Howdy, Stranger!

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

This should move Betfair back to Harris – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    ...
    Leon said:

    mercator said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Starmer, I have also noticed a huge lack of enthusiasm from my lefty friends. The really lefty ones actively dislike him, “fucking Tory, robbing the old, austerity all over again”, and the Blairite centrists seem…. Disappointed. It’s all shrugs and “meh” and “maybe it will get better, but I dunno”

    I guess you could argue that this is good. He will benefit from low expectations, and that could be true

    However, it’s also become quickly apparent that he is very easy to dislike. The thin, pursed disapproving lips. The puritanical Wokeness which he seems to actively promote. The total lack of any sense of humour at all, like a prototype robot made of 60 year old spam

    Well, he's got that funny story about his parents dog at the palace, hasn't he?
    OMG. Cringe

    How the fuck did he land such a beautiful wife? (Snip)
    Perhaps he treats her well?
    Dunno about you, but in my experience really beautiful women (and Mrs Starmer is still agreeable now, so she must have been a stunner) tend to demand more than “being treated well”. Like - being notably handsome, or very rich, or highly intelligent, or intensely funny, or properly charming, and ideally as many of those all at once (or really amazing as a lover, ofc)

    Starmer was quite handsome as a young man, I guess he was bright, the others are not obvious

    Anyway good luck to the Starmers, I’m not here to critique his family or his marriage, I AM here to critique him as a PM and so far he’s been noticeably poor. Poorer than I expected by a distance
    I dunno. I thought people fell in love. I didn't realise it was a business transaction.
    Awww

    You think Cupid shoots arrows at random and there's nothing transactional about why, for instance, the princess of Wales looks ever so slightly better than her husband?
    When I met and married my lovely 21 year old wife, at the age of 54, I know it was because she saw something special in my soul, that’s all, and it had nothing to do with the fact I was a rich guy, with a lot of amusing stories, whose job was flying around the world for free, in great style, and she was welcome to come along

    I KNOW that she would also have married me if I was a taciturn dustman of the same age, with a passion for cribbage in his local in Wick
    These amusing stories, maybe you'd like to try a few on us.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    As of tonight Harris leads Trump by 1.8% in the RCP national poll average

    https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Is it me or are a lot of violent crime stories that would normally get national media attention going under the radar at the moment?

    Yeah, the reporting of Netanyahu's assault on the West Bank has been piss poor.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    HYUFD said:

    As of tonight Harris leads Trump by 1.8% in the RCP national poll average

    https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris
    I notice Cahally has put his finger in the air and found a three or so point lead for Trump in all the swing states.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    HYUFD said:

    Eton College says it will pass the entire 20% VAT on fees to parents when Labour introduces it in January

    Parents will now have to pay an annual payment of £63,000, up from £53,000

    https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1829497385359212988

    Their local comp. is still free.

    Both my boys did OK academically, although they don't have that supreme confidence someone attending a Headmaster's Conference school would acquire. They also missed out on the school Beagle pack and the steam railway, but then if I saved £106,000 a year, I can live with that.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,540
    "Pollster Says There Is "Systematic" Bias In UK Election Polling Which Overstates Labour"

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/pollster-admits-systematic-bias-uk-election-polling-overstates-labour
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,540
    "Matthew Parris
    Afrikaners have been endlessly maligned"

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/afrikaners-have-been-endlessly-maligned/
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,540
    edited August 31
    HYUFD said:

    Eton College says it will pass the entire 20% VAT on fees to parents when Labour introduces it in January

    Parents will now have to pay an annual payment of £63,000, up from £53,000

    https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1829497385359212988

    Somehow I don't think this fact will be setting the political weather
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,056
    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

    Well if they don't like what Musk is doing they have the choice not to use Twitter, which seems like the right answer to me? Free speech is a necessary condition for the state to be answerable to people, this is why countries with well-designed constitutions (not Britain's) have very strong protections for it.

    That said as I understand it this case isn't mainly about Brazil requiring censorship (although Musk is pretending it is), it's about them refusing to hand over the IP addresses of users involved in an attempted coup d'etat. Musk will absolutely hand over your IP address to law enforcement if it suits him, it's not like he's defending some high principle here. Thread on the background here, if BSky is still loading despite the vast influx of Brazilians.
    https://bsky.app/profile/sophifn.bsky.social/post/3l2tgdvfhxn2v
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,056

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

    Well if they don't like what Musk is doing they have the choice not to use Twitter, which seems like the right answer to me? Free speech is a necessary condition for the state to be answerable to people, this is why countries with well-designed constitutions (not Britain's) have very strong protections for it.

    That said as I understand it this case isn't mainly about Brazil requiring censorship (although Musk is pretending it is), it's about them refusing to hand over the IP addresses of users involved in an attempted coup d'etat. Musk will absolutely hand over your IP address to law enforcement if it suits him, it's not like he's defending some high principle here. Thread on the background here, if BSky is still loading despite the vast influx of Brazilians.
    https://bsky.app/profile/sophifn.bsky.social/post/3l2tgdvfhxn2v
    Interesting link, thank you
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,056
    edited August 31

    ...

