Yes it does work, better than we'd all hope, I'm sure, but I'm none the wiser how people are going to be able to judge the impacts of no deal in an objective manner even if they want to.
I fully agree we can't do an objective analysis because we are in unknown territory. However, to head straight to the worst possible scenario seems to me to be a defined political ploy.
Many people do this in life, mentally game all the possible scenarios and then try to game the less possible scenarios on the basis of "what's the worst that could happen?". Take that to its logical conclusion and you'd never do anything.
It comes down to risk management - in many situations simple measures can mitigate risk (it might rain so to stop getting wet I'll carry an umbrella or wear a hat. I'll have to deal with a wet umbrella or hat but I least the rest of me won't be wet) even if it can't eliminate it completely. Ensuring the country's food and power supplies are preserved and ensuring we have the medicines we need ought not to be too difficult and indeed an integral part of any risk analysis of the consequences of leaving without a Deal.
I can't imagine any halfway competent Government hasn't prepared so I'm left to conclude the apparent signs of ill-preparedness are a political ploy meant to scare people into backing May and her Deal.
Most people will lack the time or knowledge to completely assess the full extent of any impact. You don't think it will be anywhere near as bad as both government and opposition say it will be, fine, we can all hope you are correct, but for that vast majority who do not understand these things how does one make a judgement on it when so many say it will be a disaster? Just blindly believing the worst stories is, I am sure, unwise, but blindly following others who insist it will be fine seems equally unwise.
We touched on this before and as I had other things to do I couldn't properly respond to you.
This is about fear as a political weapon and tool. If you make people scared enough they will agree to anything and follow anyone. Supporters of the WA basically only have Fear left now - it didn't work on the MPs so they are hoping it will work on the population who will force the MPs to reconsider and ultimately accept the Deal.
Oddly enough, the same game is played with Corbyn as it was with Blair before him - make people (especially the elderly) believe a change in Government will mean their grandchildren will be sold into indentured servitude and they'll support the current Government whatever their reservations.
Unfortunately, fear works and going negative is the political manifestation. We saw this in the 2016 Referendum and we'll see it again in any subsequent vote.
There are some seriously boring places high on that list. Frankfurt, Munich, Zurich. Good grief.
Like all lists it's just something to argue about, but for pleasant living Zurich is very high on my list, and I know someone who liked living in Frankfurt. The same person is now in Vienna and loves it to bits, though.
It was an interesting list, but I thought it made some very strange assumptions. Hamburg is Germany's second city? Really? Won't Frankfurt and Bonn both have views on that? And who actually thinks Lyon is more significant than Marseilles, or a close rival to Paris?
I'm not sure either Istanbul or Naples are great to live in, but they are my favourite big European cities.
FWIW I think they claim to be measuring liveability, but the commentaries are very touristy - it's great to have some nice buildings, but if you live there, how often do you look at them? Do Londoners regularly visit Westminster Abbey, say?
Yes, if you're judging by quality of administration, Naples won't rank highly. If you're judging by excellent food and consumer goods, fascinating buildings and art, beautiful location and views, it would do.
Prague, Warsaw, Vienna and Ljubljana would be my choices. Budapest isn't bad either. Lyon is ok. I wouldn't touch Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt or Marseilles.
There seems a remarkable consensus that Germanic cities are boring. But Munich at a stretch.
Whilst I love visiting Switzerland I'm not sure I could live there. You could kill yourself on a Sunday in Geneva.
Vienna is vastly overrated. Vienna 1, the city centre, is beautiful and lots of fun, but very limited. The food scene is small and the fag smoke in the bars kills the nightlife.
The Tories could offer the Lib Dems a Remain/Deal referendum on condition the LDs go into coalition with them for the next 3 years?
Fine, the !ib dem requirements for coalition are PR for Westminster Lords Reform, an overhaul of Unviersal Credit and a softening of immigration family member rules such as income thresholds. Let's do this.
Yes it does work, better than we'd all hope, I'm sure, but I'm none the wiser how people are going to be able to judge the impacts of no deal in an objective manner even if they want to.
