politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Party by-election vote projections should be treated with a ma

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Party by-election vote projections should be treated with a massive pinch of salt

Final weekend LD leaflet seeking to make the by-election about BREXIT

Read the full story here

JosiasJessop

Thirst.

Have to say you're right on this OGH; such data released by any side is garbage and untrustworthy.

And I say that despite wanting the Lib Dems to give Zac a run for his money.

RobD

Wouldn't such information be more aesthetically pleasing in bar chart form, perhaps?

SquareRoot

In many ways if Zac were to lose it would stop any more MP's having hissy fits on points of"principle" and wasting taxpayers money. If he wanted to resign on principle , he should not have stood again

MarqueeMark

So by their own admission and on a best case scenario, LibDems are Not Winning Here?

logical_song

SquareRoot said:

In many ways if Zac were to lose it would stop any more MP's having hissy fits on points of"principle" and wasting taxpayers money. If he wanted to resign on principle , he should not have stood again

It is a charade. If the Tories thought that their majority was in danger of getting smaller they would have put up a Conservative candidate. If elected he would be Independent In Name Only.

Innocent_Abroad

Whose hands are they? At first I thought they were a manual worker's but then I discerned nail polish... so now I think they are the hands of an "older" woman. Anyone here know more?

JosiasJessop

There's something about Zac that makes it hard for me to like him. I don't dislike him; he just comes across as bland and vacuous. Would he pass the pub test? No. I'd prefer a pint with Corbyn; at least Corbyn would be interesting.

CD13

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

logical_song

I see that in addition to not fielding a candidate in Richmond Park ,
"The Greens’ sole MP, Caroline Lucas, joined the Liberal Democrats on the campaign trail in Richmond on Saturday"
Add to that UKIP's failure to stand a candidate and to back UKIP and it appears that post the referendum politics has changed.

JosiasJessop

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

Innocent_Abroad

JosiasJessop said:

There's something about Zac that makes it hard for me to like him. I don't dislike him; he just comes across as bland and vacuous. Would he pass the pub test? No. I'd prefer a pint with Corbyn; at least Corbyn would be interesting.

I've had a pint with JC (he only drinks halves) and he isn't at all interesting. He just tries to work out whether or not you could be of any use to him.

YellowSubmarine

Interesting primer on the Italian referendum containing a link to a second piece. It seems quite a complex proposal that's been put to voters. Shades of AV. The status quo is crap but the proposed change is crap.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/27/matteo-renzi-politics-italy-european-union-brexit-trump?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

tlg86

Did someone say voodoo?

CD13

Mr Jessop,

"I've been doing some reading up on this period recently."

As I did for my e-book (An Ever Rolling Stream - published by Wild Wolf in 2014).

Castro was a revolutionary but far more of a Napoleon than a Snowball. He did some good things, but he was dangerous.

JFK had many faults but he was a consummate politician. Removing the Jupiter missiles from Turkey was the key to defusing the crisis, but holding off the Hawks in the Pentagon was his finest hour. That Curtis Le May ...

JosiasJessop

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's something about Zac that makes it hard for me to like him. I don't dislike him; he just comes across as bland and vacuous. Would he pass the pub test? No. I'd prefer a pint with Corbyn; at least Corbyn would be interesting.

I've had a pint with JC (he only drinks halves) and he isn't at all interesting. He just tries to work out whether or not you could be of any use to him.

Maybe I'd find that interesting.

Oddly, that's not the view I get of him, so it's good to get that anecdote.

Jonathan

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's something about Zac that makes it hard for me to like him. I don't dislike him; he just comes across as bland and vacuous. Would he pass the pub test? No. I'd prefer a pint with Corbyn; at least Corbyn would be interesting.

I've had a pint with JC (he only drinks halves) and he isn't at all interesting. He just tries to work out whether or not you could be of any use to him.

Ah, a politician.

Malmesbury

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

Khrushchev gambled on the Cuban idea to try and restore the collapsing position in the arms race. The Soviets had a small number of vast, incredibly expensive, liquid fueled ICBMS - incredibly vulnerable, since they couldn't be put in a silo.

The US had just made some staggering breakthroughs - Polaris and Minuteman were solid fueled, solid state computer guided. The reliability of these systems compared with earlier weapons was incredible. In addition, a breakthrough had been achieved in reducing the size of nuclear warheads - from the size of a car to smaller than a person.

MacNamara was brought in by Kennedy to rationalise defense spending. At the outbreak of the arms race, *everything* was funded - nuclear powered ramjet cruise missiles, nuclear powered bombers.. The idea was that WWII (in which they'd both served) was won by selecting a small number of good weapons and mass producing them, not by throwing money at every crazy idea... So Minuteman and Polaris became the key systems and nearly everything else was dropped.

