Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : 2 Con, SNP, Lab and 1 Green Def

SystemSystem Posts: 12,220
edited September 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : 2 Con, SNP, Lab and 1 Green Defences

Leith Walk on Edinburgh (SNP and Green defence)
Result of council at last election (2012): Labour 20, Scottish National Party 18, Conservatives 11, Greens 6, Liberal Democrats 3 (No Overall Control, Labour short by 10)
Result of ward at last election (2012):

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    First!
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    I feel I can't post because there's a risk I might be first. That'd be ghastly after all.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited September 2015
    Re the £1.7b argument, the thread the following day was even worse..

    Remember, the £1.7b was paid in full

    chestnut • Posts: 2,068
    November 2014

    Speedy said:
    Cameron will pay the full amount

    chestnut said
    All £850m.

    As opposed to the £1.7bn that the public have been hearing about for weeks


    Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834
    November 2014

    He will pay the full amount, £850m. Not the £1.7bn which UKIP, Labour, the EU, and the media said was the full amount, until today.


    Charles • Posts: 9,777
    November 2014

    Speedy said:

    Cameron has agreed to pay the full amount, Osborne has tried and failed to mask it as if he's agreed to pay half of it.

    Charles said

    Try engaging with the facts, rather than your prejudices.

    I think they are paying £850m too much.

    But they are paying £850m less than everyone thought they were going to have to.


    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p1
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    "The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

    Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

    A more accurate version is...

    "After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    I cast my vote in the Southborough North by-election an hour ago. Although presently held by the Tories, it has been held by the LDs in the past and the LD candidate is a former councillor for the ward. It is the type of seat the LDs should hope to be competitive in if Farron is to lead any sort of revival (especially with Labour not contesting it). UKIP also have a strong presence locally. On balance I would expect a Tory hold, especially given the Tory poll lead, and a return to the Council for Joe Simmons who lost his ward in Southborough and High Brooms to Labour a few years back
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited September 2015
    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html
    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

    Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

    If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    edited September 2015
    Plato said:

    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

    Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

    If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
    "campaigner for feminism, not equality"

    Would help if she understood what words mean.

    And someone needs to explains what circumcision is to her.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Plato said:

    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

    Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

    If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
    Another maladjusted feminazi. Yawn.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Scotland’s leading universities have accused Nicola Sturgeon’s government of threatening their academic and financial freedom after ministers proposed new powers to control the membership of their ruling councils.

    In a fresh row about state centralisation in Scotland, Glasgow, St Andrews, Strathclyde and Edinburgh universities have unanimously warned the measures could lead to the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds of outside funding and a collapse in university research. They describe the measures as “catastrophic”, “arbitrary” and “damaging”.
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/10/scottish-universities-sturgeon-glasgow-st-andrews-edinburgh-strathclyde
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,913
    Plato said:

    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.
    Oh, I dunno. she looks ooright for a bit of rough!

    Losing the argument by being on the right side - a pretty hard thing to do.

    Quite amusing that her surname suggests that there may be a family history of overplaying the argument.
  • Plato said:

    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

    Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.
    Despicable. If a man said something similar about women, he would be finished.

    Anyway, now that we know her ludicrous email "shaming" was simply part of an effort to build her media profile, the least we can do is ignore her and anything to do with this "story" forthwith.


  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    isam said:

    Re the £1.7b argument, the thread the following day was even worse..

    Remember, the £1.7b was paid in full

    It's not so much the sum that annoys me but the deception by Osborne. Don't expect anyone on here to admit that they got it wrong by the way.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    Plato said:

    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

    Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

    If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
    I bet she's wicked in bed :D
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    SeanT said:

    Anecdote. Just spoke to my Mum

    In her 70s. Classic centrist. Working class Cornish girl, went to grammar, got A Levels. Methodist Labour-voting background, then became more bourgeois. In a modest way.

    Liked Blair, voted for him, went off him, mildly disliked Brown, had contempt for Miliband. She also likes Cameron, voted for him twice, and thinks he's doing OK.

    She is therefore pretty much a Nuneaton Woman encapsulated, though smarter than the average and therefore a year ahead of the floating voters, I'd say.

    She absolutely LOATHES Corbyn. Fears and despises him. Thinks he hasn't got a clue on economics and is utterly repulsive on foreign policy, and she dreads the idea of him being prime minister.