    Leon said:

    mercator said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Starmer, I have also noticed a huge lack of enthusiasm from my lefty friends. The really lefty ones actively dislike him, “fucking Tory, robbing the old, austerity all over again”, and the Blairite centrists seem…. Disappointed. It’s all shrugs and “meh” and “maybe it will get better, but I dunno”

    I guess you could argue that this is good. He will benefit from low expectations, and that could be true

    However, it’s also become quickly apparent that he is very easy to dislike. The thin, pursed disapproving lips. The puritanical Wokeness which he seems to actively promote. The total lack of any sense of humour at all, like a prototype robot made of 60 year old spam

    Well, he's got that funny story about his parents dog at the palace, hasn't he?
    OMG. Cringe

    How the fuck did he land such a beautiful wife? (Snip)
    Perhaps he treats her well?
    Dunno about you, but in my experience really beautiful women (and Mrs Starmer is still agreeable now, so she must have been a stunner) tend to demand more than “being treated well”. Like - being notably handsome, or very rich, or highly intelligent, or intensely funny, or properly charming, and ideally as many of those all at once (or really amazing as a lover, ofc)

    Starmer was quite handsome as a young man, I guess he was bright, the others are not obvious

    Anyway good luck to the Starmers, I’m not here to critique his family or his marriage, I AM here to critique him as a PM and so far he’s been noticeably poor. Poorer than I expected by a distance
    I dunno. I thought people fell in love. I didn't realise it was a business transaction.
    Awww

    You think Cupid shoots arrows at random and there's nothing transactional about why, for instance, the princess of Wales looks ever so slightly better than her husband?
    When I met and married my lovely 21 year old wife, at the age of 54, I know it was because she saw something special in my soul, that’s all, and it had nothing to do with the fact I was a rich guy, with a lot of amusing stories, whose job was flying around the world for free, in great style, and she was welcome to come along

    I KNOW that she would also have married me if I was a taciturn dustman of the same age, with a passion for cribbage in his local in Wick
    These amusing stories, maybe you'd like to try a few on us.
    "I flew to a place. I et a food. I took a picture. It was brilliant! Look!"

    Had them rolling in the aisles I understand... 😃
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,022

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

    Well if they don't like what Musk is doing they have the choice not to use Twitter, which seems like the right answer to me? Free speech is a necessary condition for the state to be answerable to people, this is why countries with well-designed constitutions (not Britain's) have very strong protections for it.

    That said as I understand it this case isn't mainly about Brazil requiring censorship (although Musk is pretending it is), it's about them refusing to hand over the IP addresses of users involved in an attempted coup d'etat. Musk will absolutely hand over your IP address to law enforcement if it suits him, it's not like he's defending some high principle here. Thread on the background here, if BSky is still loading despite the vast influx of Brazilians.
    https://bsky.app/profile/sophifn.bsky.social/post/3l2tgdvfhxn2v
    So it's about X being used in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a state, and then Musk refusing to provide evidence regarding the conspirators' identities, in defiance of court orders ?

    Does Sandpit still think 'fair play' ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,022
    You can't say RFK isn't an on brand pick by Trump.

    KASIE HUNT: Over the summer you said, “There’s no vaccine that’s safe and effective”. Do you still believe that?

    RFK JR: “I never said that.”

    KASIE HUNT: “Play the clip.”

    RFK JR (clip): “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective.”

    https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1829511451285049663
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,022
    What a surprise.

    The Trump campaign said it would release video that would exonerate staffers if people kept reporting that they had berated and shoved an Arlington National Cemetery official who sought to prevent what she said were violations of the law.

    It still hasn’t.

    https://x.com/davidfolkenflik/status/1829502823324639316
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,022
    viewcode said:

    ...

    Leon said:

    mercator said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Starmer, I have also noticed a huge lack of enthusiasm from my lefty friends. The really lefty ones actively dislike him, “fucking Tory, robbing the old, austerity all over again”, and the Blairite centrists seem…. Disappointed. It’s all shrugs and “meh” and “maybe it will get better, but I dunno”

    I guess you could argue that this is good. He will benefit from low expectations, and that could be true

    However, it’s also become quickly apparent that he is very easy to dislike. The thin, pursed disapproving lips. The puritanical Wokeness which he seems to actively promote. The total lack of any sense of humour at all, like a prototype robot made of 60 year old spam

    Well, he's got that funny story about his parents dog at the palace, hasn't he?
    OMG. Cringe

    How the fuck did he land such a beautiful wife? (Snip)
    Perhaps he treats her well?
    Dunno about you, but in my experience really beautiful women (and Mrs Starmer is still agreeable now, so she must have been a stunner) tend to demand more than “being treated well”. Like - being notably handsome, or very rich, or highly intelligent, or intensely funny, or properly charming, and ideally as many of those all at once (or really amazing as a lover, ofc)

    Starmer was quite handsome as a young man, I guess he was bright, the others are not obvious

    Anyway good luck to the Starmers, I’m not here to critique his family or his marriage, I AM here to critique him as a PM and so far he’s been noticeably poor. Poorer than I expected by a distance
    I dunno. I thought people fell in love. I didn't realise it was a business transaction.
    Awww

    You think Cupid shoots arrows at random and there's nothing transactional about why, for instance, the princess of Wales looks ever so slightly better than her husband?
    When I met and married my lovely 21 year old wife, at the age of 54, I know it was because she saw something special in my soul, that’s all, and it had nothing to do with the fact I was a rich guy, with a lot of amusing stories, whose job was flying around the world for free, in great style, and she was welcome to come along

    I KNOW that she would also have married me if I was a taciturn dustman of the same age, with a passion for cribbage in his local in Wick
    These amusing stories, maybe you'd like to try a few on us.
    "I flew to a place. I et a food. I took a picture. It was brilliant! Look!"

