Considering Black Wednesday was the direct result of the Eurofanatics trying to tie us closer to the EU it is ironic to see one of he current crop of Tory Eurofanatics (who probably loved the ERM) referencing that event.
prime minister and the first non-white PM as well.
Some on this site seem obsessed with this topic, it’s odd. Especially since Conservatives state that they dislike identity politics.
Ha! Indeed. Other weird PB Tory obsessions I have noted with dismay include:
1. Writing “it’s a view” when they mean “I disagree” - deeply overused and unfunny 2. Invoking the five stages of grief (usually at Remainers) - deeply overused and unfunny 3. Telling us, over and again, how they didn’t like the Tube scene in His Darkest Hour
LOL at that last one. ‘Unspoofable’ is another favourite of PB Tories as well
Again, I am baffled that you think that - I find it highly improbable that only Tories have ever said 'unspooofable', therefore while it may be a meme, the idea it is a 'PB Tory' meme strikes me as very unlikely.
You might as well say talking about pineapples on Pizza is a PB Tory obsession. It's true, but are they the only ones doing it?
I don't know how to search PB for examples. But I do remember that on the two or three occasions it has been used against a comment of mine, it has been by a PB Tory.
It is an irritating comment. It actually means can't be spoofed i.e. can't be fooled but it is just used as an insult.
Apart from that not being the meaning, of course you will in your anecdotes have Tories use the word against you, you're left wing. You're hardly likely to get lefties saying it now. If and when other lefties (like the Guardian link) use the meme it is going to be aimed at Tories and other right wingers and not from them.
I take your point. Let's both watch out for examples to see if there is a pattern.
Spoof means deceive as in the pub game or in computing. Unspoofable therefore means can't be deceived or fooled. I note it has a secondary meaning of "gently satirize" which I assume is the sense used on PB. Anyway it is a lazy insult.
Disagree. I think “a spoof” is a deception while “to spoof” is to create a deception, not “to deceive”
Hence “unspoofable” means “impossible to create a deception” not “can’t be deceived”
But surely "to be spoofed" is to be deceived, thus unspoofable can also mean unable to be deceived?
(Although I also agree that it's usually used to mean "beyond parody".)
I take your point. Let's both watch out for examples to see if there is a pattern.
Spoof means deceive as in the pub game or in computing. Unspoofable therefore means can't be deceived or fooled. I note it has a secondary meaning of "gently satirize" which I assume is the sense used on PB. Anyway it is a lazy insult.
I promise you it doesn't mean that. It means "beyond parody".
Agreed. But it is lazy.
Come to think of it, it was the war-cry of Mick Pork, second only to tim as the scourge of PB tories.
I’d forgotten that. Whatever happened to him?
He was banned.
I think pound for pound we Gnats have had more bans than any other party, unless you consider the Holocaust deniers as such.
I am sure it is a badge of pride Divvie.
It’s not my site but I regret the loss of the posters I disagree with more than the others. The site needs diversity of views.
I'd imagine if the posters in question abased themselves before Yahweh Smithson, they might be able to creep back.
Hardly likely in the cases of the guys I'm thinking about though.
Don't banned posters just come back reincarated as someone else?
Not that I want to give succour to Remainers but what has Dan Hannan actually done about it?
I used to be a big fan of Dan’s and, particularly since he’s been the leading advocate of it for so long, I expected him to take some ownership, responsibility and bloody well get stuck in - just like Gove has. And so has Davis, to be fair. And as I offered to do for DexEU.
Instead he’s been academically pontificating on the sidelines. Not impressed.
He's...naïve. Perhaps childlike is a better way of putting it. He quotes from science-fiction novels ("...that hideous strength..."), holds childlike views ("wouldn't you prefer to trade with your friends"), has a simple, innocent faith in his view of the world and believes that those who disagree are bad and anything that goes wrong is due to bad people. Such simple faith is admirable but perhaps not best suited to positions of responsibility.