So, the US was mass producing missiles that were very hard to kill, very accurate and very reliable. While the USSR had a handful of incredibly vulnerable missiles that sometime worked.

It was this that pushed Khrushchev to the edge - he was looking at losing the arms race at every level. That plus the Bay of Pigs - which convinced him that the US would use their superiority to push back against the Eastern Bloc.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I think the only certainty about the by-election is that the Lib Dems will find it a bit emotional, whether it's an astounding victory or despondent defeat after throwing the kitchen sink at the campaign.

Mr. Jessop, I agree on Goldsmith. That said, Corbyn would probably spend the whole time reminiscing about Castro.

JosiasJessop

CD13 said:

Mr Jessop,

"I've been doing some reading up on this period recently."

As I did for my e-book (An Ever Rolling Stream - published by Wild Wolf in 2014).

Castro was a revolutionary but far more of a Napoleon than a Snowball. He did some good things, but he was dangerous.

JFK had many faults but he was a consummate politician. Removing the Jupiter missiles from Turkey was the key to defusing the crisis, but holding off the Hawks in the Pentagon was his finest hour. That Curtis Le May ...

Agree on Castro. My point about JFK - and I will defer to your deeper research - is that he knowingly lied to get elected, and that made it harder for the Russians to trust him when it came to the missile crisis.

YellowSubmarine

It's quite possible the Lib Dem canvassing figures are genuine. Miraculously matching the figures they need for final week squeeze messages and to motivate supporters and activists. In short if the canvassing had them 20% ahead they'd still probably prefer to leak these figures. The fact they are extremely convenient and from a partisan source doesn't invalidate them but.... A large bag of salt needed in the absence of other evidence.

I've donated a couple of quid to the campaign - my first support for the party since I left 4 years ago - and hope they do win. They don't deserve to win but the country deserves them to win. I need a Titanium Nose Peg to donate to the Lib Dems these days but was happy to do so. It's an atypical by-election in an atypical seat in atypical times. Perhaps a shock win for the Lib Dems won't look that shocking in retrospect ?

CD13

Mr Jessop,

"... he knowingly lied to get elected, and that made it harder for the Russians to trust him when it came to the missile crisis."

Yup, can't argue with that.

JosiasJessop

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

I think the only certainty about the by-election is that the Lib Dems will find it a bit emotional, whether it's an astounding victory or despondent defeat after throwing the kitchen sink at the campaign.

Mr. Jessop, I agree on Goldsmith. That said, Corbyn would probably spend the whole time reminiscing about Castro.

I could cope with JC reminiscing about Castro. I couldn't cope with him reminiscing about motorbike trips with Abbott ...

Jonathan

CD13 said:

Mr Jessop,

"... he knowingly lied to get elected, and that made it harder for the Russians to trust him when it came to the missile crisis."

Yup, can't argue with that.

Thankfully JFK didn't have a big red bus.

PlatoSaid

NBC archive footage

https://youtu.be/EoBTgLq40Ck

rkrkrk

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK is fascinating- it's always really puzzled me that he has such a great reputation among the left. Aside from the missile crisis, the Bay of Pigs disaster, and a mess in Vietnam... he pussyfooted around civil rights as an issue.

NickPalmer

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's something about Zac that makes it hard for me to like him. I don't dislike him; he just comes across as bland and vacuous. Would he pass the pub test? No. I'd prefer a pint with Corbyn; at least Corbyn would be interesting.

I've had a pint with JC (he only drinks halves) and he isn't at all interesting. He just tries to work out whether or not you could be of any use to him.

Maybe I'd find that interesting.

Oddly, that's not the view I get of him, so it's good to get that anecdote.

Not my view either, but any mutual view is like an abstract painting - essentially a cooperative effort between vieweee and viewer. JC is fascinating on his subjects, though only polite about anything else (which perhaps sounds harsh, but how many genuinely curious minds about things that don't initially interest them are there really?). If you happen to be interested in the same subjects (as I am), that's great, otherwise probably not so much.

AlastairMeeks

It sounds like the Lib Dems are some way adrift.

Two points of curiosity on that leaflet. First, what's inside the fold out, does it have any connection with the hands? Secondly, the hands look very masculine, apart from the nail polish. It's quite distracting. Is there a big transgender vote in Richmond Park?