    She's voted on the winning side since about 1979.

    sweet.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    On Topic, the Thurrock seat is Labours strongest in the area. They won it easily last year despite UKIP having just won Clacton and looking good in Rochester.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Corbyn in to 1.15 on BF...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    Plato said:

    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

    Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

    If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
    Funnily enough I saw some anti feminist graffiti on my way to work this morning. I walk from Waterloo to Holborn and I walk down past the Imax. On the walls of the underpasses someone has scribed something like "feminists want to ban research into prostate cancer" and "feminists want to legalize domestic violence against men".

    Now, I doubt that any of that is true, but I think it's a sign of the times that someone has done graffiti like that. It would have been unthinkable 10 years ago but such is force with which the feminist cause is propagated it's hardly a surprise that someone's had enough.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,100
    @kle4
    Very many thanks for the lovely summary - I thought no-one would even see my query when I realised I'd caught the new thread.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Ooh, Green defence, interesting.

    Can the UKIP fight maintain itself in Thurrock?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited September 2015
    Flightpath • Posts: 4,012
    November 2014 .
    How is the reality of paying 850 mil somehow worse than pretending that we pay 1.7 bn?

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p3
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited September 2015
    FPT
    AnneJGP said:

    Plato said:

    Who was the chap between Ken and Hattersley? Jack Cunningham?

    TudorRose said:

    This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw

    Now that's what I call satire...!
    That was my guess too.
    We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now.
    Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
    Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?

    I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
    He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.

    At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.

    He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.

    Oh, spoiler alert.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2015
    Jonathan said:

    "The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

    Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

    A more accurate version is...

    "After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

    It was neither a triumph nor a bitter disappointment. Anyone who describes it as being either of those is revealing their prejudices on the subject of the party.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited September 2015
    Ooh!

    Scott_P • Posts: 11,002
    November 2014

    Socrates said:
    It's still a £1.7 billion payment.

    Scott P said
    Except it's not.

    Apart from that, spot on

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p3
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    AndyJS said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

    Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

    A more accurate version is...

    "After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

    It was neither a triumph nor a bitter disappointment. Anyone who describes it as being either of those is revealing their prejudices on the subject of the party.
    nope. Farage for one was bitterly disappointed.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,100
    kle4 said:

    FPT

    AnneJGP said:

    Plato said:

    Who was the chap between Ken and Hattersley? Jack Cunningham?

    TudorRose said:

    This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw

    Now that's what I call satire...!
    That was my guess too.
    We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now.
    Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
    Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?

    I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
    He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.

    At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.

    He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.

    Oh, spoiler alert.

    Many thanks for this. Very grateful.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited September 2015
    AnneJGP said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    AnneJGP said:

    Plato said:

    Who was the chap between Ken and Hattersley? Jack Cunningham?

    TudorRose said:

    This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw

    Now that's what I call satire...!
    Many thanks for this. Very grateful.
    That was my guess too.
    We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now.
    Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
    Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?

    I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
    He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.

    At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.

    He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.

    Oh, spoiler alert.


    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.
  • AndyJS said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

    Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

    A more accurate version is...

    "After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

    It was neither a triumph nor a bitter disappointment. Anyone who describes it as being either of those is revealing their prejudices on the subject of the party.
    It was both. A triumph to win circa 4 million votes and become the third largest party in terms of popular support. And a bitter disappointment that those 4 million votes translated into one MP.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Jonathan said:

    AndyJS said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

    Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

    A more accurate version is...

    "After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

    It was neither a triumph nor a bitter disappointment. Anyone who describes it as being either of those is revealing their prejudices on the subject of the party.
    nope. Farage for one was bitterly disappointed.
    Most commentators were saying UKIP would go down to 5% by the time of the election, so in terms of share of the vote getting 13% was a pretty good performance although not spectacular.
  • kle4 said:

    FPT

    AnneJGP said:

    Plato said:

    Who was the chap between Ken and Hattersley? Jack Cunningham?

    TudorRose said:

    This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw

    Now that's what I call satire...!
    That was my guess too.
    We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now.
    Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
    Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?

    I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
    He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.

    At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.

    He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.

    Oh, spoiler alert.

    Party Games is a brilliant episode.
  • AndyJS said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

    Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

    A more accurate version is...