    Had them rolling in the aisles I understand... 😃
    Be fair.
    If you can put up with the braggadocio, Leon is an entertaining guy on occasion.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

    Well if they don't like what Musk is doing they have the choice not to use Twitter, which seems like the right answer to me? Free speech is a necessary condition for the state to be answerable to people, this is why countries with well-designed constitutions (not Britain's) have very strong protections for it.

    That said as I understand it this case isn't mainly about Brazil requiring censorship (although Musk is pretending it is), it's about them refusing to hand over the IP addresses of users involved in an attempted coup d'etat. Musk will absolutely hand over your IP address to law enforcement if it suits him, it's not like he's defending some high principle here. Thread on the background here, if BSky is still loading despite the vast influx of Brazilians.
    https://bsky.app/profile/sophifn.bsky.social/post/3l2tgdvfhxn2v
    So it's about X being used in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a state, and then Musk refusing to provide evidence regarding the conspirators' identities, in defiance of court orders ?

    Does Sandpit still think 'fair play' ?
    I think there's still a reasonable question whether the response is appropriate. Normally if someone defies a court order the responses are an arrest warrant for the person in charge (which admittedly would be hard to execute) and to seize any assets they have in your jurisdiction. What this judge did was a ban on distributing the app, an order to block the website, a fine for *using* Twitter, and apparently a ban on VPNs, which he then reversed after an outcry.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361
    pigeon said:

    Why have the BTL comments reversed so the oldest one is now at the top. It's a bloody nuisance.

    That’s how my Vanilla has always operated
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361

    ...

    Leon said:

    mercator said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Starmer, I have also noticed a huge lack of enthusiasm from my lefty friends. The really lefty ones actively dislike him, “fucking Tory, robbing the old, austerity all over again”, and the Blairite centrists seem…. Disappointed. It’s all shrugs and “meh” and “maybe it will get better, but I dunno”

    I guess you could argue that this is good. He will benefit from low expectations, and that could be true

    However, it’s also become quickly apparent that he is very easy to dislike. The thin, pursed disapproving lips. The puritanical Wokeness which he seems to actively promote. The total lack of any sense of humour at all, like a prototype robot made of 60 year old spam

    Well, he's got that funny story about his parents dog at the palace, hasn't he?
    OMG. Cringe

    How the fuck did he land such a beautiful wife? (Snip)
    Perhaps he treats her well?
    Dunno about you, but in my experience really beautiful women (and Mrs Starmer is still agreeable now, so she must have been a stunner) tend to demand more than “being treated well”. Like - being notably handsome, or very rich, or highly intelligent, or intensely funny, or properly charming, and ideally as many of those all at once (or really amazing as a lover, ofc)

    Starmer was quite handsome as a young man, I guess he was bright, the others are not obvious

    Anyway good luck to the Starmers, I’m not here to critique his family or his marriage, I AM here to critique him as a PM and so far he’s been noticeably poor. Poorer than I expected by a distance
    I dunno. I thought people fell in love. I didn't realise it was a business transaction.
    Awww

    You think Cupid shoots arrows at random and there's nothing transactional about why, for instance, the princess of Wales looks ever so slightly better than her husband?
    When I met and married my lovely 21 year old wife, at the age of 54, I know it was because she saw something special in my soul, that’s all, and it had nothing to do with the fact I was a rich guy, with a lot of amusing stories, whose job was flying around the world for free, in great style, and she was welcome to come along

    I KNOW that she would also have married me if I was a taciturn dustman of the same age, with a passion for cribbage in his local in Wick
    These amusing stories, maybe you'd like to try a few on us.
    He wooed her with amusing stories.

    Do you want him to woo you ?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,546
    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    Having a maverick billionaire interfering in the politics and laws of other countries for hsi own personal ends is exactly NOT what the world needs right now
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399
    Andy_JS said:

    Is this the first post election poll

    Labour 30 (-3)

    Conservative 26 (+2)

    https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/voters-labour-dishonest-tax-plans-fuel-duty-rise-3253546

    Interesting. Also RefUK 19% (+1)
    I think @Sean_F put it well when he said that unlike Blair, who strained every sinew to keep his coalition together, Starmer is doing everything possible to alienate his.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,546

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399
    biggles said:

    CatMan said:

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    Minimum unit pricing shouldn't affect on licence sales, because on licence prices are way higher than off licence/supermarket prices.

    You'd expect minimum alcohol pricing to help pubs, by closing the difference between on and off licence prices.
    The only alcohol it will really have any effect on is the 2L cheap cider plastic bottles
    It depends how they implement it. Maybe they do want to reduce drinking in pubs. “Let them eat cake serve food.”
    Want to go halves on setting up a chain of speak easies in tea rooms? We could be billionaires.
    Speak easies under this government?