Parenthetically, you could describe quite a few modern pols as man-children: Corbyn, Rees-Mogg, and of course Boris. May, for all her problems (list available upon request) is at least a grown-up.
Not that I want to give succour to Remainers but what has Dan Hannan actually done about it?
I used to be a big fan of Dan’s and, particularly since he’s been the leading advocate of it for so long, I expected him to take some ownership, responsibility and bloody well get stuck in - just like Gove has. And so has Davis, to be fair. And as I offered to do for DexEU.
Instead he’s been academically pontificating on the sidelines. Not impressed.
He's...naïve. Perhaps childlike is a better way of putting it. He quotes from science-fiction novels ("...that hideous strength..."), holds childlike views ("wouldn't you prefer to trade with your friends"), has a simple, innocent faith in his view of the world and believes that those who disagree are bad and anything that goes wrong is due to bad people. Such simple faith is admirable but perhaps not best suited to positions of responsibility.
Parenthetically, you could describe quite a few modern pols as man-children: Corbyn, Rees-Mogg, and of course Boris. May, for all her problems (list available upon request) is at least a grown-up.
I doubt Lewisham East will be interesting at all. I lived there for 7 years and it will vote overwhelmingly for Labour whoever the candidate and whatever the campaign. I doubt the national effects of the antisemitism row will be mirrored in Lewisham - it's telling that two of the front-runners for the candidacy have already been identified as having made troubling social media posts.
There are a few corners of the constituency around Blackheath and Grove Park which are a bit bluer, but they're very much in the minority. The LDs were a distant third in GE2017 and while the bookies are getting excited about their chances in 2018, I just don't see the constituency having the right demographics for them to make a credible challenge to Labour.
I can't see any sense in betting on anything other than a very strong Labour hold. Turnout levels may be more interesting and telling than the actual vote share.
I cannot see the LD doing very well, they only got 2,000 votes in 2017 and that is 30,000 votes behind Labour. This will be an overwhelming Labour hold unfortunately and will strengthen Corbyn's grip on the PLP. Some of the ramping about LD prospects are laughable.
I agree. The Lib Dems have proven effective in some middle-class Tory Remain areas of pre-existing strength. Lewisham does not fit that description, by some distance.
Against Labour, the Lib Dems have had some good local by-election results but a parliamentary by-election is a different kettle of fish and the fact that the postal votes will go out in about 3 weeks gives them next to no time to organise.
If Labour pick some anti-EU Marxist then yes, the LDs might stand a Haringey-style chance, particularly if that leads to open internal warfare within Labour. But as long as they remain sellably mainstream, theycan canter in.
And now there’s Daniel Hannan, who popped up this week to agree the bed was being shat – I paraphrase slightly – and to concede that those suggesting Brexit is not working out quite how he thought it would “have got a point”. As Hannan put it: “I had assumed that, by now, we’d have reached a broad national consensus around a moderate form of withdrawal that recognised the narrowness of the result.” Had you? “Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups” – and if you weren’t a plastic populist, you’d have picked that up from Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.
Hyde displays her profound ignorance there. Hannan is anything but a populist as anyone who has actually read anything he has ever written will know. The woman is dumber than a bag of rocks.
She is plainly not dumb; she's totally nailed the idiocy of the Leave camp, many of whom are now running around in increasingly tighter circles looking for someone to blame.
Remember "they need us more than we need them"? Not hearing that so much these days?
But they do. And eventually, unless we just give in, that will count.
The EU needs the UK. The UK needs the EU more. We're talking orders of magnitude.
Amazing to think that Lewisham East and West were Tory seats in the Thatcher landslides. Indeed many of those 'half way' into central London seats were Tory in 1983 and 1987. I'd like to see a real challenge to Labour but like others I don't see it materialising here. Lets see.
I take your point. Let's both watch out for examples to see if there is a pattern.
Spoof means deceive as in the pub game or in computing. Unspoofable therefore means can't be deceived or fooled. I note it has a secondary meaning of "gently satirize" which I assume is the sense used on PB. Anyway it is a lazy insult.
