Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters give the Tories a 67% chance of winning most seats but

123468

Comments

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    You don't think those ads ARE gender stereotyping?

    Or you do but think gender stereotyping is not harmful?

    Or you do, and you do, but think such ads should nevertheless be aired?
    On your first question, it seems to me that the VW does show gender stereotyping, but the Philadelphia one doesn't.

    Personally I think it's stark raving bonkers to have bureaucrats to determine such things, and a ludicrous over-reaction to ban such ads, not to mention a disgraceful breach of free speech, but there we go.
    I thought the VW one wasn't a good advert as such. I like quirky adverts, but that wasn't informative or amusing. IMHO anyway.
  • kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    We generally struggle most at Lords and find Edgbaston easiest in my experience. So the first Test has really done us no favours.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited August 2019
    Andrew said:

    O/T Substantial movement on the impeachment market in the last couple of hours (5.3 in to 3.85) - anyone know the immediate cause?

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.148087688


    Prolly just a reaction to a new article:
    https://betting.betfair.com/politics/us-politics/donald-trump-presidency-betting---democrats-are-heading-towards-impeachment-140819-171.html

    Not a very liquid market atm so doesn't take much.
    Yes, it will be that, thanks.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    edited August 2019
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    BBC comment just now (2.09) ; Covers full off, umpires milling around, players looking suspiciously at the pitch. We're in serious danger of some cricket breaking out.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    kinabalu said:

    If you insist on saying 'Corbyn Labour' can you also say 'Bozo Tories' for balance?

    Optimistic to look to a Conservative PPB for political balance, TBF.
    To be fair HYFUD is a lot more balanced , than some of the new posters who have just appeared gab2 and leslie48 to name but two.

    I guess a possible election fires up the trolls.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited August 2019
    Andrew said:

    O/T Substantial movement on the impeachment market in the last couple of hours (5.3 in to 3.85) - anyone know the immediate cause?

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.148087688


    Prolly just a reaction to a new article:
    https://betting.betfair.com/politics/us-politics/donald-trump-presidency-betting---democrats-are-heading-towards-impeachment-140819-171.html

    Not a very liquid market atm so doesn't take much.
    Someone wants to lay £6.5K at 3.5 for Yes, though.

    Edit: Not any more!
  • My understanding is there is only one deal that parliament has approved and that would require the removal of the backstop.

    The EU are refusing to consider removing the backstop.

    Another extension therefore is utterly pointless other than to buy time for remainers to keep working on a plan to overturn the referendum result.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    leslie48 said:

    We must always say 'Corbyn Labour' because this is a different entity to previous Labour and disliked by just about every section of the voters from young to old , urban and rural , college and non-college , working class and middle class, English and non-English regions.. Boris will easily beat Corbyn and it is to the eternal shame of Labour members that they allow McCluskey, Milne and the other ex-Communists to run this dreadful cult depriving our country of a proper and normal opposition. The abysmal defeat of the modern Labour party now being polled leaves these Stalinist's as enemies of the people.

    Seems to sum it up pretty well.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Got new glasses for the first time in years. Forgotten how weird it can be.

    Captain Buzzkill, the EU asking Johnson to propose something else is legitimate. But to claim to be open to talks whilst refusing to change anything is clearly silly buggers.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    BBC comment just now (2.09) ; Covers full off, umpires milling around, players looking suspiciously at the pitch. We're in serious danger of some cricket breaking out.
    Don't get too excited...

    https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    You don't think those ads ARE gender stereotyping?

    Or you do but think gender stereotyping is not harmful?

    Or you do, and you do, but think such ads should nevertheless be aired?
    On your first question, it seems to me that the VW does show gender stereotyping, but the Philadelphia one doesn't.

    Personally I think it's stark raving bonkers to have bureaucrats to determine such things, and a ludicrous over-reaction to ban such ads, not to mention a disgraceful breach of free speech, but there we go.
    I thought the VW one wasn't a good advert as such. I like quirky adverts, but that wasn't informative or amusing. IMHO anyway.
    Of course it was rubbish. It was a car advert. Have you ever seen a car advert that was informative or amusing? Serious question.

    But to claim it was showing gender stereotypes and therefore needed to be banned - ridiculous.

    And the irony is of course that there will be millions of people out there looking for those adverts on YouTube to see what he fuss is about who would otherwise never have seen them. So it will have exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    TOPPING said:

    Thanks for your input into the workings of the Conservative Party. But as has been pointed out "a deal in six months"? The WA took two years and wasn't a deal it was a few preliminaries so that a deal could be done. The only thing that Boris could do in six months is to address the three main points that the EU has said will still be outstanding before negotiation of a deal can commence - citizens, money, backstop.

    That places him exactly where May was, where he is now, and where he would be should he pursue that route.

    Well by 'Deal' I mean the WA, obviously. Essentially that, but with a lick of paint.