    "After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

    It was neither a triumph nor a bitter disappointment. Anyone who describes it as being either of those is revealing their prejudices on the subject of the party.
    Not sure about a "bitter" disappointment but certainly a disappointment.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    AnneJGP said:

    Plato said:

    Who was the chap between Ken and Hattersley? Jack Cunningham?

    TudorRose said:

    This clip from Spitting Image suddenly seems apt once more:

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JKvNoZzOEw

    Now that's what I call satire...!
    That was my guess too.
    We have moved several dimensions beyond satire. The buffoonery which led to Jim Hacker moving from being the most useless minister in government to becoming the PM has nothing on what is happening now.
    Surely Colonel Graham Chapman will appear soon with his swagger stick and call a halt, 'Stop that - it's silly!'
    Since you raise the point - how did they get Jim Hacker from being the most useless minister to becoming PM?

    I hardly ever watch TV & didn't become aware of Yes Minister etc until I started reading PB, so that puzzles me!
    He wasn't the most useless minister, they stated on several occasions it was felt he had done 'alright' by the PM and others, despite mess ups and fears he'd gone native under Sir Humphrey.

    At some point though he became party chairman, and when the PM resigned there was open war between the Foreign Minister and the Chancellor who hated each other and would split the party (the deputy PM had already been forced to resign over a scandal). Sir Humphrey in concert with, I believe, the Chief Whip, convinced Hacker to run (that he had no choice but to run, which he already wanted) by showing him their secrets (sex scandals and financial chicanery) which they justified in the absence of a PM by him being the party chairman and it would be chaos if either won. He then used that to get them to stand down and back him to stop the other.

    He simultaneously manufactured an outrage and solution to an EU mess to raise his public profile while also pitching as the moderate candidate.

    Oh, spoiler alert.
    Party Games is a brilliant episode.

    IDK, it loses something the 20th time you watch it.

    Oh wait, no it doesn't ;)
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Jonathan said:

    "The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

    Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

    A more accurate version is...

    "After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

    Personally, I think something in between is the real story.

    "UKIP advance on previous best performance in a Westminster election but fail to capitalize in terms of seats."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    kle4 said:

    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way.

    Yes (Prime) Minister is certainly better in my opinion, but I did like The Thick of It - certainly the first series and the specials. The problem, however, was that once it became mainstream, The Thick of It had to be toned down and I think it tried too hard to appeal to real life politicians.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    tlg86 said:

    kle4 said:

    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way.

    Yes (Prime) Minister is certainly better in my opinion, but I did like The Thick of It - certainly the first series and the specials. The problem, however, was that once it became mainstream, The Thick of It had to be toned down and I think it tried too hard to appeal to real life politicians.
    Oh I quite liked it - good swearing is always to be appreciated, and I think the penultimate episode, which is entirely a government hearing, is brilliant even with no prior watching of the series - I think it just loses something when I literally don't like or care about anybody and, more crucially, none of them are really that interesting except for Tucker.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,814
    Plato said:
    Even if that were true, which of course it is not - his interventions may indeed have made matters worse - for it to be raised tonight looks distinctly ham-fisted:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-34206728

    And with that, good night as the sun sets on the Labour party.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,040
    isam said:

    Re the £1.7b argument, the thread the following day was even worse..

    Remember, the £1.7b was paid in full

    chestnut • Posts: 2,068
    November 2014

    Speedy said:
    Cameron will pay the full amount

    chestnut said
    All £850m.

    As opposed to the £1.7bn that the public have been hearing about for weeks


    Richard_Nabavi • Posts: 6,834
    November 2014

    He will pay the full amount, £850m. Not the £1.7bn which UKIP, Labour, the EU, and the media said was the full amount, until today.


    Charles • Posts: 9,777
    November 2014

    Speedy said:

    Cameron has agreed to pay the full amount, Osborne has tried and failed to mask it as if he's agreed to pay half of it.

    Charles said

    Try engaging with the facts, rather than your prejudices.

    I think they are paying £850m too much.

    But they are paying £850m less than everyone thought they were going to have to.


    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p1

    I notice that you don't point out that I and others were clear that Osborne had avoided any question of interest on what had been an historical underpayment and gained a substantial cash flow advantage in deferring the payments but had otherwise to accept that the payment was due under the rules of the club we are currently members of.

    Hey ho.
  • isam said:

    Ooh!

    Scott_P • Posts: 11,002
    November 2014

    Socrates said:
    It's still a £1.7 billion payment.

    Scott P said
    Except it's not.