I promise you it doesn't mean that. It means "beyond parody".
Agreed. But it is lazy.
Come to think of it, it was the war-cry of Mick Pork, second only to tim as the scourge of PB tories.
Not that I want to give succour to Remainers but what has Dan Hannan actually done about it?
I used to be a big fan of Dan’s and, particularly since he’s been the leading advocate of it for so long, I expected him to take some ownership, responsibility and bloody well get stuck in - just like Gove has. And so has Davis, to be fair. And as I offered to do for DexEU.
Instead he’s been academically pontificating on the sidelines. Not impressed.
He's...naïve. Perhaps childlike is a better way of putting it. He quotes from science-fiction novels ("...that hideous strength..."), holds childlike views ("wouldn't you prefer to trade with your friends"), has a simple, innocent faith in his view of the world and believes that those who disagree are bad and anything that goes wrong is due to bad people. Such simple faith is admirable but perhaps not best suited to positions of responsibility.
Parenthetically, you could describe quite a few modern pols as man-children: Corbyn, Rees-Mogg, and of course Boris. May, for all her problems (list available upon request) is at least a grown-up.
I take your point. Let's both watch out for examples to see if there is a pattern.
Spoof means deceive as in the pub game or in computing. Unspoofable therefore means can't be deceived or fooled. I note it has a secondary meaning of "gently satirize" which I assume is the sense used on PB. Anyway it is a lazy insult.
I promise you it doesn't mean that. It means "beyond parody".
Agreed. But it is lazy.
Come to think of it, it was the war-cry of Mick Pork, second only to tim as the scourge of PB tories.
I’d forgotten that. Whatever happened to him?
He was banned.
I think pound for pound we Gnats have had more bans than any other party, unless you consider the Holocaust deniers as such.
I am sure it is a badge of pride Divvie.
It’s not my site but I regret the loss of the posters I disagree with more than the others. The site needs diversity of views.
I'd imagine if the posters in question abased themselves before Yahweh Smithson, they might be able to creep back.
Hardly likely in the cases of the guys I'm thinking about though.
Don't banned posters just come back reincarated as someone else?
I take your point. Let's both watch out for examples to see if there is a pattern.
Spoof means deceive as in the pub game or in computing. Unspoofable therefore means can't be deceived or fooled. I note it has a secondary meaning of "gently satirize" which I assume is the sense used on PB. Anyway it is a lazy insult.
I promise you it doesn't mean that. It means "beyond parody".
Agreed. But it is lazy.
Come to think of it, it was the war-cry of Mick Pork, second only to tim as the scourge of PB tories.
I’d forgotten that. Whatever happened to him?
He was banned.
I think pound for pound we Gnats have had more bans than any other party, unless you consider the Holocaust deniers as such.
I am sure it is a badge of pride Divvie.
It’s not my site but I regret the loss of the posters I disagree with more than the others. The site needs diversity of views.
I'd imagine if the posters in question abased themselves before Yahweh Smithson, they might be able to creep back.
Hardly likely in the cases of the guys I'm thinking about though.
Don't banned posters just come back reincarated as someone else?
It has been rumoured so..
I think we deserve to see a definitive list.
Or perhaps posters could self-identify as their former selves?
I take your point. Let's both watch out for examples to see if there is a pattern.
Spoof means deceive as in the pub game or in computing. Unspoofable therefore means can't be deceived or fooled. I note it has a secondary meaning of "gently satirize" which I assume is the sense used on PB. Anyway it is a lazy insult.
I promise you it doesn't mean that. It means "beyond parody".
Agreed. But it is lazy.
Come to think of it, it was the war-cry of Mick Pork, second only to tim as the scourge of PB tories.
I’d forgotten that. Whatever happened to him?
He was banned.
I think pound for pound we Gnats have had more bans than any other party, unless you consider the Holocaust deniers as such.
I am sure it is a badge of pride Divvie.