    He tries to get that passed and then, succeed or fail, a GE in spring 2020.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300


    These days, the interweb thingy we are using means that even the initial application can now be sent in August, just like in Clearing. This means students who do better than expected can apply for top degrees like PPE at Oxford. Then, just like in Clearing and in Ireland, the universities can make offers on the basis of actual results.

    It is entirely possible to do all this with no changes to school terms or exam timetables.

    "...top degrees like PPE at Oxford", LOL

    Your postings betray no understanding of the situation, as Foxy, YDoethur and myself have all told you.

    Rayner is not arguing that Universities make offers on the basis of results. She is arguing that students must have their A Level results before they even apply to University.

    The processing of University applications by about half a million students cannot begin on or after August 15th and be completed in about a month -- unless you are proposing a massive increase in hiring Lecturers to consider all the applications.

    What do you mean the interweby thing? The time is not consumed by delays in the postal service.

    The time is consumed by the fact that for a course like PPE, there are ~ 250 places and many thousands of well-qualified applicants.
    What you are saying is the process we have now takes six months. That much, I can accept. I do not disagree with you there. I am saying that a slightly modified process can take six weeks, as is shown by Ireland and by Clearing. For instance, why would we need to hire lecturers to weed out applicants who have not got the grades when that could be done at the touch of a button? It could even be done at the point of application because, of course, the results would already be known.

    We'd then be left with a modified auction or exchange process as departments raise or lower requirements to get the right numbers, and students accept or refuse offers. Computers can handle that too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    BBC comment just now (2.09) ; Covers full off, umpires milling around, players looking suspiciously at the pitch. We're in serious danger of some cricket breaking out.
    The umpires have inspected the pitch and decided it is safe to have another inspection.
  • ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    Awkward. Old Trafford is always a higher risk of being a draw, if it is and this is a draw then that leaves only 2 games remaining both of which are then must-wins.

    Remember a tied series is the Aussies celebrating retaining the Ashes. We have to win outright.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    TOPPING said:

    leslie48 said:

    We must always say 'Corbyn Labour' because this is a different entity to previous Labour and disliked by just about every section of the voters from young to old , urban and rural , college and non-college , working class and middle class, English and non-English regions.. Boris will easily beat Corbyn and it is to the eternal shame of Labour members that they allow McCluskey, Milne and the other ex-Communists to run this dreadful cult depriving our country of a proper and normal opposition. The abysmal defeat of the modern Labour party now being polled leaves these Stalinist's as enemies of the people.

    Seems to sum it up pretty well.
    What is said about Corbyn surely applies also to Boris. Brexit is hardly traditional Conservatism, "no deal" Brexit less so, while proroguing parliament is far more revolutionary than anything planned by the honourable member for manhole covers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    At least with the wonderful policy positions of the OMRLP you know they're not meant to be taken too seriously.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    Awkward. Old Trafford is always a higher risk of being a draw, if it is and this is a draw then that leaves only 2 games remaining both of which are then must-wins.

    Remember a tied series is the Aussies celebrating retaining the Ashes. We have to win outright.
    England haven't lost at Old Trafford in 18 years and in that time only two tests have been drawn - 2005 and 2013. Admittedly both of them were against Australia.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    TOPPING said:

    leslie48 said:

    We must always say 'Corbyn Labour' because this is a different entity to previous Labour and disliked by just about every section of the voters from young to old , urban and rural , college and non-college , working class and middle class, English and non-English regions.. Boris will easily beat Corbyn and it is to the eternal shame of Labour members that they allow McCluskey, Milne and the other ex-Communists to run this dreadful cult depriving our country of a proper and normal opposition. The abysmal defeat of the modern Labour party now being polled leaves these Stalinist's as enemies of the people.

    Seems to sum it up pretty well.
    What is said about Corbyn surely applies also to Boris. Brexit is hardly traditional Conservatism, "no deal" Brexit less so, while proroguing parliament is far more revolutionary than anything planned by the honourable member for manhole covers.
    I keep telling people Corbyn and Johnson are two cheeks of the same arse!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    BBC comment just now (2.09) ; Covers full off, umpires milling around, players looking suspiciously at the pitch. We're in serious danger of some cricket breaking out.
    The umpires have inspected the pitch and decided it is safe to have another inspection.
    More likely it is safe to have another toasted teacake and cup of tea!
  • What you are saying is the process we have now takes six months. That much, I can accept. I do not disagree with you there. I am saying that a slightly modified process can take six weeks, as is shown by Ireland and by Clearing. For instance, why would we need to hire lecturers to weed out applicants who have not got the grades when that could be done at the touch of a button? It could even be done at the point of application because, of course, the results would already be known.

    We'd then be left with a modified auction or exchange process as departments raise or lower requirements to get the right numbers, and students accept or refuse offers. Computers can handle that too.

    The issue is that the selection on those courses isn't being done by course grades. There are hundreds of places and thousands of candidates who have the right grades. One issue is we clump people together with grades.