    Apart from that, spot on

    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/1975/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-marf-on-osborne-s-halving-of-the-eu-budget-payment-and-n/p3

    You seem to have corralled almost all of the 'Tory' PB Tories. They're remarkably unwilling to come to the branding iron.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited September 2015
    David Vance ‏@DVATW Sep 8
    To the 280,000 people on the waiting list for social housing.
    We're sorry but you there are 20,000 Syrians in front of you.
    Have a nice day.

    Ah, but what about the family members they'll bring in once settled here?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Isil fighter hiding in Calais migrant camp with 'aim of committing terror attacks in Britain', say local reports

    French police under orders to find and arrest Isil fighter on an Islamist watchlist who returned from Syria in August and is hiding among migrants in Calais, La Voix du Nord reports"


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11856278/Isil-fighter-hiding-in-Calais-migrant-camp-with-aim-of-committing-terror-attacks-in-Britain-say-local-reports.html
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    DavidL said:

    I notice that you don't point out that I and others were clear that Osborne had avoided any question of interest on what had been an historical underpayment and gained a substantial cash flow advantage in deferring the payments but had otherwise to accept that the payment was due under the rules of the club we are currently members of.

    But is that what Osborne was claiming? Clearly the posts that Isam has pulled out were totally wrong even if you and others weren't arguing that we were only going to have to pay £850m. I doubt many would consider what you were presenting to be a victory for Britain.

  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    This from the ABC news site.

    9:55 p.m.

    As tens of thousands of Syrians are desperately fleeing their homeland, at least five Syrian families are eager to leave a country that gave them shelter.

    Uruguay's president says his administration will try to help the families reach another country.

    Uruguay welcomed the 42 refugees fleeing Syria's civil war in October 2014. But they protested this week outside the presidency, demanding authorities help them leave for other countries, saying Uruguay is too expensive.

    President Tabare Vazquez said Thursday that Uruguay has reached out to Lebanon because that's where the refugees would like to go. Since Lebanon is not willing to welcome them, his government is asking the five families to choose another country.

    The refugees lack passports from their home country, and cannot get Uruguayan ones because they are not citizens. Uruguay has provided them with local IDs and travel documents, but not all countries recognize them
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    Plato said:
    He needs Special Branch following him around, though maybe not for the usual reasons.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    :wink:
    glw said:

    Plato said:
    He needs Special Branch following him around, though maybe not for the usual reasons.
  • Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs
  • MTimT said:

    Jonathan said:

    "The general election for UKIP was nothing short of a triumph."

    Come off it, one MP is quite a long way short of a triumph. Especially, when the said MP is not your leader.

    A more accurate version is...

    "After winning the 2014 Euro elections, the general election for UKIP was a bitter disappointment."

    Personally, I think something in between is the real story.

    "UKIP advance on previous best performance in a Westminster election but fail to capitalize in terms of seats."
    Good grief, somebody being reasonable on a political discussion forum.

    It'll never catch on, you know.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Had an SNP get out the vote person come round today - never had that before in a council election. Different person from the people who canvassed me in the General election too.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Israel News ‏@IsraelNewsNow 18m18 minutes ago
    #BreakingNews Syria blames Europe for flow of migrants out of the country http://dlvr.it/C6fMGk

    Well fancy that.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited September 2015
    kle4 said:


    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

    Genuinely superior telly all round. I thought the satire in Yes (Prime) Minister probed deeper than almost anything else I've seen televised. It wasn't as dark but it was very telling.

    (Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)
  • Does anyone know what channel(s) are covering the announcement live on Saturday?
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Plato said:

    :wink:

    glw said:

    Plato said:
    He needs Special Branch following him around, though maybe not for the usual reasons.
    Someone on Channel 4 said MI5 will be digging out their files on Corbyn.... and perhaps burning them. LOL.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Hell hath no fury like someone who backed Farage+6.5 in Thanet.

  • kle4 said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
    Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
    If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    kle4 said:


    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

    (Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)
    I wasn't into sci-fi as much when I was young, but I agree - I much prefer fantasy and sci-fi settings for stories in any case, something about the additional world building or further step removed from the real world actually allows for themes and messages to be better explored, if you want, or you can just do a lot more interesting stuff in any case as there are fewer limitations.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956
    kle4 said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
    Really? It's one thing to change you mind about say the level of NHS spending, but I would have thought quite another to swallow the claptrap Corbyn seems to believe.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956

    Does anyone know what channel(s) are covering the announcement live on Saturday?