Charles

If @SouthamObserver is about I'd be interested in his perspectives. It seems pretty factual - but an interesting skirmish. I can't believe we'd ratify without conditions/a path forward (the government isn't as daft as Tony Blair)...

http://brexitcentral.wpengine.com/ashley-roughton-will-uk-excluded-planned-europe-wide-patent-court/#more-1774

More generally, has anyone else used this site? It looks sensible, although obviously is the descendant of VoteLeave so has a specific worldview.

Charles

I smell bullsh1t.

It's too nicely aligned with the LibDem campaign strategy. Who knows whether it is right or not, but the general principle has to be cui bono

Charles

RobD said:

Wouldn't such information be more aesthetically pleasing in bar chart form, perhaps?

Without an arrow and perhaps a helpful comment it would be completely misleading though.

Charles

Innocent_Abroad said:

Whose hands are they? At first I thought they were a manual worker's but then I discerned nail polish... so now I think they are the hands of an "older" woman. Anyone here know more?

How prejudiced!

Why shouldn't a manual worker wear nail polish if he/she/zhe wants to?

YellowSubmarine

Maybe the hands are an anonymous cameo by Eddie Izzard ?

kle4

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

rural_voter

YellowSubmarine said:

It's quite possible the Lib Dem canvassing figures are genuine. Miraculously matching the figures they need for final week squeeze messages and to motivate supporters and activists. In short if the canvassing had them 20% ahead they'd still probably prefer to leak these figures. The fact they are extremely convenient and from a partisan source doesn't invalidate them but.... A large bag of salt needed in the absence of other evidence.

I've donated a couple of quid to the campaign - my first support for the party since I left 4 years ago - and hope they do win. They don't deserve to win but the country deserves them to win. I need a Titanium Nose Peg to donate to the Lib Dems these days but was happy to do so. It's an atypical by-election in an atypical seat in atypical times. Perhaps a shock win for the Lib Dems won't look that shocking in retrospect ?

How wealthy are the voters? The L.D.s seem to prosper in places that are extremely wealthy and well-educated, Hallam for example.

Does it have enough of the special factors which led to surprise L.Dem byelection victories?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orpington_by-election,_1962
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christchurch_by-election,_1993

This candidate is already known to voters and has a loyalty factor. So what if they disagree with his EU views? John Redwood's electorate voted quite strongly for Remain.

Jonathan

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

JosiasJessop said:

There's something about Zac that makes it hard for me to like him. I don't dislike him; he just comes across as bland and vacuous. Would he pass the pub test? No. I'd prefer a pint with Corbyn; at least Corbyn would be interesting.

I've had a pint with JC (he only drinks halves) and he isn't at all interesting. He just tries to work out whether or not you could be of any use to him.

Maybe I'd find that interesting.

Oddly, that's not the view I get of him, so it's good to get that anecdote.

Not my view either, but any mutual view is like an abstract painting - essentially a cooperative effort between vieweee and viewer. JC is fascinating on his subjects, though only polite about anything else (which perhaps sounds harsh, but how many genuinely curious minds about things that don't initially interest them are there really?). If you happen to be interested in the same subjects (as I am), that's great, otherwise probably not so much.

How well endowed in the Brain department is he? The way he murders the English language and seems unable to consider other POV suggests not very.

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

So by their own admission and on a best case scenario, LibDems are Not Winning Here?

It would seem so. Without a split in the Tory vote to work with - in fact with support from UKIP it may be bolstered subject to how many stay home - there's a lot to overcome. I guess the poll is meant to be a cry of 'we're so close, we can do this gang' without being so silly as to show them in the lead and causing people to scoff.

kle4

I think we need strong third parties, and with the SNP regionally limited, UKip spiralling and the greens, well, the greens, the LDs remain the best bet there for more seats, but it's a tough road back. Ive nothing much against zac, though I co stantly co fuse him with Tristram hunt, but it'd be mire interesting to see a LD win than a Tory win.

Big_G_NorthWales

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

tlg86

Off topic, but an interesting story has occurred this weekend:

http://tinyurl.com/hv3jrgm

Basically an energy supplier that appeared on the scene not that long ago has gone out of business. I switched our electric to them about a year ago as they were offering a price that was very good. As expected they started hiking the price a few months ago so I switched to another firm. However, when I left GB Energy Supply I was £112.95 in credit.

I had been meaning to call them up to find out when I'd be receiving a rebate from them, but now I'm in limbo. I've just sent a complaint to the ombudsman to find out if I have any chance of a refund, but I'm not holding my breath.

I've pointed out to the ombudsman that these companies seem to make a habit of overcharging on direct debits. I'm in the fortunate position where I can take the hit, but for many others a £100 would be a lot of money.

Jonathan

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

Give the Donald a chance.

Innocent_Abroad

Charles said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Whose hands are they? At first I thought they were a manual worker's but then I discerned nail polish... so now I think they are the hands of an "older" woman. Anyone here know more?