    You'd need silence to avoid having your collar felt.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 5,189
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

    Well if they don't like what Musk is doing they have the choice not to use Twitter, which seems like the right answer to me? Free speech is a necessary condition for the state to be answerable to people, this is why countries with well-designed constitutions (not Britain's) have very strong protections for it.

    That said as I understand it this case isn't mainly about Brazil requiring censorship (although Musk is pretending it is), it's about them refusing to hand over the IP addresses of users involved in an attempted coup d'etat. Musk will absolutely hand over your IP address to law enforcement if it suits him, it's not like he's defending some high principle here. Thread on the background here, if BSky is still loading despite the vast influx of Brazilians.
    https://bsky.app/profile/sophifn.bsky.social/post/3l2tgdvfhxn2v
    So it's about X being used in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a state, and then Musk refusing to provide evidence regarding the conspirators' identities, in defiance of court orders ?

    Does Sandpit still think 'fair play' ?
    I don't think anyone who describes Musk as a 'defender of free speech' is going to be interested in facts.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
    I don't think the Conservatives were the bigger tossers. They were far better than this lot.

    I already wish Sunak was back.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,546

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
    I don't think the Conservatives were the bigger tossers. They were far better than this lot.

    I already wish Sunak was back.
    You are welcome to think that; but then why did the electorate just hand your lot a massive drubbing?

    If the Conservative Party wants to win in the future, then it needs to ask itself hard questions about what just happened to it. It is wants to continue losing, then it needs to continue on the track it was on, or go further right.

    What's more: the Labout majority is huge, but their vote share was not. They are much weaker than they appear on a purely seat basis. A sane Conservative Party would soon make hay against them. But we don't have a sane Conservative Party.

    (My own position: this government has made some minor wrong steps IMV. But they got a pretty toxic inheritance, and it is far too early to be writing them off. But their biggest issue will be Starmer.)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
    I don't think the Conservatives were the bigger tossers. They were far better than this lot.

    I already wish Sunak was back.
    You are welcome to think that; but then why did the electorate just hand your lot a massive drubbing?

    If the Conservative Party wants to win in the future, then it needs to ask itself hard questions about what just happened to it. It is wants to continue losing, then it needs to continue on the track it was on, or go further right.

    What's more: the Labout majority is huge, but their vote share was not. They are much weaker than they appear on a purely seat basis. A sane Conservative Party would soon make hay against them. But we don't have a sane Conservative Party.

    (My own position: this government has made some minor wrong steps IMV. But they got a pretty toxic inheritance, and it is far too early to be writing them off. But their biggest issue will be Starmer.)
    If you're a follower of my posts you'll have noted I've posted repeatedly on this subject. What this is really code for is, "we've had quite enough of you, and don't want to hear a word from you for a good couple of years."

    Well, sorry, we are now in opposition and, boy oh boy, does this government need to be opposed.

    You can do that and recalibrate at the same time.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    I take no view on minimum alcohol pricing, but wouldn't it be good for pubs?

    The target would be cheap off sales by supermarkets etc, and pub prices unaffected.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,546

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
    I don't think the Conservatives were the bigger tossers. They were far better than this lot.

    I already wish Sunak was back.
    You are welcome to think that; but then why did the electorate just hand your lot a massive drubbing?

    If the Conservative Party wants to win in the future, then it needs to ask itself hard questions about what just happened to it. It is wants to continue losing, then it needs to continue on the track it was on, or go further right.

    What's more: the Labout majority is huge, but their vote share was not. They are much weaker than they appear on a purely seat basis. A sane Conservative Party would soon make hay against them. But we don't have a sane Conservative Party.

    (My own position: this government has made some minor wrong steps IMV. But they got a pretty toxic inheritance, and it is far too early to be writing them off. But their biggest issue will be Starmer.)
    If you're a follower of my posts you'll have noted I've posted repeatedly on this subject. What this is really code for is, "we've had quite enough of you, and don't want to hear a word from you for a good couple of years."

    Well, sorry, we are now in opposition and, boy oh boy, does this government need to be opposed.

    You can do that and recalibrate at the same time.
    This is another area we disagree. It wasn't just that " "we've had quite enough of you,". It was much more: "You are a bunch of hate-filled incompetent ****s who are running the country into the ground."

    And I'm being polite with the 'incompetent'.

    I totally agree that the government needs to be opposed. And the current Conservative Party isn't in a state to do that. Sadly.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
    I don't think the Conservatives were the bigger tossers. They were far better than this lot.

    I already wish Sunak was back.
    You are welcome to think that; but then why did the electorate just hand your lot a massive drubbing?

    If the Conservative Party wants to win in the future, then it needs to ask itself hard questions about what just happened to it. It is wants to continue losing, then it needs to continue on the track it was on, or go further right.

    What's more: the Labout majority is huge, but their vote share was not. They are much weaker than they appear on a purely seat basis. A sane Conservative Party would soon make hay against them. But we don't have a sane Conservative Party.