    There's no need to tune in the laughter from CCHQ will be audible nationwide.
  • With Hungary and Macedonia closing their borders, reports tonight that France will only take Christians, French police looking for an Isil member in the Calais camp, Ban Ki Moon singling out the UK when his organisation is a disaster of mega proportions, Obama rides to the rescue saying they will take 10,000 Syrian refugees from 2016. This must now be the biggest crises Europe has faced since the second world war and at least at that time the West had leaders.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    chestnut said:

    Hell hath no fury like someone who backed Farage+6.5 in Thanet.

    Had a thousand losing bets since then, about as far from furious about it as can be

    Some pitiful swallowing of Dave and Georges spin on that thread wasn't there?
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:


    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

    (Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)
    I wasn't into sci-fi as much when I was young, but I agree - I much prefer fantasy and sci-fi settings for stories in any case, something about the additional world building or further step removed from the real world actually allows for themes and messages to be better explored, if you want, or you can just do a lot more interesting stuff in any case as there are fewer limitations.
    Astonishingly, the youngest members of PB would only have been about the right age to start nursery school when Futurama first came on. Given that I liked the show for the nostalgic aspect at the time, that now makes me feel rather old!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Guido Fawkes ‏@GuidoFawkes 6m6 minutes ago
    Pro-Palestinian Calls for Genocide of Jews at Downing Street Demo http://order-order.com/2015/09/10/pro-palestinian-calls-for-genocide-at-downing-street-demo/

    Not at all surprised at this.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,956

    This must now be the biggest crises Europe has faced since the second world war and at least at that time the West had leaders.

    Errr there was this rather large war in the former Yugoslavia.

  • glw said:

    Does anyone know what channel(s) are covering the announcement live on Saturday?

    There's no need to tune in the laughter from CCHQ will be audible nationwide.
    It will act as a nice aperitif to the Tour of Britain stage which starts shortly afterwards.
    Hopefully Sky will cover it as don't want to have to listen to Nick Robinson talking over the top of everyone like 5 years ago.

  • kle4 said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
    Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
    If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes
    Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited September 2015
    Douglas Carswell MP ‏@DouglasCarswell 8h8 hours ago
    Just been listening to Israeli Prime Minister. He's very impressive
  • glw said:

    This must now be the biggest crises Europe has faced since the second world war and at least at that time the West had leaders.

    Errr there was this rather large war in the former Yugoslavia.

    I am not suggesting war but that this has the possibility of causing a complete rupture throughout the EU with chaos throughout
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    The latter is wrong who ever wins will have won a majority of members preferences
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    kle4 said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
    Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
    If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes
    Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.
    Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,354
    kle4 said:

    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way.

    Yes minister, all brilliant - the TV series may have dated slightly due to stage play type production (hasn't everything?) but the dialogue is still spot on. The additional footnotes in the books relating some of the real events that Lynn & Jay took inspiration from are also very highly recommended.

    On another note, I remember reading many years ago that they were did something on American politics with a working title of "All In Favor". But Google insists no such thing exists, and if it doesn't exist on Google you begin to doubt whether it exists at all...
  • HYUFD said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    The latter is wrong who ever wins will have won a majority of members preferences
    Really? Explain that to JC supporters if he gets 48% of first prefs and still loses to someone who got 20%
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    glw said:

    This must now be the biggest crises Europe has faced since the second world war and at least at that time the West had leaders.

    Errr there was this rather large war in the former Yugoslavia.

    I am not suggesting war but that this has the possibility of causing a complete rupture throughout the EU with chaos throughout
    glw is suggesting the prolonged and bloody Balkan war that happened a couple of decades ago is a bigger European crisis than some people moving country.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited September 2015

    Does anyone know what channel(s) are covering the announcement live on Saturday?

    It would be surprising if Sky News and BBC News channel don't cover it, although you can never underestimate their ability to cut away to something else just at the vital moment.

    I hope Nick Robinson isn't commentating on it again. Last time he told everyone David Miliband had won right up to the last moment when the figures were announced.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    isam said:

    Some pitiful swallowing of Dave and Georges spin on that thread wasn't there?

    Just political jousting :-)

    For what it's worth, I think we're primed to vote Out now.