How prejudiced!

Why shouldn't a manual worker wear nail polish if he/she/zhe wants to?

Indeed. Why shouldn't you & I contribute here in ancient Hebrew? The point is that this is a by-election leaflet. It's trying to tell us something, and if we don't know what that something is, it's falling down on the job.

SquareRoot

Have we had any bar charts from the LD's telling why the LD's are going to win?

Big_G_NorthWales

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

Give the Donald a chance.

I don't think even the Donald will be able to replicate our fear at the time, and I know you are being light hearted

MikeK

Good morning all.

Thats a terrible L/Dem poster/leaflet: one middle aged female hand inverted (not two hands notice) with black evil looking nails.

Would frighten the life out of me if I was still living in the area.

Only an Olney could come up with this sort of thing. Nope! My money's on Zac to back.

JosiasJessop

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I only had six months when a fear of nuclear war really struck my consciousness (as a kid I was very pro-nuclear and pro-tech, as I am now).

I am now feeling occasional murmurs of the same fear. The world feels much less certain that it did; more dangerous in the post-Brexit and pre-Donald world. Perhaps that's accentuated by having a young son.

JosiasJessop

On the hands: the nails seem too long to be those of a serious manual worker. I'd *guess* they're the hands of a woman in her fifties or sixties.

OldKingCole

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

He had his Dad's genes, of course. Well, 50% of them. Mayor Daley of Chicago was on his side as well.

Pulpstar

rural_voter said:

How wealthy are the voters? The L.D.s seem to prosper in places that are extremely wealthy and well-educated, Hallam for example.

It's Richmond Park. All millionaires.

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I only had six months when a fear of nuclear war really struck my consciousness (as a kid I was very pro-nuclear and pro-tech, as I am now).

I am now feeling occasional murmurs of the same fear. The world feels much less certain that it did; more dangerous in the post-Brexit and pre-Donald world. Perhaps that's accentuated by having a young son.

35 years ago when I was a teenager, nuclear apocalypse fears were very genuine. Now the risks to the world are much slower and long term. We no longer have conversations about what to do in the 30 minutes after the warning sirens go.

The odd bearded loon planning murders on public transport is a trivial risk in comparison. The Cold War was an existential threat.

Big_G_NorthWales

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I only had six months when a fear of nuclear war really struck my consciousness (as a kid I was very pro-nuclear and pro-tech, as I am now).

I am now feeling occasional murmurs of the same fear. The world feels much less certain that it did; more dangerous in the post-Brexit and pre-Donald world. Perhaps that's accentuated by having a young son.

I can understand your rationale which is accentuated by having a young son and indeed the World is much more dangerous with Putin's aggression and the election of Trump. However, Trump has made friendly noises to Putin and I do not have the 'real fear' I had in 1962.

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

On the hands: the nails seem too long to be those of a serious manual worker. I'd *guess* they're the hands of a woman in her fifties or sixties.

It does look like one hand inverted. Look at the creases on the palms.

It is slightly disconcerting as a result, but on the other hand*, gets interest so achieves its object.

*couldn't resist!

Alistair

tlg86 said:

Off topic, but an interesting story has occurred this weekend:

http://tinyurl.com/hv3jrgm

Basically an energy supplier that appeared on the scene not that long ago has gone out of business. I switched our electric to them about a year ago as they were offering a price that was very good. As expected they started hiking the price a few months ago so I switched to another firm. However, when I left GB Energy Supply I was £112.95 in credit.

I had been meaning to call them up to find out when I'd be receiving a rebate from them, but now I'm in limbo. I've just sent a complaint to the ombudsman to find out if I have any chance of a refund, but I'm not holding my breath.

I've pointed out to the ombudsman that these companies seem to make a habit of overcharging on direct debits. I'm in the fortunate position where I can take the hit, but for many others a £100 would be a lot of money.

Ovo pay interest on the money they overcharge.

Sean_F

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I only had six months when a fear of nuclear war really struck my consciousness (as a kid I was very pro-nuclear and pro-tech, as I am now).

I am now feeling occasional murmurs of the same fear. The world feels much less certain that it did; more dangerous in the post-Brexit and pre-Donald world. Perhaps that's accentuated by having a young son.

35 years ago when I was a teenager, nuclear apocalypse fears were very genuine. Now the risks to the world are much slower and long term. We no longer have conversations about what to do in the 30 minutes after the warning sirens go.

The odd bearded loon planning murders on public transport is a trivial risk in comparison. The Cold War was an existential threat.

I remember being terrified by The Wargame when I was 14.