I fully agree we can't do an objective analysis because we are in unknown territory. However, to head straight to the worst possible scenario seems to me to be a defined political ploy.
Many people do this in life, mentally game all the possible scenarios and then try to game the less possible scenarios on the basis of "what's the worst that could happen?". Take that to its logical conclusion and you'd never do anything.
It comes down to risk management - in many situations simple measures can mitigate risk (it might rain so to stop getting wet I'll carry an umbrella or wear a hat. I'll have to deal with a wet umbrella or hat but I least the rest of me won't be wet) even if it can't eliminate it completely. Ensuring the country's food and power supplies are preserved and ensuring we have the medicines we need ought not to be too difficult and indeed an integral part of any risk analysis of the consequences of leaving without a Deal.
I can't imagine any halfway competent Government hasn't prepared so I'm left to conclude the apparent signs of ill-preparedness are a political ploy meant to scare people into backing May and her Deal.
I think you are wrong. We are in uncharted territory.
Yes it does work, better than we'd all hope, I'm sure, but I'm none the wiser how people are going to be able to judge the impacts of no deal in an objective manner even if they want to.
I fully agree we can't do an objective analysis because we are in unknown territory. However, to head straight to the worst possible scenario seems to me to be a defined political ploy.
Many people do this in life, mentally game all the possible scenarios and then try to game the less possible scenarios on the basis of "what's the worst that could happen?". Take that to its logical conclusion and you'd never do anything.
It comes down to risk management - in many situations simple measures can mitigate risk (it might rain so to stop getting wet I'll carry an umbrella or wear a hat. I'll have to deal with a wet umbrella or hat but I least the rest of me won't be wet) even if it can't eliminate it completely. Ensuring the country's food and power supplies are preserved and ensuring we have the medicines we need ought not to be too difficult and indeed an integral part of any risk analysis of the consequences of leaving without a Deal.
I can't imagine any halfway competent Government hasn't prepared so I'm left to conclude the apparent signs of ill-preparedness are a political ploy meant to scare people into backing May and her Deal.
What touching faith you have in the competence of our powers that be.
My source say they met last week "to plan a planning meeting". Seriously, that was a direct quote!
And how is Madrid in any sense livable for 3 months of the summer with 40deg highs?
Rekjyavik must be none too great for 3 months of the winter come to that.
No York. No Harrogate. No Winchester. No Bath. Yes Manchester. So obvs bollocks.
Almost noone British has heard of - still less visited - Plovdiv in Bulgaria, but it's superb.
You can visit there today, now, and be one of handful of British tourists in the whole city and fully experience it as a local would, with yourself being something of a curiosity.
Bizarrely, I'm going to see Tom Jones in Plovdiv later this year.....
The Tories could offer the Lib Dems a Remain/Deal referendum on condition the LDs go into coalition with them for the next 3 years?
Fine, the !ib dem requirements for coalition are PR for Westminster Lords Reform, an overhaul of Unviersal Credit and a softening of immigration family member rules such as income thresholds. Let's do this.
You've forgotten the Conservatives voluntarily standing down in 300 of their seats and supporting the Liberal Democrat candidate. Add that and it's a basis for negotiation.
Most people will lack the time or knowledge to completely assess the full extent of any impact. You don't think it will be anywhere near as bad as both government and opposition say it will be, fine, we can all hope you are correct, but for that vast majority who do not understand these things how does one make a judgement on it when so many say it will be a disaster? Just blindly believing the worst stories is, I am sure, unwise, but blindly following others who insist it will be fine seems equally unwise.
We touched on this before and as I had other things to do I couldn't properly respond to you.
This is about fear as a political weapon and tool. If you make people scared enough they will agree to anything and follow anyone. Supporters of the WA basically only have Fear left now - it didn't work on the MPs so they are hoping it will work on the population who will force the MPs to reconsider and ultimately accept the Deal.
Oddly enough, the same game is played with Corbyn as it was with Blair before him - make people (especially the elderly) believe a change in Government will mean their grandchildren will be sold into indentured servitude and they'll support the current Government whatever their reservations.