    That's my intention unless things change markedly. There's never anything positive coming from the EU. It's an economic and social mess.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
    Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
    If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes
    Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.
    Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll
    BBC news

    Burnham says " I have an outside chance"

  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    The latter is wrong who ever wins will have won a majority of members preferences
    Really? Explain that to JC supporters if he gets 48% of first prefs and still loses to someone who got 20%
    Doubt it's a problem. Large number of people who weren't Labour supporters 2 months ago, revert to not being Labour supporters again.
  • This from the ABC news site.

    Anyone But Corbyn have a news site? The resistance is going to be fierce.

    £1500 available for Zac at 2.82. Probably value whoever wins given that Corbyn is going to.
  • Plato said:

    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

    Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

    If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).


    Just the woman to tell via Linked In that you think she's top totty. Silly Alex.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    chestnut said:

    isam said:

    Some pitiful swallowing of Dave and Georges spin on that thread wasn't there?

    Just political jousting :-)

    For what it's worth, I think we're primed to vote Out now.

    That's my intention unless things change markedly. There's never anything positive coming from the EU. It's an economic and social mess.
    Ha fair do's

    Lots of people on here now say they are drawn to voting out, which can only be good for the cause. Strange how Farage is still so disliked by non kippers... many of the things he warned of, dismissed as scaremongering, have come to pass and are the reason for peoples change of heart/mind

  • Plato said:

    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

    Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

    If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
    Just the woman to tell via Linked In that you think she's top totty. Silly Alex.



    A fishing expedition rewarded. I wonder how many late-middle-aged men she offered to connect with before a particularly silly one bit?
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:


    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

    (Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)
    I wasn't into sci-fi as much when I was young, but I agree - I much prefer fantasy and sci-fi settings for stories in any case, something about the additional world building or further step removed from the real world actually allows for themes and messages to be better explored, if you want, or you can just do a lot more interesting stuff in any case as there are fewer limitations.
    Astonishingly, the youngest members of PB would only have been about the right age to start nursery school when Futurama first came on. Given that I liked the show for the nostalgic aspect at the time, that now makes me feel rather old!
    Which reminds me of a rather sad blog post that Tim Worstall made about the McBusted reunion: he wouldn't have minded not having heard of them, since clearly the young trendies would have had a different taste to an old fogie like himself, but it was disappointing for him to discover that they were actually reforming a decade after their previous highly successful careers had come to an end - which marked him out as having been an old fogie for even longer than he'd have liked to have realised.

    Incidentally I only had heard of them myself because Mrs Burning-Ears mère had taught one of the lads at secondary school, shortly before her retirement. (Long-standing PBers may be aware that the list of well-known people that my mother supposedly taught, sold things to back when she was a shop assistant, or has otherwise interacted with, grows with every year of her retirement. But this utterly banal one - assuming the PB audience does not contain many obsessed teenyboppers - strangely enough, checked out.)
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    The latter is wrong who ever wins will have won a majority of members preferences
    Really? Explain that to JC supporters if he gets 48% of first prefs and still loses to someone who got 20%
    Popcorn shortage reported in UK......
  • Alistair said:

    glw said:

    This must now be the biggest crises Europe has faced since the second world war and at least at that time the West had leaders.

    Errr there was this rather large war in the former Yugoslavia.

    I am not suggesting war but that this has the possibility of causing a complete rupture throughout the EU with chaos throughout
    glw is suggesting the prolonged and bloody Balkan war that happened a couple of decades ago is a bigger European crisis than some people moving country.
    Agreed if it was 'some' but they are already talking of 850,000 this year and the same next. Reports tonight that Germany's Internal Ministry expressing concern that Islamist's are targeting the Syrian refugees in the camps in Germany
  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
    Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
    If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes
    Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.
    Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll
    Burnham is hopeless.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Pro_Rata said:

    kle4 said:

    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way.

    Yes minister, all brilliant - the TV series may have dated slightly due to stage play type production (hasn't everything?) but the dialogue is still spot on. The additional footnotes in the books relating some of the real events that Lynn & Jay took inspiration from are also very highly recommended.

    On another note, I remember reading many years ago that they were did something on American politics with a working title of "All In Favor". But Google insists no such thing exists, and if it doesn't exist on Google you begin to doubt whether it exists at all...
    The Thick of It will date, in my view.

