proven law - or does that not happen in Mathematics? (In which case aren't we simply talking semantics?)
    It's semantics.
    An axiom is, in one sense of 'law', a law - though perhaps the latter is sufficiently imprecise a term to be inappropriate in maths ?
    I would say theorems are the mathematical equivalent to laws, and axioms are even more fundamental than that - perhaps the definitions that the laws need to state upfront in order to mean anything.

    But anyway, laws are made to be broken, and mathematicians are generally not big fans of (for example) "exceptions that prove the rule".
    An axiom is a property that is so basic, it is simply assumed to be true, without it being proved. Once you get more and more fundamental in mathematics, you have nothing left with which to prove that a statement is true. They are however so important they are needed. Which is why we assume them.

    This is obviously not great so they are impemented only where it is absolutely necessary. There was one axiom of set theory that was debated if it was needed, and necessary.

    The two areas I know of which rely on axioms are Set Theory, without which we can't get 1+1=2 or construct the real numbers. The other is probability. Until Kolmogorow came up with the Axioms of probability in the first half of the 20th century, every attempt at defining probability failed in some way. So all of the talk on PB about betting prices is reliant on mathematics which we just assume "must be right".

    Excellent post. My only minor and pedantic point is that Колмого́ров is transliterated as "Kolmogorov".
    Yes sorry, I get confused with the German transliteration which is with a "w" at the end. Yes I do have to teach this stuff in German!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,082
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Just had a week of (relatively distant) funerals - end of year, end of life type things and have therefore sat through several church services including no fewer than two instances of 1 Corinthians 13.

    Plenty of The Christ Childs and Will Live Forevers and Eternal Loves Died for You so on and so forth.

    I find myself at these services staring intently at the vicar and the congregants in absolute wonder at such a set of beliefs. Each to their own, however, and good luck to them. As long as they don't do any harm all's well although a casual look through the past 5,000 years shows that this sadly has not been the case but one can hope.

    Corinthians 13 is a superb piece of philosophy which I feel very comfortable with.

    "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

    I am not religious, not at all anymore but there is profound truth in that. It is a fabulous philosophy for life.
    It absolutely is.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,455
    TOPPING said:

    Just had a week of (relatively distant) funerals - end of year, end of life type things and have therefore sat through several church services including no fewer than two instances of 1 Corinthians 13.

    Plenty of The Christ Childs and Will Live Forevers and Eternal Loves Died for You so on and so forth.

    I find myself at these services staring intently at the vicar and the congregants in absolute wonder at such a set of beliefs. Each to their own, however, and good luck to them. As long as they don't do any harm all's well although a casual look through the past 5,000 years shows that this sadly has not been the case but one can hope.

    I'm not sure which set of beliefs you are wondering at, but the set of aspirations expressed in I Corinthians 13 seem to me to be more or less the pinnacle of humanist and humanitarian theism no worse for the fact that lots of people (no doubt including thee and me) don't try hard enough to achieve it.

    What is this harm the vicar and congregation (of which you were one, as sometimes am I) could do as a result of encountering this text?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    I must admit, Jordan Petersen could actually swing my vote.

    If he promised to not visit the UK if Starmer becomes PM... well... I'd definitely want to vote for Starmer.
    Are you back here now? I would have assumed that you would have wanted him bothering people over here rather than in California.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919
    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    Are you forgetting Sunak served as CoE in a Johnson Government? You seem to ignore that Johnson was as equally unsuitable for high office as was Corbyn. In all fairness to Corbyn, by dint of being a serial loser he has done less damage to our nation than has Johnson, and thus Sunak.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,213
    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    I find it very easy to conceive of a Government being 'worse' than the current one. The current Government's actions are circumscribed by a fractious and electorate-fearing PCP. That limits the damage they can do considerably. That's probably why we got a relatively mild budget (though it still wasn't a real reduction in the tax-burden). A post-landslide Labour Government, elected on a manifesto of nothing but nice sounding generalities, would attempt to remake the country in its grey, authoritarian image, and would have the party discipline to cause considerable misery.