    (My own position: this government has made some minor wrong steps IMV. But they got a pretty toxic inheritance, and it is far too early to be writing them off. But their biggest issue will be Starmer.)
    If you're a follower of my posts you'll have noted I've posted repeatedly on this subject. What this is really code for is, "we've had quite enough of you, and don't want to hear a word from you for a good couple of years."

    Well, sorry, we are now in opposition and, boy oh boy, does this government need to be opposed.

    You can do that and recalibrate at the same time.
    This is another area we disagree. It wasn't just that " "we've had quite enough of you,". It was much more: "You are a bunch of hate-filled incompetent ****s who are running the country into the ground."

    And I'm being polite with the 'incompetent'.

    I totally agree that the government needs to be opposed. And the current Conservative Party isn't in a state to do that. Sadly.
    Thankfully, you have me.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399
    Foxy said:

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    I take no view on minimum alcohol pricing, but wouldn't it be good for pubs?

    The target would be cheap off sales by supermarkets etc, and pub prices unaffected.
    You think this government is interested in doing anything at all for pubs?

    Anyway, you should like it. You're a bit of a self-confessed puritan and sin-taxy type, so at least SKS should have one fan.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,546

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
    I don't think the Conservatives were the bigger tossers. They were far better than this lot.

    I already wish Sunak was back.
    You are welcome to think that; but then why did the electorate just hand your lot a massive drubbing?

    If the Conservative Party wants to win in the future, then it needs to ask itself hard questions about what just happened to it. It is wants to continue losing, then it needs to continue on the track it was on, or go further right.

    What's more: the Labout majority is huge, but their vote share was not. They are much weaker than they appear on a purely seat basis. A sane Conservative Party would soon make hay against them. But we don't have a sane Conservative Party.

    (My own position: this government has made some minor wrong steps IMV. But they got a pretty toxic inheritance, and it is far too early to be writing them off. But their biggest issue will be Starmer.)
    If you're a follower of my posts you'll have noted I've posted repeatedly on this subject. What this is really code for is, "we've had quite enough of you, and don't want to hear a word from you for a good couple of years."

    Well, sorry, we are now in opposition and, boy oh boy, does this government need to be opposed.

    You can do that and recalibrate at the same time.
    This is another area we disagree. It wasn't just that " "we've had quite enough of you,". It was much more: "You are a bunch of hate-filled incompetent ****s who are running the country into the ground."

    And I'm being polite with the 'incompetent'.

    I totally agree that the government needs to be opposed. And the current Conservative Party isn't in a state to do that. Sadly.
    Thankfully, you have me.
    Hey, I've been criticising this government as well - I think we are in agreement that the VAT on private school fees is stupid, self-defeating and nasty. It is, in my view, a bad move.

    But it's stupid to write off this government after just a few weeks, especially after the mess they've inherited. (And no, I don't believe the figures they've given for the black hole).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
    I don't think the Conservatives were the bigger tossers. They were far better than this lot.

    I already wish Sunak was back.
    You are welcome to think that; but then why did the electorate just hand your lot a massive drubbing?

    If the Conservative Party wants to win in the future, then it needs to ask itself hard questions about what just happened to it. It is wants to continue losing, then it needs to continue on the track it was on, or go further right.

    What's more: the Labout majority is huge, but their vote share was not. They are much weaker than they appear on a purely seat basis. A sane Conservative Party would soon make hay against them. But we don't have a sane Conservative Party.

    (My own position: this government has made some minor wrong steps IMV. But they got a pretty toxic inheritance, and it is far too early to be writing them off. But their biggest issue will be Starmer.)
    If you're a follower of my posts you'll have noted I've posted repeatedly on this subject. What this is really code for is, "we've had quite enough of you, and don't want to hear a word from you for a good couple of years."

    Well, sorry, we are now in opposition and, boy oh boy, does this government need to be opposed.

    You can do that and recalibrate at the same time.
    This is another area we disagree. It wasn't just that " "we've had quite enough of you,". It was much more: "You are a bunch of hate-filled incompetent ****s who are running the country into the ground."

    And I'm being polite with the 'incompetent'.

    I totally agree that the government needs to be opposed. And the current Conservative Party isn't in a state to do that. Sadly.
    Thankfully, you have me.
    Hey, I've been criticising this government as well - I think we are in agreement that the VAT on private school fees is stupid, self-defeating and nasty. It is, in my view, a bad move.

    But it's stupid to write off this government after just a few weeks, especially after the mess they've inherited. (And no, I don't believe the figures they've given for the black hole).
    I don't think they have inherited a mess.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,546

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
    I don't think the Conservatives were the bigger tossers. They were far better than this lot.

    I already wish Sunak was back.
    You are welcome to think that; but then why did the electorate just hand your lot a massive drubbing?

    If the Conservative Party wants to win in the future, then it needs to ask itself hard questions about what just happened to it. It is wants to continue losing, then it needs to continue on the track it was on, or go further right.

    What's more: the Labout majority is huge, but their vote share was not. They are much weaker than they appear on a purely seat basis. A sane Conservative Party would soon make hay against them. But we don't have a sane Conservative Party.