JosiasJessop

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I only had six months when a fear of nuclear war really struck my consciousness (as a kid I was very pro-nuclear and pro-tech, as I am now).

I am now feeling occasional murmurs of the same fear. The world feels much less certain that it did; more dangerous in the post-Brexit and pre-Donald world. Perhaps that's accentuated by having a young son.

35 years ago when I was a teenager, nuclear apocalypse fears were very genuine. Now the risks to the world are much slower and long term. We no longer have conversations about what to do in the 30 minutes after the warning sirens go.

The odd bearded loon planning murders on public transport is a trivial risk in comparison. The Cold War was an existential threat.

Yes, I generally agree with that. But it's just that, with a young son, the current uncertainties seem more than concerning, more immediate, to me.

It's not just about the odd bearded loon, which I agree is a trivial risk. It's about the uncertainty, and the fact the people leading the uncertainty (the likes of Farage, Trump etc) and their alt-right hangers-on are plain nutjobs who should be nowhere near power and responsibility.

YellowSubmarine

@JosiasJessop We're the same age. I remember doing all the ethics of Nuclear War in GCSE Religious Studies. Applying St Augustine to MAD was certainly interesting. We included a lot of the fiction on the subject including Threads and The Day After.

I've a strong sense the current world situation is more dangerous than then and seems to be deteriorating by the week.

JosiasJessop

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

logical_song

kle4 said:

I think we need strong third parties, and with the SNP regionally limited, UKip spiralling and the greens, well, the greens, the LDs remain the best bet there for more seats, but it's a tough road back. Ive nothing much against zac, though I co stantly co fuse him with Tristram hunt, but it'd be mire interesting to see a LD win than a Tory win.

See what I mean, the Tories can't win Richmpnd Park because they aren't standing. Are they?
Independent In Name Only

Alanbrooke

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

JosiasJessop

Big_G_NorthWales said:

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I only had six months when a fear of nuclear war really struck my consciousness (as a kid I was very pro-nuclear and pro-tech, as I am now).

I am now feeling occasional murmurs of the same fear. The world feels much less certain that it did; more dangerous in the post-Brexit and pre-Donald world. Perhaps that's accentuated by having a young son.

I can understand your rationale which is accentuated by having a young son and indeed the World is much more dangerous with Putin's aggression and the election of Trump. However, Trump has made friendly noises to Putin and I do not have the 'real fear' I had in 1962.

Trump making friendly noises with Putin is a large part of the problem. Firstly, it's morally wrong (though others will doubtless disagree). But more importantly, it's unsustainable. And when they have a falling out, it will be a biggie, if only because Putin will have been given free rein and the situation will be harder to recover.

Even on here, we have people blaming the EU for the Ukrainian crisis, and saying that Russia should have more control over the states to its west. A few years back they'd have been called appeasers. Now they're useful idiots.

JosiasJessop

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?

JosiasJessop

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

On the hands: the nails seem too long to be those of a serious manual worker. I'd *guess* they're the hands of a woman in her fifties or sixties.

It does look like one hand inverted. Look at the creases on the palms.

It is slightly disconcerting as a result, but on the other hand*, gets interest so achieves its object.

*couldn't resist!

Indeed (*). I think you're right.

(*) I couldn't resist either.

GIN1138

This Lib-Dem picture looks like dirty person who needs to clean under their nails?

JosiasJessop

"Hate crimes: Avoid polarising language, politicians urged"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38120596

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

CD13 said:

In October 1962, Castro urged the USSR to nuke the USA, thus starting World War Three. Those today praising him today would probably have not lived to make those tributes to him.

Corbyn was twelve then.

Fortunately Krushchev was sane, and in his sixty ninth year. One day Jezza might grow up too.

I've been doing some reading up on this period recently (concentrating on the space aspects), and blame for the missile crisis can be blamed firmly at JFK's door.

JFK's playing up of the missile gap in the late 1950s, despite having been shown by Eisenhower that no such gap existed, made Khrushchev and the Russians feel that JFK was a dangerous extremist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap#Effects

JFK seems like he was a bit of a shit.

My wife and I had just become engaged at this time and we were not politically engaged but we were extremely fearful that a nuclear war was very possible and likely. We have never felt the same fear since

I was lucky; I was 16 when the Berlin wall fell, and I

35 years ago when I was a teenager The Cold War was an existential threat.

Yes, I generally agree with that. But it's just that, with a young son, the current uncertainties seem more than concerning, more immediate, to me.

It's not just about the odd bearded loon, which I agree is a trivial risk. It's about the uncertainty, and the fact the people leading the uncertainty (the likes of Farage, Trump etc) and their alt-right hangers-on are plain nutjobs who should be nowhere near power and responsibility.