    Yes, Minister is close to timeless. It's about situations that just seem to recur on a cycle.
  • Moses_ said:
    Wonder how long before the 'Eat, Sleep, Campaign, Repeat' t-shirts his team wore will be on Ebay

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    This from the ABC news site.

    Anyone But Corbyn have a news site? The resistance is going to be fierce.

    £1500 available for Zac at 2.82. Probably value whoever wins given that Corbyn is going to.

    15/8 w Fred and tote, although doubt you'll get £1500!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:


    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

    (Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)
    I wasn't into sci-fi as much when I was young, but I agree - I much prefer fantasy and sci-fi settings for stories in any case, something about the additional world building or further step removed from the real world actually allows for themes and messages to be better explored, if you want, or you can just do a lot more interesting stuff in any case as there are fewer limitations.
    Astonishingly, the youngest members of PB would only have been about the right age to start nursery school when Futurama first came on. Given that I liked the show for the nostalgic aspect at the time, that now makes me feel rather old!
    Indeed! A colleague didn't know who Christopher Lee was when he passed away, and everyone was sure they'd at least have remembered him from Lord of the Rings, and turns out that was 13 years ago now, and they were too young to see it at the time. I've never felt so old at 28.
  • AndyJS said:

    Does anyone know what channel(s) are covering the announcement live on Saturday?

    It would be surprising if Sky News and BBC News channel don't cover it, although you can never underestimate their ability to cut away to something else just at the vital moment.

    I hope Nick Robinson isn't commentating on it again. Last time he told everyone David Miliband had won right up to the last moment when the figures were announced.
    Fortunately I watched it on Sky last time, but recall a number of PBers complaining about the BBC coverage.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    edited September 2015

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
    Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
    If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes
    Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.
    Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll
    Burnham is hopeless.
    In your opinion, in the opinion of those who count, the public, he is best of the 4, and that has been shown in every public opinion poll of the leadership campaign. He is also probably the only candidate who could now unite the Corbynite and Cooper and Kendall wings
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Plato said:

    Glad I don't know her http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11857210/Lawyer-who-shamed-barrister-over-sexist-LinkedIn-email-believes-men-make-workplaces-a-repugnant-world.html

    Charlotte Proudman, 27, who has been building up her media profile for the past three years by writing for the Guardian, the Independent and several magazines, as well as being a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, believes men make workplaces a “repugnant world”.

    Earlier this year she used the left-wing website Left Foot Forward to explain that she was a campaigner for feminism, not equality, because: “Men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

    If men and women were truly equal, she said, “men’s genitals would be sliced up” in the same way that some women are subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM).
    Just the woman to tell via Linked In that you think she's top totty. Silly Alex.

    A fishing expedition rewarded. I wonder how many late-middle-aged men she offered to connect with before a particularly silly one bit?

    I have girl mates that have blatantly admitted using linked in as upgraded POF/tinder.. seems fair enough.

    If you want to pull a rich bloke, go to bars in rich areas. If you want to pull one online, look for one with a top job!

    Mind you, she ended up w a window cleaner from Rush Green!
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited September 2015
    isam said:

    chestnut said:

    isam said:

    Some pitiful swallowing of Dave and Georges spin on that thread wasn't there?

    Just political jousting :-)

    For what it's worth, I think we're primed to vote Out now.

    That's my intention unless things change markedly. There's never anything positive coming from the EU. It's an economic and social mess.
    Ha fair do's

    Lots of people on here now say they are drawn to voting out, which can only be good for the cause. Strange how Farage is still so disliked by non kippers... many of the things he warned of, dismissed as scaremongering, have come to pass and are the reason for peoples change of heart/mind

    I've had reservations about the EU for the best part of a decade and always saw UKIP, during the course of the last parliament, as a force for good in forcing the issue to be put to the people.

    In that sense, UKIP won.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
    Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
    If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes
    Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.
    Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll
    Burnham is hopeless.
    In your opinion, in the opinion of those who count, the public, he is best of the 4, and that has been shown in every public opinion poll of the leadership campaign. He is also probably the only candidate who could now unite the Corbynite and Cooper and Kendall wings
    Indeed. They're all united in contempt. Stop relying on a couple of marginal opinion poll leads and use your eyes.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008

    HYUFD said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    The latter is wrong who ever wins will have won a majority of members preferences
    Really? Explain that to JC supporters if he gets 48% of first prefs and still loses to someone who got 20%
    Labour loses a few votes to the Greens, quelle horreur, as some Che Corbyn voters from Islington, Hampstead and Manchester return to their Lucas or TUSC homeland. Meanwhile the candidate who consistently polls best with the average voter, ie the one who actually determines the result in marginal seats, wins the leadership
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    isam said:

    chestnut said:

    isam said:

    Some pitiful swallowing of Dave and Georges spin on that thread wasn't there?