    If there's anyone here who's delighted about the prospect, can you tell us which Labour policy you're most looking forward to?
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,747

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
    Three guesses who said this:

    "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3.”
    It was Boris, of course! Back in 2005!
    I thought it was going to be Alan B'Stard
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,874
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Haha, you think I'm falling for that? Oh no, no way am I clicking on that link!
    The link is a 60-second YouTube short involving the singer/comedian/whatever Cera Gibson, in which she holds up a tape measure and mocks those who boast about their dick length by pointing out that long dicks can be unfulfilling, painful or even cause injury. It's funny not rude, and given PBs neuroses I thought it would help.
    Which is why I only ever talk about the girth of my penis.
    You do sometimes talk about economics.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976
    algarkirk said:

    TOPPING said:

    Just had a week of (relatively distant) funerals - end of year, end of life type things and have therefore sat through several church services including no fewer than two instances of 1 Corinthians 13.

    Plenty of The Christ Childs and Will Live Forevers and Eternal Loves Died for You so on and so forth.

    I find myself at these services staring intently at the vicar and the congregants in absolute wonder at such a set of beliefs. Each to their own, however, and good luck to them. As long as they don't do any harm all's well although a casual look through the past 5,000 years shows that this sadly has not been the case but one can hope.

    I'm not sure which set of beliefs you are wondering at, but the set of aspirations expressed in I Corinthians 13 seem to me to be more or less the pinnacle of humanist and humanitarian theism no worse for the fact that lots of people (no doubt including thee and me) don't try hard enough to achieve it.

    What is this harm the vicar and congregation (of which you were one, as sometimes am I) could do as a result of encountering this text?
    Exactly the point I was making and you will see that @Topping agrees.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,458

    I have experienced two helicopter journeys. From heliport to offshore platform, and back again. Bloody awful. I spent the week knowing that I had to get back on the helicopter for the return flight.

    Anyone who prefers this mode of transport to catching a train is, in my view, totally bonkers.

    Helicopters are brilliant. I did a helicopter pub crawl once, in the Northern Territory. Flying from beach bar to riverside beershack to jungle gin-joint - surrounded by salt water crocodiles

    Everyone got drunker and drunker as the day went
    on until the pilots eventually started racing each
    other. Superb





  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,919

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    I find it very easy to conceive of a Government being 'worse' than the current one. The current Government's actions are circumscribed by a fractious and electorate-fearing PCP. That limits the damage they can do considerably. That's probably why we got a relatively mild budget (though it still wasn't a real reduction in the tax-burden). A post-landslide Labour Government, elected on a manifesto of nothing but nice sounding generalities, would attempt to remake the country in its grey, authoritarian image, and would have the party discipline to cause considerable misery.

    If there's anyone here who's delighted about the prospect, can you tell us which Labour policy you're most looking forward to?
    Just the one? Great British Energy. I am also quite comfortable with VAT on private education for good measure.

    I live in hope too, that the industrial scale corruption of post May governments, will be dialled down, just a notch.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976
    CatMan said:

    viewcode said:

    I have no idea whether this is applicable to PB or not, but if you are concerned about the size of your dick maybe this will help

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3dFHa31qxQ8

    Politicians reputed to be well-endowed: John Profumo; John Major; Michael Gove. All Conservatives. Vote Tory for bigger dicks was never used as a slogan though.
    Three guesses who said this:

    "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3.”
    It was Boris, of course! Back in 2005!
    I thought it was going to be Alan B'Stard
    You were close.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,848
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Just had a week of (relatively distant) funerals - end of year, end of life type things and have therefore sat through several church services including no fewer than two instances of 1 Corinthians 13.

    Plenty of The Christ Childs and Will Live Forevers and Eternal Loves Died for You so on and so forth.