Trump is going to do many stupid things, but is a sign of waning US power. Forcing NATO, Japan and South Korea to beef up their defence spending is to force them out of the American orbit. Trumps antagonism to Latin America ditto. Putin is more calculating, preferring maniulation to invasion. Thee exception is former USSR territory, which he regards as not proper countries. The Middle East is (apart from Israel) a basket case region of failed states, dangerous only to their own people.

There is a risk of small wars, of terrorism and also of many more refugees, but the world defining conflicts of the 20th Century are history. China is no military threat to our interests, and not particularly to our culture and society.

Be anxious about economic uncertainty certainly, but these are rich peoples problems.

Morris_Dancer

Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.

Alanbrooke

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?

I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,

My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.

If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture

foxinsoxuk

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxinsix, President Xi has a more militaristic approach than President Hu did. Xi's increased military spending significantly and already used it for a substantial land grab in the South China Sea.

Not worth us bothering about. China is a friendly country to us, and we have no military or territorial interest in the region.

kle4

logical_song said:

kle4 said:

I think we need strong third parties, and with the SNP regionally limited, UKip spiralling and the greens, well, the greens, the LDs remain the best bet there for more seats, but it's a tough road back. Ive nothing much against zac, though I co stantly co fuse him with Tristram hunt, but it'd be mire interesting to see a LD win than a Tory win.

See what I mean, the Tories can't win Richmpnd Park because they aren't standing. Are they?
Independent In Name Only

Effectively they're standing, so I don't feel the need to distinguish.

JosiasJessop

foxinsoxuk said:

Trump is going to do many stupid things, but is a sign of waning US power. Forcing NATO, Japan and South Korea to beef up their defence spending is to force them out of the American orbit. Trumps antagonism to Latin America ditto. Putin is more calculating, preferring maniulation to invasion. Thee exception is former USSR territory, which he regards as not proper countries. The Middle East is (apart from Israel) a basket case region of failed states, dangerous only to their own people.

There is a risk of small wars, of terrorism and also of many more refugees, but the world defining conflicts of the 20th Century are history. China is no military threat to our interests, and not particularly to our culture and society.

Be anxious about economic uncertainty certainly, but these are rich peoples problems.

That's a rational take on things, and I can see where you're coming from. Sadly, fear is often irrational.

I'd also be wary of saying: "but the world defining conflicts of the 20th Century are history." All such a conflict requires is the correct environment; a mixture of despotic leaders of powerful nations wanting more power, and mutual distrust between powerful nations.

Morris_Dancer

Dr. Foxinsox, and if they go after the islands between them and Japan? Or invade Taiwan?

Alistair

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?

I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,

My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.

If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture

Plato posted lies. Obvious, made up lies.

kle4

JosiasJessop said:

"Hate crimes: Avoid polarising language, politicians urged"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38120596

Invective and exagerration are common political tools and tools of free speech, and much worthy commentary may be found within otherwise over the top commentary. Avoid beng hateful, by all means, but it has been an issue for some while that the fear of offending people, of being accused of being hateful, can stymie worthy points from being heard. We should not go whole hog inthe other direction, but I think people worry too much about polarising speech sometimes.

JosiasJessop

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?

I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,

My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.

If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture

Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.

A useful idiot indeed.

As you say, let's look at the entire picture:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

williamglenn

Juncker's finally said something useful:

Up until now, I have seen no argument for the sanctions against Russia being immediately lifted. I would like to have an agreement with Russia that goes beyond the ordinary framework, bearing in mind that without Russia, there is no security architecture in Europe.
The EU occupies 5.5 million square kilometres, Russia takes up 17.5 million. Russia must be treated as one big entity, as a proud nation. We have a lot to learn about the depths of Russia, we are very ignorant about it at the moment. I would like to have discussions on a level footing with Russia. Russia is not, as President Obama siad, “a regional power”. This was a big error in assessment.

http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/26/global-conversation-exclusive-interview-with-european-commission-president-jean

Alanbrooke

Alistair said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?

I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,

My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.

If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture

Plato posted lies. Obvious, made up lies.

LOL it seems to have escaped you that all sides in the election posted lies. It was the same in brexit

"Posttruth" started in 1995 when "spin" and media management took off. Now the other side has got as good as you , your's moaning. But you're simply reaping what you sowed.

peter_from_putney

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

On the hands: the nails seem too long to be those of a serious manual worker. I'd *guess* they're the hands of a woman in her fifties or sixties.

It does look like one hand inverted. Look at the creases on the palms.