    Just political jousting :-)

    For what it's worth, I think we're primed to vote Out now.

    That's my intention unless things change markedly. There's never anything positive coming from the EU. It's an economic and social mess.
    Ha fair do's

    Lots of people on here now say they are drawn to voting out, which can only be good for the cause. Strange how Farage is still so disliked by non kippers... many of the things he warned of, dismissed as scaremongering, have come to pass and are the reason for peoples change of heart/mind

    ANECDOTE ALERT, but for some people I know, the things that really put them off Farage/UKIP were the comments about gay marriage causing floods, and Farage's comments about breastfeeding. Even for people who think UKIP have a point about immigration, I feel like those two incidents made people think they were pretty weird and stuffy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    edited September 2015
    AndyJS said:

    "Isil fighter hiding in Calais migrant camp with 'aim of committing terror attacks in Britain', say local reports

    French police under orders to find and arrest Isil fighter on an Islamist watchlist who returned from Syria in August and is hiding among migrants in Calais, La Voix du Nord reports"


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11856278/Isil-fighter-hiding-in-Calais-migrant-camp-with-aim-of-committing-terror-attacks-in-Britain-say-local-reports.html

    Robert Fox wrote yet another excellent article in the Evening Standard the day before yesterday: this century, the global human population is forecast to increase from 6 billion to over 11 billion. That's at a time when climate change will, more likely than not, increase what pressures we already have on existing resources as it is.

    How much thought have Western politicians given to the big picture in this? And what that means for future state stability and migration flows?

    This may only be the start.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    Moses_ said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Whoever wins the leadership election it will be fascinating to watch - either a leader without the support of his members or a leader without the support of his MPs

    If he gets a surprise sustained bump in the polls (he's expected to get one for a time at least), they'll change their tune no doubt.
    Perhaps...but you just know that JC will say something ridiculous at some point in the next few months and it'll all fall apart. On balance I think it would be actually worse for the party if JC didn't win.
    If he gets 45-49% of first preference votes there's no guarantee he'd get enough seconds and thirds to get home...just imagine the scenes
    Ideal scenario. Corbyn is robbed and Burnham sneaks through thanks to broken (s)electoral system.
    Labour's best result that would be as Burnham polls best in every public opinion poll
    BBC news

    Burnham says " I have an outside chance"

    I believe so too and am having a small punt on him tonight given how long his odds now are
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782
    edited September 2015
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:


    Any excuse to talk about Yes Minister. Superior to The Thick of It because despite not being as angry at politics, the satire is portrayed through actual characters, not one note caricatures able to entertain, but not engage with in any way, and so is more effective at seeming relative to the real world, not just a hyperrealistic version of it.

    (Incidentally, I've only just noticed your user image after a comment you made on a recent thread! Very good choice. I admire a purposefully measured indifference. And I preferred Futurama to the Simpsons for a similar reason to why I liked Yes Minister, it had some moments of wonderful satire. And it brought back memories of the science fiction I was into as a child.)
    I wasn't into sci-fi as much when I was young, but I agree - I much prefer fantasy and sci-fi settings for stories in any case, something about the additional world building or further step removed from the real world actually allows for themes and messages to be better explored, if you want, or you can just do a lot more interesting stuff in any case as there are fewer limitations.
    Astonishingly, the youngest members of PB would only have been about the right age to start nursery school when Futurama first came on. Given that I liked the show for the nostalgic aspect at the time, that now makes me feel rather old!
    Indeed! A colleague didn't know who Christopher Lee was when he passed away, and everyone was sure they'd at least have remembered him from Lord of the Rings, and turns out that was 13 years ago now, and they were too young to see it at the time. I've never felt so old at 28.
    I genuinely just checked that (LoTR release) as it seemed so wrong. Then realised that it was released well before I got married - and that'll be 10 years next year. Gulp.
  • Really enjoying Isam's researched gems in this thread. Have any of the guilty parties addressed this at all, or are they all washing their hair tonight?
Sign In or Register to comment.