It’s not my site but I regret the loss of the posters I disagree with more than the others. The site needs diversity of views.
I'd imagine if the posters in question abased themselves before Yahweh Smithson, they might be able to creep back.
Hardly likely in the cases of the guys I'm thinking about though.
Don't banned posters just come back reincarated as someone else?
It has been rumoured so..
We should have a 'rogues list' of recently banned posters at the top of the page so that we can all play spot the reincarnatee (if that's a word?).
Not that I want to give succour to Remainers but what has Dan Hannan actually done about it?
I used to be a big fan of Dan’s and, particularly since he’s been the leading advocate of it for so long, I expected him to take some ownership, responsibility and bloody well get stuck in - just like Gove has. And so has Davis, to be fair. And as I offered to do for DexEU.
Instead he’s been academically pontificating on the sidelines. Not impressed.
He's...naïve. Perhaps childlike is a better way of putting it. He quotes from science-fiction novels ("...that hideous strength..."), holds childlike views ("wouldn't you prefer to trade with your friends"), has a simple, innocent faith in his view of the world and believes that those who disagree are bad and anything that goes wrong is due to bad people. Such simple faith is admirable but perhaps not best suited to positions of responsibility.
Parenthetically, you could describe quite a few modern pols as man-children: Corbyn, Rees-Mogg, and of course Boris. May, for all her problems (list available upon request) is at least a grown-up.
Clearly you know very little about him. He certainly doesn't think that those who disagree with him are bad nor that failures are due to bad people. If you actually bothered to read any of his writings you would find his position is far closer to that of many Lib Dems than it is to classic Tories.
The UN would have more credibility on such matters if Saudi Arabia wasn't on their human rights council.
It seems as though the UN envoy is a junior academic.
Her publication list includes
Migration as Decolonization; Governing Xenophobia; The Fact of Xenophobia and the Fiction of State Sovereignty: Syria and the Responsibility to Protect Refugees: Structural Xenophobic Discrimination
Perusing these documents, it is clear she believes that migration is the legitimate dismantling of economic inequality originating in the European colonial project.
The UN would have more credibility on such matters if Saudi Arabia wasn't on their human rights council.
It seems as though the UN envoy is a junior academic.
Her publication list includes
Migration as Decolonization; Governing Xenophobia; The Fact of Xenophobia and the Fiction of State Sovereignty: Syria and the Responsibility to Protect Refugees: Structural Xenophobic Discrimination
Perusing these documents, it is clear she believes that migration is the legitimate dismantling of economic inequality originating in the European colonial project.
The Guardian has recent form for publicising junior academics as “experts”.
I take your point. Let's both watch out for examples to see if there is a pattern.
Spoof means deceive as in the pub game or in computing. Unspoofable therefore means can't be deceived or fooled. I note it has a secondary meaning of "gently satirize" which I assume is the sense used on PB. Anyway it is a lazy insult.
I promise you it doesn't mean that. It means "beyond parody".
Agreed. But it is lazy.
Come to think of it, it was the war-cry of Mick Pork, second only to tim as the scourge of PB tories.
I’d forgotten that. Whatever happened to him?
He was banned.
I think pound for pound we Gnats have had more bans than any other party, unless you consider the Holocaust deniers as such.
I am sure it is a badge of pride Divvie.
It’s not my site but I regret the loss of the posters I disagree with more than the others. The site needs diversity of views.
I'd imagine if the posters in question abased themselves before Yahweh Smithson, they might be able to creep back.
Hardly likely in the cases of the guys I'm thinking about though.
Don't banned posters just come back reincarated as someone else?
It has been rumoured so..
I think we deserve to see a definitive list.
Or perhaps posters could self-identify as their former selves?
If people are taxed on their work, why shouldn’t robots be?
Because as a practical solution to what might be a serious political problem in the relatively near future, it’s utterly impractical compared to the other means of taxation available ?
If people are taxed on their work, why shouldn’t robots be?
What benefits do robots get?