Unfortunately, fear works and going negative is the political manifestation. We saw this in the 2016 Referendum and we'll see it again in any subsequent vote.
I think that is spot on.
It did not prove particularly effective against Corbyn in 2017 even in the context of the two appalling atrocities prior to Polling Day - and it failed lamentably against Blair in 1997.
The Tories could offer the Lib Dems a Remain/Deal referendum on condition the LDs go into coalition with them for the next 3 years?
Fine, the !ib dem requirements for coalition are PR for Westminster Lords Reform, an overhaul of Unviersal Credit and a softening of immigration family member rules such as income thresholds. Let's do this.
You've forgotten the Conservatives voluntarily standing down in 300 of their seats and supporting the Liberal Democrat candidate. Add that and it's a basis for negotiation.
Yes it does work, better than we'd all hope, I'm sure, but I'm none the wiser how people are going to be able to judge the impacts of no deal in an objective manner even if they want to.
I fully agree we can't do an objective analysis because we are in unknown territory. However, to head straight to the worst possible scenario seems to me to be a defined political ploy.
Many people do this in life, mentally game all the possible scenarios and then try to game the less possible scenarios on the basis of "what's the worst that could happen?". Take that to its logical conclusion and you'd never do anything.
It comes down to risk management - in many situations simple measures can mitigate risk (it might rain so to stop getting wet I'll carry an umbrella or wear a hat. I'll have to deal with a wet umbrella or hat but I least the rest of me won't be wet) even if it can't eliminate it completely. Ensuring the country's food and power supplies are preserved and ensuring we have the medicines we need ought not to be too difficult and indeed an integral part of any risk analysis of the consequences of leaving without a Deal.
I can't imagine any halfway competent Government hasn't prepared so I'm left to conclude the apparent signs of ill-preparedness are a political ploy meant to scare people into backing May and her Deal.
What touching faith you have in the competence of our powers that be.
My source say they met last week "to plan a planning meeting". Seriously, that was a direct quote!
About half my job seems to revolve around trying to get enough powerful people in a room so that they can plan a planning meeting for something, so that the underlings can make a start. I can well believe that sort of thing.
Probably something different to what their modern day fanboys think.
That could be seen as to be directed at me. I suggest you correct any such misapprehensions immediately, otherwise you'll be needing to practice your marksmanship, swordsmanship, or just plain luck quite urgently.
I realise that it was probably inadvertent and that you hadn't seen your life ending in quite so swift and unimportant sort of way, but I can only suggest that should you survive you're more careful in the future.
Eh? Merely making the point that 'what would x do' questions are inherently silly. It doesn't matter who the x is.
Unless he’s loving it, it looks set to go on, so he’ll exploit every shred of vindictive against him as his excuse for staying put
The threats of revenge against him are pretty pointless, no matter if believed justified or not. He's going nowhere in the short term, another government will get in at some point and give him a peerage if he's denied one while Tories are in office, and he's only going to be even more vindictive.
And how is Madrid in any sense livable for 3 months of the summer with 40deg highs?
Rekjyavik must be none too great for 3 months of the winter come to that.
No York. No Harrogate. No Winchester. No Bath. Yes Manchester. So obvs bollocks.
Manchester is a great city.
Honestly? No. I know in theory it should be good, but every time I get off the train there my spidey-sense goes off. It's not just the drug-addled tramps, it's something else.
My feelings for areas are sometimes just that: feelings, not based on logic. Liverpool never fails to put a big grin on my face. I fell in love with York on sight. But Manchester just...no. Just no.
Oh I’m a silly goose. But I have only just got in and read David’s interesting header. So
O/T
Having conceded the principle of the issue for the transition period, it’s a small step to make the arrangement permanent.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that bit. I small chip of the CU iceberg was in the agreement, sensed government would rather it was not there as it make the WA harder to float, they spent most of a month assuring us it was inconsequential would melt away to nothing and not ever get in the way... and then it sunk them by ginormous 230. Seems a big step from there to taking on the whole iceberg on permanent basis?
The main bit I would like to clarify when you say Customs Union, do you mean The EU CU or as Labour say A CU with EU?