    (My own position: this government has made some minor wrong steps IMV. But they got a pretty toxic inheritance, and it is far too early to be writing them off. But their biggest issue will be Starmer.)
    If you're a follower of my posts you'll have noted I've posted repeatedly on this subject. What this is really code for is, "we've had quite enough of you, and don't want to hear a word from you for a good couple of years."

    Well, sorry, we are now in opposition and, boy oh boy, does this government need to be opposed.

    You can do that and recalibrate at the same time.
    This is another area we disagree. It wasn't just that " "we've had quite enough of you,". It was much more: "You are a bunch of hate-filled incompetent ****s who are running the country into the ground."

    And I'm being polite with the 'incompetent'.

    I totally agree that the government needs to be opposed. And the current Conservative Party isn't in a state to do that. Sadly.
    Thankfully, you have me.
    Hey, I've been criticising this government as well - I think we are in agreement that the VAT on private school fees is stupid, self-defeating and nasty. It is, in my view, a bad move.

    But it's stupid to write off this government after just a few weeks, especially after the mess they've inherited. (And no, I don't believe the figures they've given for the black hole).
    I don't think they have inherited a mess.
    Wow. Okay.

    I mean, it's not a bad of a mess as some on the left claim; but I find it hard to argue that it wasn't a mess.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    Foxy said:

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    I take no view on minimum alcohol pricing, but wouldn't it be good for pubs?

    The target would be cheap off sales by supermarkets etc, and pub prices unaffected.
    You think this government is interested in doing anything at all for pubs?

    Anyway, you should like it. You're a bit of a self-confessed puritan and sin-taxy type, so at least SKS should have one fan.
    I don't think I have ever advocated sin taxes, or for that matter wanted anything banned.

    I am a Liberal, with a fairly Puritan ideology, but that is the way I choose to live my own life. I have no desire to force others to live the same way.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    Then they came for the drinkers…

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/08/30/pub-bosses-warned-government-minimum-alcohol-pricing/

    Pub bosses warned to expect minimum alcohol pricing

    Labour figure warned industry ‘to get its act together’ to tackle harms of drinking, say sources

    They're such wankers

    Who votes for these tossers?
    People who rejected the bigger tossers, who were in power for fourteen years.

    You are writing off this Labour government after a few weeks, and appear to have done little, if any, soul-searching about why the electorate handed an absolute drubbing to the side you'd prefer.
    I don't think the Conservatives were the bigger tossers. They were far better than this lot.

    I already wish Sunak was back.
    You are welcome to think that; but then why did the electorate just hand your lot a massive drubbing?

    If the Conservative Party wants to win in the future, then it needs to ask itself hard questions about what just happened to it. It is wants to continue losing, then it needs to continue on the track it was on, or go further right.

    What's more: the Labout majority is huge, but their vote share was not. They are much weaker than they appear on a purely seat basis. A sane Conservative Party would soon make hay against them. But we don't have a sane Conservative Party.

    (My own position: this government has made some minor wrong steps IMV. But they got a pretty toxic inheritance, and it is far too early to be writing them off. But their biggest issue will be Starmer.)
    If you're a follower of my posts you'll have noted I've posted repeatedly on this subject. What this is really code for is, "we've had quite enough of you, and don't want to hear a word from you for a good couple of years."

    Well, sorry, we are now in opposition and, boy oh boy, does this government need to be opposed.

    You can do that and recalibrate at the same time.
    This is another area we disagree. It wasn't just that " "we've had quite enough of you,". It was much more: "You are a bunch of hate-filled incompetent ****s who are running the country into the ground."

    And I'm being polite with the 'incompetent'.

    I totally agree that the government needs to be opposed. And the current Conservative Party isn't in a state to do that. Sadly.
    Thankfully, you have me.
    Hey, I've been criticising this government as well - I think we are in agreement that the VAT on private school fees is stupid, self-defeating and nasty. It is, in my view, a bad move.

    But it's stupid to write off this government after just a few weeks, especially after the mess they've inherited. (And no, I don't believe the figures they've given for the black hole).
    I don't think they have inherited a mess.
    So you think the country is fine? Including health, prisons, the military, everything?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,794
    Scott_xP said:

    @RedfieldWilton
    NEW: 🇺🇸 US States Voting Intention (25-28 August):

    (Trump | Harris)

    AZ (46% | 45%)
    FL (48% | 43%)
    GA (44% | 42%)
    MI (44% | 47%)
    MN (42% | 51%)
    NV (47% | 47%)
    NM (40% | 47%)
    NC (45% | 44%)
    PA (45% | 46%)
    WI (44% | 48%)

    https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1829552235887403408

    So, Missouri joins the party that Trump has to defend. He is being stretched further and further. He may not even be able to pocket half the money raised by his campaign at this rate. What's a man to do?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @RedfieldWilton
    NEW: 🇺🇸 US States Voting Intention (25-28 August):

    (Trump | Harris)

    AZ (46% | 45%)
    FL (48% | 43%)
    GA (44% | 42%)
    MI (44% | 47%)
    MN (42% | 51%)
    NV (47% | 47%)
    NM (40% | 47%)
    NC (45% | 44%)
    PA (45% | 46%)
    WI (44% | 48%)

    https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1829552235887403408

    So, Missouri joins the party that Trump has to defend. He is being stretched further and further. He may not even be able to pocket half the money raised by his campaign at this rate. What's a man to do?
    Florida also very much in play on differential turnout, and like Missouri has an abortion referendum on the ballot.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    ...
    Taz said:

    ...