    I find myself at these services staring intently at the vicar and the congregants in absolute wonder at such a set of beliefs. Each to their own, however, and good luck to them. As long as they don't do any harm all's well although a casual look through the past 5,000 years shows that this sadly has not been the case but one can hope.

    Corinthians 13 is a superb piece of philosophy which I feel very comfortable with.

    "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

    I am not religious, not at all anymore but there is profound truth in that. It is a fabulous philosophy for life.
    Beautiful
  • isamisam Posts: 40,848
    edited December 2023

    Cookie said:

    stodge said:

    Late afternoon all :)

    Back from a weekend in the Derbyshire Dales and, as might have been expected given the 55th anniversary of the release of Carry on up the Khyber was at the end of last month, instead of serious political discussion, it's an afternoon for innuendo and ludicrous knob gags.

    Twas ever thus on PB, some might say.

    We are into the denouement of this version of Conservative Government - it's not quite the cones hotline but it's reminscent of Stephen Dorrell coming out to bat for Major and the Government in early 1997. The universe he inhabited, where the Government was doing wonderful things, everyone was happy and no one had the wobbles, was so far removed from everyone else's the only conclusion was he had fallen through a portal from an alternative Britain.

    We had Opinium which was about as game changing as bi-regeneration in Who and it seems even the mighty Jordan Peterson is warning we will be Venezuela if Starmer wins. Well, we already have oil so I suppose there's a parallel of sorts but we had all this back in the dim and distant when apparently Blair was going to take us halfway down the road to Communism. Remind me how that worked out.

    The death throes of the centre right are certainly illuminating - the strange thing is a conservative message of fiscal probity, targeted public spending and protecting communities and environment would probably play well among voters but that's not where thirteen and a half years od Conservative-led Government has got us.

    The only reason being advanced by anyone for voting Conservative seems to me "Starmer would be worse" - how would he be "worse"? I can no more conceive of Starmer being worse than the corrupt bunch of incompetents than I can Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond passing on an afternoon's Tiffin.

    This was a man who was content to serve in a shadow cabinet led by Jeremy Corbyn. The space for 'worse' is pretty big.
    I find it very easy to conceive of a Government being 'worse' than the current one. The current Government's actions are circumscribed by a fractious and electorate-fearing PCP. That limits the damage they can do considerably. That's probably why we got a relatively mild budget (though it still wasn't a real reduction in the tax-burden). A post-landslide Labour Government, elected on a manifesto of nothing but nice sounding generalities, would attempt to remake the country in its grey, authoritarian image, and would have the party discipline to cause considerable misery.

    If there's anyone here who's delighted about the prospect, can you tell us which Labour policy you're most looking forward to?
    They want taxes up, increased public spending and more immigration of diverse ethnicities - basically what they’ve had from this government only with their man having won
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,458
    TOPPING said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    Izzard is actually quite an accomplished actor these days.
    I was listening again to his 1994 show. Gut-bustingly funny and, like I believe I have discussed with @Leon who had the same reaction, I remember seeing him live many times around that time (the first time was during Gulf 1) and being in physical pain with laughter. There was simply no one funnier and most comics stood on his shoulders for observational/absurd routines.

    As a politician? Relentlessly optimistic, generous, idealistic, and therefore ultimately probably likely to be a failure.
    Yes, he was the funniest comedian I have ever seen (live or otherwise) - indeed the funniest person - in those early gigs

    I have laughed more than that only a few times, usually on magic mushrooms or the like
  • boulayboulay Posts: 3,818
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    Izzard is actually quite an accomplished actor these days.
    I was listening again to his 1994 show. Gut-bustingly funny and, like I believe I have discussed with @Leon who had the same reaction, I remember seeing him live many times around that time (the first time was during Gulf 1) and being in physical pain with laughter. There was simply no one funnier and most comics stood on his shoulders for observational/absurd routines.