It is slightly disconcerting as a result, but on the other hand*, gets interest so achieves its object.

*couldn't resist!

It's definitely a male hand, singular, one being the mirror image of the other as confirmed by the identical lines in the palm and vein patterns. It is definitely a male hand, evidenced by the size and thickness of its base and also the wrist. Judging by its comparative size and particularly the shortish fingers, I would say it is the hand of a man of less than 5ft 6ins in height, who for some curious reason is wearing black or at least very dark nail polish.
If I were a good burgher of Richmond (which incidentally I very nearly am), there are too many oddities/contradictions relating to this picture for me to take it seriously.

Morris_Dancer

F1: my pre-race wibbling is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/abu-dhabi-pre-race-2016.html

Alanbrooke

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?

I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,

My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.

If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture

Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.

A useful idiot indeed.

As you say, let's look at the entire picture:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

So we can at least agree 619 was a bot.

JosiasJessop

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?

I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,

My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.

If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture

Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.

A useful idiot indeed.

As you say, let's look at the entire picture:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

So we can at least agree 619 was a bot.

And your point is?

Moses_

Paging Sunil

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/22/design/postal-museum-underground-railway/index.html

Even if you are not a fan this is still quite interesting.......

Alanbrooke

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?

I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,

My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.

If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture

Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.

A useful idiot indeed.

As you say, let's look at the entire picture:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

So we can at least agree 619 was a bot.

And your point is?

the one I made below, that all sides took extreme liberties in this election and to pick out one as worse that the other is pretty pointless.

foxinsoxuk

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I am sure it is all true, but Putins Russia is more like Czarist Russia than Stalins. It is a semi-developed country, of great resource, with great inequality and run by an authoritarian kleptocracy. It wants to spread its borders by influence rather invasion, except the former states of the USSR. It is no threat to us or our society.

Fake news and troll farms is something that we will have to adapt to, like we did to the yellow press in the past or to tabloid press barons.

Though I am sorry to see that the satirical fake news sites like Southend News Network, whose fake news is simply pointing at English absirdities, is being caught in the net.

http://southendnewsnetwork.com/news/southend-news-network-to-rebrand-as-southend-fat-loss-and-fascism-network-to-boost-facebook-reach/

foxinsoxuk

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Foxinsox, and if they go after the islands between them and Japan? Or invade Taiwan?

Considering that China's economy is Taiwan writ large, I cannot see that as a problem for us to get involved in.

JosiasJessop

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Hate crimes: Avoid polarising language, politicians urged"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38120596

Invective and exagerration are common political tools and tools of free speech, and much worthy commentary may be found within otherwise over the top commentary. Avoid beng hateful, by all means, but it has been an issue for some while that the fear of offending people, of being accused of being hateful, can stymie worthy points from being heard. We should not go whole hog inthe other direction, but I think people worry too much about polarising speech sometimes.

I agree with that to a certain extent. The problem is when people who want to sow hate: the racists, the homophobes, the sexists (and yes, even leftists), use free speech to further their own ends. When the points they want to make, and their reasons for making them, are far from worthy.

Opposing this, the desire of some to curtail free speech (e.g. safe areas) play into the hands of the very people they dislike.

(I'm not saying you are in any way do that).

My own view is that we should err on the side of free speech, but that also means that we should be allowed to call people racists, homophobes and sexists when we think they are such. And to apologise if we're proved wrong; if, as often happens on t'Internet, nuances are wrongly perceived or missing.

JosiasJessop

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

JosiasJessop said:

One for the "useful idiots" on here:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/11/research-confirms-that-russia-played-a-major-role-in-spreading-fake-news/

I suppose these independent researchers are independent in the sense they support the Clintons.

And what evidence made you come to that conclusion, or are you just trolling?

I'm asking a straight forward question based on my experience,

My recollection of the campaign on PB was the only bot we had was a Clinton one - 619 - who posted lots of Clinton propaganda and spent most of its time ridiculing people like Plato who subsequently proved to be correct.

If we're going to mention bots and spammers lets look at the whole picture

Nah, we had Plato as well. At least 619 sometimes defended the stuff (s)he posted. Plato was correct, but much of the evidence she gave before the election was bogus. I particularly lol'ed when she claimed to have read the stuff she was posting, when it was obvious she had not.

A useful idiot indeed.

As you say, let's look at the entire picture:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

So we can at least agree 619 was a bot.

And your point is?

the one I made below, that all sides took extreme liberties in this election and to pick out one as worse that the other is pretty pointless.

Well, I disagree, and I think that's a rather dangerous road to go down as well.

williamglenn

JosiasJessop said:

...but that also means that we should be allowed to call people racists, homophobes and sexists when we think they are such. And to apologise if we're proved wrong; if, as often happens on t'Internet, nuances are wrongly perceived or missing.