I’ll give you my take. When Labour say A instead of The they are talking gibberish. There’s only one on the table, why would the EU create a second just for us? Have Labour ever spelt out the important difference between the two?
And how is Madrid in any sense livable for 3 months of the summer with 40deg highs?
Rekjyavik must be none too great for 3 months of the winter come to that.
No York. No Harrogate. No Winchester. No Bath. Yes Manchester. So obvs bollocks.
Manchester is a great city.
Honestly? No. I know in theory it should be good, but every time I get off the train there my spidey-sense goes off. It's not just the drug-addled tramps, it's something else.
My feelings for areas are sometimes just that: feelings, not based on logic. Liverpool never fails to put a big grin on my face. I fell in love with York on sight. But Manchester just...no. Just no.
@BBCNewsPR Follow Follow @BBCNewsPR More We've reviewed what was said re polling on @bbcquestiontime. A YouGov poll published on the day of the programme suggested a lead for the Conservatives. Diane Abbott was also right that some other polls suggested Labour either as ahead or tied, & we should have made that clear.
Comments
Churchill: overrule the electorate and revoke Article 50
What do we make of this ? Could he really get this through , how will government prevent this?
http://theconversation.com/what-churchill-really-thought-about-britains-place-in-europe-36613
Many people do this in life, mentally game all the possible scenarios and then try to game the less possible scenarios on the basis of "what's the worst that could happen?". Take that to its logical conclusion and you'd never do anything.
It comes down to risk management - in many situations simple measures can mitigate risk (it might rain so to stop getting wet I'll carry an umbrella or wear a hat. I'll have to deal with a wet umbrella or hat but I least the rest of me won't be wet) even if it can't eliminate it completely. Ensuring the country's food and power supplies are preserved and ensuring we have the medicines we need ought not to be too difficult and indeed an integral part of any risk analysis of the consequences of leaving without a Deal.
I can't imagine any halfway competent Government hasn't prepared so I'm left to conclude the apparent signs of ill-preparedness are a political ploy meant to scare people into backing May and her Deal.
Talk to people on a Tube Train
Tory+UKIP = 45%, 44%, 44% in those three polls
Lab+LDem = 47%, 47% and, er, 47%
Coincidence, no doubt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/16/hammond-phone-call-full-transcript-conversation-11-business/
My source say they met last week "to plan a planning meeting". Seriously, that was a direct quote!
Much better if we could just have an untrammelled executive allowed to do as it pleased. Like they do in China, maybe?
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1086736325351534593
NEW THREAD
Is the Ban Hammer only invoked for citing Scottish subsamples? Are Welsh fair game?
(ii) Invade Iceland
Let’s all rejoice at that news!
My feelings for areas are sometimes just that: feelings, not based on logic. Liverpool never fails to put a big grin on my face. I fell in love with York on sight. But Manchester just...no. Just no.
Oh I’m a silly goose. But I have only just got in and read David’s interesting header. So
O/T
Having conceded the principle of the issue for the transition period, it’s a small step to make the arrangement permanent.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that bit. I small chip of the CU iceberg was in the agreement, sensed government would rather it was not there as it make the WA harder to float, they spent most of a month assuring us it was inconsequential would melt away to nothing and not ever get in the way... and then it sunk them by ginormous 230. Seems a big step from there to taking on the whole iceberg on permanent basis?
The main bit I would like to clarify when you say Customs Union, do you mean The EU CU or as Labour say A CU with EU?
I’ll give you my take. When Labour say A instead of The they are talking gibberish. There’s only one on the table, why would the EU create a second just for us? Have Labour ever spelt out the important difference between the two?
So David I take it you mean The CU?
Ben needs a PB site for beginners
BBC News Press Team
Verified account
@BBCNewsPR
Follow Follow @BBCNewsPR
More
We've reviewed what was said re polling on @bbcquestiontime. A YouGov poll published on the day of the programme suggested a lead for the Conservatives. Diane Abbott was also right that some other polls suggested Labour either as ahead or tied, & we should have made that clear.