    As a politician? Relentlessly optimistic, generous, idealistic, and therefore ultimately probably likely to be a failure.
    Yes, he was the funniest comedian I have ever seen (live or otherwise) - indeed the funniest person - in those early gigs

    I have laughed more than that only a few times, usually on magic mushrooms or the like
    Indeed, I think it was the 1994 show I saw live and for some reason he still make me laugh with his spiel about “le singe est dans l’arbre”. How just talking in French about a monkey in a tree could be so funny I will never know but he was very funny, a little surreal and delivered so well.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,976
    Has there been a less threatening centre forward in the history of the Premier league than Hojlund? Not a single Premier league goal in half a season.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,458
    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Just had a week of (relatively distant) funerals - end of year, end of life type things and have therefore sat through several church services including no fewer than two instances of 1 Corinthians 13.

    Plenty of The Christ Childs and Will Live Forevers and Eternal Loves Died for You so on and so forth.

    I find myself at these services staring intently at the vicar and the congregants in absolute wonder at such a set of beliefs. Each to their own, however, and good luck to them. As long as they don't do any harm all's well although a casual look through the past 5,000 years shows that this sadly has not been the case but one can hope.

    Corinthians 13 is a superb piece of philosophy which I feel very comfortable with.

    "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

    I am not religious, not at all anymore but there is profound truth in that. It is a fabulous philosophy for life.
    Beautiful
    It is beautiful, but that is not the most beautiful version. The New KJV, amongst others, is superior:

    Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.


    The last line in particular is hauntingly good


  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,404
    Leon said:

    I have experienced two helicopter journeys. From heliport to offshore platform, and back again. Bloody awful. I spent the week knowing that I had to get back on the helicopter for the return flight.

    Anyone who prefers this mode of transport to catching a train is, in my view, totally bonkers.

    Helicopters are brilliant. I did a helicopter pub crawl once, in the Northern Territory. Flying from beach bar to riverside beershack to jungle gin-joint - surrounded by salt water crocodiles

    Everyone got drunker and drunker as the day went
    on until the pilots eventually started racing each
    other. Superb





    My one and only experience of helicopter travel was being collected from the top of a mountain in Drumochter and being dropped off at Raigmore Hospital in Inverness. Broken ankle.

    Rather hilariously the chopper was met by ambulance at the helipad, and after being complicatedly transferred, it then took about 15 seconds to drive to the A&E dept.

    I have to say the blokes in the copter were good value. Amused and sympathetic at the same time.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,458
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Hot off the press: Eddie Izzard has lost in her bid to fight Caroline Lucas's Brighton seat for Labour (as I predicted she would).

    I wonder what other seat Izzard will try. The patronising and condescending nature of the social media from Izzard account can’t have helped. Vote for me, I’m trans and vote for me and I pledge to make my main home here.

    What a clown.
    Well, yes. That's how Izzard makes a living.
    Izzard is actually quite an accomplished actor these days.
    I was listening again to his 1994 show. Gut-bustingly funny and, like I believe I have discussed with @Leon who had the same reaction, I remember seeing him live many times around that time (the first time was during Gulf 1) and being in physical pain with laughter. There was simply no one funnier and most comics stood on his shoulders for observational/absurd routines.

    As a politician? Relentlessly optimistic, generous, idealistic, and therefore ultimately probably likely to be a failure.
    Yes, he was the funniest comedian I have ever seen (live or otherwise) - indeed the funniest person - in those early gigs

    I have laughed more than that only a few times, usually on magic mushrooms or the like
    Indeed, I think it was the 1994 show I saw live and for some reason he still make me laugh with his spiel about “le singe est dans l’arbre”. How just talking in French about a monkey in a tree could be so funny I will never know but he was very funny, a little surreal and delivered so well.
    OMG yes the monkey in the tree riff. Incredible

    Written down in cold black and white it isn't remotely funny, but his timing, his phrasing, his persona, the diffident shrugging, somehow made it the funniest thing I'd ever heard. I still don't know how. And it had to be seen live to get the full effect
This discussion has been closed.