What does 'allowed' mean there? That you should be able to accuse and ask questions later with impunity, at no cost to your own reputation for jumping the gun?

Jonathan

The rediscovery of satire and humour to make political points is a key feature of current politics. Both the mainstream left and alt right use humour to make their points. In the later case humour often introduces and shields points beyond the Pale otherwise.

Arguably one of the things they makes Corbyn and the far left stand out and IMO weaken them is their lack of a sense of humour. It's very earnest and worthy all the time. Few like a holier than thou preacher.

Pulpstar

Fake news

Jonathan

Satire/humour has moved from commenting on the political debate to now being the core part of it.

YellowSubmarine

@foxinthesoxuk 3 former Soviet members are now EU and NATO members. Allowing a Communist Dictatorship to over run a multi party democracy like Taiwan would render the West's authority meaningless. Where would it all stop ?

peter_from_putney

Jonathan said:

The rediscovery of satire and humour to make political points is a key feature of current politics. Both the mainstream left and alt right use humour to make their points. In the later case humour often introduces and shields points beyond the Pale otherwise.

Arguably one of the things they makes Corbyn and the far left stand out and IMO weaken them is their lack of a sense of humour. It's very earnest and worthy all the time. Few like a holier than thou preacher.

Rather like Gordon Brown you mean, whereas the likes of Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, etc possess a somewhat lighter touch?
If you're right and I believe you may well be, who I wonder, amongst the current clutch of Labour leader wannabees has the required sense of humour as well an ever so slight sense of self-deprecation?

PlatoSaid

For those interested in Cuban Missile crisis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4XhIjBPEQ

Charles

I thought my new avatar might be appropriate for the current nature of political discourse

Many hearty congratulations to anyone who figures it out and why...

JosiasJessop

Charles said:

I thought my new avatar might be appropriate for the current nature of political discourse

Many hearty congratulations to anyone who figures it out and why...

Yep, that's apt.

I cheated and used Google Images, so won't say.

Jonathan

peter_from_putney said:

Jonathan said:

The rediscovery of satire and humour to make political points is a key feature of current politics. Both the mainstream left and alt right use humour to make their points. In the later case humour often introduces and shields points beyond the Pale otherwise.

Arguably one of the things they makes Corbyn and the far left stand out and IMO weaken them is their lack of a sense of humour. It's very earnest and worthy all the time. Few like a holier than thou preacher.

Rather like Gordon Brown you mean, whereas the likes of Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, etc possess a somewhat lighter touch?
If you're right and I believe you may well be, who I wonder, amongst the current clutch of Labour leader wannabees has the required sense of humour as well an ever so slight sense of self-deprecation?

It's tough. They need both a sense of humour and the judgement/experience of how to use it. The latter is as important as the former. Get it wrong and the joke's on you. Farron and Owen Smith fall foul of the latter.

YellowSubmarine

@tig86 It looks like Credit Balances are protected.

Budget energy supplier folds blaming rising prices

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/27/gb-energy-supplier-folds-blaming-rising-prices?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

YellowSubmarine

Charles said:

I thought my new avatar might be appropriate for the current nature of political discourse

Many hearty congratulations to anyone who figures it out and why...

You think Junker is going to take military action to stop us seceding ? Or that Trump will be assassinated ? On utilitarian and personal preference grounds I'd rather it was the later but...

Jonathan

Charles said:

I thought my new avatar might be appropriate for the current nature of political discourse

Many hearty congratulations to anyone who figures it out and why...

Redacted

peter_from_putney

Charles said:

I thought my new avatar might be appropriate for the current nature of political discourse

Many hearty congratulations to anyone who figures it out and why...

"figures it out" - have you acquired a mid-Atlantic accent already Charles?

As regards your new avatar, I'm afraid it's too dark to discern anything meaningful.

JosiasJessop

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

...but that also means that we should be allowed to call people racists, homophobes and sexists when we think they are such. And to apologise if we're proved wrong; if, as often happens on t'Internet, nuances are wrongly perceived or missing.

What does 'allowed' mean there? That you should be able to accuse and ask questions later with impunity, at no cost to your own reputation for jumping the gun?

That's a good question. 'Allowed' means legally within reason. Some of the stupid stuff that goes on within campuses where people are being prevented from speaking needs stopping, as does some of the no-platforming. And yes, those who accuse and have no basis for the accusations should be called out on it.

But the stupid 'Waycist!' stuff that appears on here and elsewhere is just as bad, and is as much an attempt at a safe space as anything that goes on at universities.