    Leon said:

    mercator said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On Starmer, I have also noticed a huge lack of enthusiasm from my lefty friends. The really lefty ones actively dislike him, “fucking Tory, robbing the old, austerity all over again”, and the Blairite centrists seem…. Disappointed. It’s all shrugs and “meh” and “maybe it will get better, but I dunno”

    I guess you could argue that this is good. He will benefit from low expectations, and that could be true

    However, it’s also become quickly apparent that he is very easy to dislike. The thin, pursed disapproving lips. The puritanical Wokeness which he seems to actively promote. The total lack of any sense of humour at all, like a prototype robot made of 60 year old spam

    Well, he's got that funny story about his parents dog at the palace, hasn't he?
    OMG. Cringe

    How the fuck did he land such a beautiful wife? (Snip)
    Perhaps he treats her well?
    Dunno about you, but in my experience really beautiful women (and Mrs Starmer is still agreeable now, so she must have been a stunner) tend to demand more than “being treated well”. Like - being notably handsome, or very rich, or highly intelligent, or intensely funny, or properly charming, and ideally as many of those all at once (or really amazing as a lover, ofc)

    Starmer was quite handsome as a young man, I guess he was bright, the others are not obvious

    Anyway good luck to the Starmers, I’m not here to critique his family or his marriage, I AM here to critique him as a PM and so far he’s been noticeably poor. Poorer than I expected by a distance
    I dunno. I thought people fell in love. I didn't realise it was a business transaction.
    Awww

    You think Cupid shoots arrows at random and there's nothing transactional about why, for instance, the princess of Wales looks ever so slightly better than her husband?
    When I met and married my lovely 21 year old wife, at the age of 54, I know it was because she saw something special in my soul, that’s all, and it had nothing to do with the fact I was a rich guy, with a lot of amusing stories, whose job was flying around the world for free, in great style, and she was welcome to come along

    I KNOW that she would also have married me if I was a taciturn dustman of the same age, with a passion for cribbage in his local in Wick
    These amusing stories, maybe you'd like to try a few on us.
    He wooed her with amusing stories.

    Do you want him to woo you ?
    After his mini bio in the earlier post, I'm tempted.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

    Well if they don't like what Musk is doing they have the choice not to use Twitter, which seems like the right answer to me? Free speech is a necessary condition for the state to be answerable to people, this is why countries with well-designed constitutions (not Britain's) have very strong protections for it.

    That said as I understand it this case isn't mainly about Brazil requiring censorship (although Musk is pretending it is), it's about them refusing to hand over the IP addresses of users involved in an attempted coup d'etat. Musk will absolutely hand over your IP address to law enforcement if it suits him, it's not like he's defending some high principle here. Thread on the background here, if BSky is still loading despite the vast influx of Brazilians.
    https://bsky.app/profile/sophifn.bsky.social/post/3l2tgdvfhxn2v
    So it's about X being used in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a state, and then Musk refusing to provide evidence regarding the conspirators' identities, in defiance of court orders ?

    Does Sandpit still think 'fair play' ?
    Yes.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,775
    Good morning, everyone.

    I see Oasis ticket reselling is the biggest story in the world, in BBC-land...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350
    In all seriousness, one thing I would be watching at the end of next month is the Truth Social stock price. I think Trump may have to offload faster than he intended just to raise cash, but the price absolutely cratering as a result won't be a good look for his campaign.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,350

    Good morning, everyone.

    I see Oasis ticket reselling is the biggest story in the world, in BBC-land...

    Reselling dates from oasis? Do they have a licence for food products?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,895
    Comedy at the SNP conference. An unnamed former MP quoted as saying: “Even though we see independence as part of the solution to the cost of living, NHS, poverty, it is just not cutting through with the electorate.”

    Hmmmm. Why is that?

    Have they considered it’s because independence is not the solution to today’s problems, the problems being raised on the doorstep?

    I watched them do it. Can’t see a GP? Independence!
    Bills too high? Independence!

    They got hammered because they had no solutions to the problems they had created. Nor even the basic awareness of any problems. If there was a problem - and there wasn’t- then it’s the fault of Westminster. But look at our long list of (decade ago) achievements! We’re FOR SCOTLAND. You’d better not speak about it against us because then you’d be against Scotland.

    No wonder their vote imploded.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,775
    More importantly, in F1 it's looking nice and close, again. Ferrari's big upgrade looks to have put them in contention.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,546
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

    Well if they don't like what Musk is doing they have the choice not to use Twitter, which seems like the right answer to me? Free speech is a necessary condition for the state to be answerable to people, this is why countries with well-designed constitutions (not Britain's) have very strong protections for it.

    That said as I understand it this case isn't mainly about Brazil requiring censorship (although Musk is pretending it is), it's about them refusing to hand over the IP addresses of users involved in an attempted coup d'etat. Musk will absolutely hand over your IP address to law enforcement if it suits him, it's not like he's defending some high principle here. Thread on the background here, if BSky is still loading despite the vast influx of Brazilians.
    https://bsky.app/profile/sophifn.bsky.social/post/3l2tgdvfhxn2v
    So it's about X being used in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a state, and then Musk refusing to provide evidence regarding the conspirators' identities, in defiance of court orders ?