Define a robot. Should a teasmaid pay tax? What about your smart phone? Is Siri going to be raided at dawn by Customs and Excise?
Taxes almost always target the moment when money changes hands: from person to corporation (VAT), from corporation to person (income tax), etc. This is because this is the point at which value can be assessed.
What is the value that is being assessed in the case of a robot? Will it be based on notional output? How is that measured in the case that a robot is perhaps one tenth of a production line? If a man presses a button and a machine acts, is that a robot? What differentiates a robot from an automated production line?
And most importantly: surely the output from a robot is already taxed through the profits of a firm? And if it is not, perhaps the problem is the way corporation tax is avoided, rather than the existence of robots.
Late night quiz question: three men served as cabinet ministers continually from the beginning of Blair's Premiership in 1997, to the end of Brown's in 2010.
Jack Straw goes without saying, but who are the other two?
Late night quiz question: three men served as cabinet ministers continually from the beginning of Blair's Premiership in 1997, to the end of Brown's in 2010.
Jack Straw goes without saying, but who are the other two?
Late night quiz question: three men served as cabinet ministers continually from the beginning of Blair's Premiership in 1997, to the end of Brown's in 2010.
Jack Straw goes without saying, but who are the other two?
Late night quiz question: three men served as cabinet ministers continually from the beginning of Blair's Premiership in 1997, to the end of Brown's in 2010.
Jack Straw goes without saying, but who are the other two?
Is the PM technically a Cabinet minister?
Yes, and very good, you just knocked off one.
I have no clue about the other one. I know Reid had a lot of positions, but not sure if he was in the Cabinet way back in '97.
Late night quiz question: three men served as cabinet ministers continually from the beginning of Blair's Premiership in 1997, to the end of Brown's in 2010.
Jack Straw goes without saying, but who are the other two?
Late night quiz question: three men served as cabinet ministers continually from the beginning of Blair's Premiership in 1997, to the end of Brown's in 2010.
Jack Straw goes without saying, but who are the other two?
Comments
Parenthetically, you could describe quite a few modern pols as man-children: Corbyn, Rees-Mogg, and of course Boris. May, for all her problems (list available upon request) is at least a grown-up.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/11/uk-policies-austerity-immigration-fighting-terrorism-racist/
(apols, but I have this pedant gene ...
Against Labour, the Lib Dems have had some good local by-election results but a parliamentary by-election is a different kettle of fish and the fact that the postal votes will go out in about 3 weeks gives them next to no time to organise.
If Labour pick some anti-EU Marxist then yes, the LDs might stand a Haringey-style chance, particularly if that leads to open internal warfare within Labour. But as long as they remain sellably mainstream, theycan canter in.
('Self-identify', on the other hand, is intransitive.)
(grumble grumble grumble it's still shorter grumble grumble)
"He could always identify himself herself as a woman" ??
Or perhaps posters could self-identify as their former selves?
My train stop is coming up: gotta go.
Her publication list includes
Migration as Decolonization; Governing Xenophobia; The Fact of Xenophobia and the Fiction of State Sovereignty: Syria and the Responsibility to Protect Refugees: Structural Xenophobic Discrimination
Perusing these documents, it is clear she believes that migration is the legitimate dismantling of economic inequality originating in the European colonial project.
https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/995063500677484546?s=21
Unspoofable.
If people are taxed on their work, why shouldn’t robots be?
What is the value that is being assessed in the case of a robot? Will it be based on notional output? How is that measured in the case that a robot is perhaps one tenth of a production line? If a man presses a button and a machine acts, is that a robot? What differentiates a robot from an automated production line?
And most importantly: surely the output from a robot is already taxed through the profits of a firm? And if it is not, perhaps the problem is the way corporation tax is avoided, rather than the existence of robots.
Jack Straw should be hauled up and made to answer.
Late night quiz question: three men served as cabinet ministers continually from the beginning of Blair's Premiership in 1997, to the end of Brown's in 2010.
Jack Straw goes without saying, but who are the other two?