    Does Sandpit still think 'fair play' ?
    Yes.
    Why? How is any of that 'fair play' ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,794
    Incidentally, one of the reasons that Trump may have got a boost on Betfair is that Nat Silver's model made him favourite again. The reasoning for this struck me as highly suspect. Basically, his model assumed that Harris would have got a boost from her Convention so that her "score" was artificially inflated. When you deflated it by an apparently random 2% it put Trump back in the lead again in the EC, if not in the popular vote.

    There seemed to me to be several things wrong with this. Firstly, most of the polling at best reflected a part of the Convention boost so the polls were, if anything, understating Harris. We see this in Bloomberg/Morning Consult polling in the thread header.

    Secondly, the pattern of Harris moving ahead and Trump declining slightly has been consistent both before and since the Convention. It is not a new "boost".

    Thirdly, the assumption being made by Silver is that Harris will fall back again. She might. Or she might not.

    Finally, I think he is underestimating the effect this lead seems to be having on Trump who is becoming ever more wandered and distracted, unable to give the kind of punchy, crisp (and let's be honest, often quite funny) answers he gave in 2016 and even in 2020.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,601

    NEW THREAD ON VOTING SYSTEMS!

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,913
    ydoethur said:

    In all seriousness, one thing I would be watching at the end of next month is the Truth Social stock price. I think Trump may have to offload faster than he intended just to raise cash, but the price absolutely cratering as a result won't be a good look for his campaign.

    $62 on Mar 28th, $19.50 on Aug 30th
    One field of study for future sociologists would be why Trump's supporters kept falling for his grifts.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

    Well if they don't like what Musk is doing they have the choice not to use Twitter, which seems like the right answer to me? Free speech is a necessary condition for the state to be answerable to people, this is why countries with well-designed constitutions (not Britain's) have very strong protections for it.

    That said as I understand it this case isn't mainly about Brazil requiring censorship (although Musk is pretending it is), it's about them refusing to hand over the IP addresses of users involved in an attempted coup d'etat. Musk will absolutely hand over your IP address to law enforcement if it suits him, it's not like he's defending some high principle here. Thread on the background here, if BSky is still loading despite the vast influx of Brazilians.
    https://bsky.app/profile/sophifn.bsky.social/post/3l2tgdvfhxn2v
    So it's about X being used in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a state, and then Musk refusing to provide evidence regarding the conspirators' identities, in defiance of court orders ?

    Does Sandpit still think 'fair play' ?
    A substantial number of people, including all owners, think media platforms aren't subject to law. Not that they are above the law, simply it has no applicability in any circumstance.

    They have an absolute interpretation of the right to free speech (which by the way JS Mill whose name they invoke didn't agree with).

    I think the right to truthful speech does need to be set at a high bar but speech is not free of consequence and those consequences (in this case serious criminal activity) should be controlled and if necessary punished.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,237

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Brazil has suspended X (formerly Twitter).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

    Damn, because no Brazilians have ever heard of VPNs over which their government has no control?

    Having a maverick billionaire defender of free speech, is what the world needs right now. Fair play to Elon Musk, for stepping up to the plate.
    "Put not your trust in princes, in mortal man, who cannot save." - Psalm 146, Berean Standard Bible

    One of my rants is the annihilation of the nation state by billionaire citizens of nowhere. For all its faults, the nation state is or should be answerable to the people, whereas Elon Musk is answerable only to himself. Which version of "free speech" should the Brazilian people choose - Brazilian Standard Free Speech, or Musk Standard Free Speech? And which do they have more control over?

    Well if they don't like what Musk is doing they have the choice not to use Twitter, which seems like the right answer to me? Free speech is a necessary condition for the state to be answerable to people, this is why countries with well-designed constitutions (not Britain's) have very strong protections for it.

    That said as I understand it this case isn't mainly about Brazil requiring censorship (although Musk is pretending it is), it's about them refusing to hand over the IP addresses of users involved in an attempted coup d'etat. Musk will absolutely hand over your IP address to law enforcement if it suits him, it's not like he's defending some high principle here. Thread on the background here, if BSky is still loading despite the vast influx of Brazilians.
    https://bsky.app/profile/sophifn.bsky.social/post/3l2tgdvfhxn2v
    So it's about X being used in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow a state, and then Musk refusing to provide evidence regarding the conspirators' identities, in defiance of court orders ?

    Does Sandpit still think 'fair play' ?
    I think there's still a reasonable question whether the response is appropriate. Normally if someone defies a court order the responses are an arrest warrant for the person in charge (which admittedly would be hard to execute) and to seize any assets they have in your jurisdiction. What this
    judge did was a ban on distributing the app,
    an order to block the website, a fine for
    *using* Twitter, and apparently a ban on VPNs, which he then reversed after an
    outcry.
    The issue is that to operate in Brazil you need a legal representative. Musk has refused to appoint one. So he can’t operate in the country

This discussion has been closed.