    When I lived in Austalia, the VCEs [Victorian version of A-Level] were viciously competitive. You don't get a letter or number category, intead from memory you get a percentile ranking to 0.05% of a place. Thus there might be 7 people in the entire state to get a top ranking of 99.95, then 7 more who get 99.90 etc

    I'm going off memory here and didn't do that [I did the International Baccalaureate] but this ensured a more cut-throat and cleaner competition. You didn't have thousands all getting the same A grade, the top of what would be an A was distinguishable from the bottom.

    It would be possible to do what you're suggesting with that system, not our current one.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,800
    Afternoon all :)

    Interesting Survation poll but huge volatility across the pollsters and as I've said before so much of this is weaponised political propaganda.

    We also have Survation saying only 19% favour leaving without a Deal while Opinium had 46% at the weekend. That's absurd but it keeps the argument going as both sides have some "evidence" they can wheel out.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    Thanks for your input into the workings of the Conservative Party. But as has been pointed out "a deal in six months"? The WA took two years and wasn't a deal it was a few preliminaries so that a deal could be done. The only thing that Boris could do in six months is to address the three main points that the EU has said will still be outstanding before negotiation of a deal can commence - citizens, money, backstop.

    That places him exactly where May was, where he is now, and where he would be should he pursue that route.

    Well by 'Deal' I mean the WA, obviously. Essentially that, but with a lick of paint.

    He tries to get that passed and then, succeed or fail, a GE in spring 2020.
    Problem is that the pesky parliamentary arithmetic won't change and Lab as a matter of policy won't support a Boris tweaked WA. Nor will the DUP as it stands (and I think it will continue to stand if we are to take the EU at their word).

    Now, as a WA pass believer, I suppose one option is for Boris to say it really is the deal or Jezza but how the fuckety fucking fuck does it actually get to pass?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    ydoethur said:

    At least with the wonderful policy positions of the OMRLP you know they're not meant to be taken too seriously.
    I did check the OP for the date. To be fair to Mr Forman, a quick glance at his tweets suggests most are tongue-in-cheek. He could do worse as a comedy writer.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    edited August 2019
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    You don't think those ads ARE gender stereotyping?

    Or you do but think gender stereotyping is not harmful?

    Or you do, and you do, but think such ads should nevertheless be aired?
    On your first question, it seems to me that the VW does show gender stereotyping, but the Philadelphia one doesn't.

    Personally I think it's stark raving bonkers to have bureaucrats to determine such things, and a ludicrous over-reaction to ban such ads, not to mention a disgraceful breach of free speech, but there we go.
    I thought the VW one wasn't a good advert as such. I like quirky adverts, but that wasn't informative or amusing. IMHO anyway.
    Of course it was rubbish. It was a car advert. Have you ever seen a car advert that was informative or amusing? Serious question.

    But to claim it was showing gender stereotypes and therefore needed to be banned - ridiculous.

    And the irony is of course that there will be millions of people out there looking for those adverts on YouTube to see what he fuss is about who would otherwise never have seen them. So it will have exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.
    The best one was (IIRC) the spoof Renault advert, when they were running the Nicole/Papa series. It had Nicole as a street-walker and Papa as a potential punter.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753

    TOPPING said:

    leslie48 said:

    We must always say 'Corbyn Labour' because this is a different entity to previous Labour and disliked by just about every section of the voters from young to old , urban and rural , college and non-college , working class and middle class, English and non-English regions.. Boris will easily beat Corbyn and it is to the eternal shame of Labour members that they allow McCluskey, Milne and the other ex-Communists to run this dreadful cult depriving our country of a proper and normal opposition. The abysmal defeat of the modern Labour party now being polled leaves these Stalinist's as enemies of the people.

    Seems to sum it up pretty well.
    What is said about Corbyn surely applies also to Boris. Brexit is hardly traditional Conservatism, "no deal" Brexit less so, while proroguing parliament is far more revolutionary than anything planned by the honourable member for manhole covers.
    Don't disagree. Boris is a divisive, solipsistic twat. But on Brexit they are matching strides. Take Brexit out of it all (hahaha I know) and Boris' stated policies seem sensible enough vs Corbyn's Labour aspirations.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,800
    Some comment on Johnson's blatant electioneering on law and order:

    https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/08/johnsons-justice-plans-monumental-waste-money?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=

    Reform have misunderstood the Johnson/Patel actions as serious policy proposals which of course they aren't. They are an attempt to look "tough" on crime to win support before an election. Johnson, as Mayor of London, oversaw cuts in Police numbers and the closure of operational Police stations.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Sean_F said:

    In general, I don't like the idea of policing ideas.

    No, that does sound rather sinister.

    But can the ad industry self-regulating be fairly described as policing?

    And is gender stereotyping an idea?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    BBC comment just now (2.09) ; Covers full off, umpires milling around, players looking suspiciously at the pitch. We're in serious danger of some cricket breaking out.
    The umpires have inspected the pitch and decided it is safe to have another inspection.
    More likely it is safe to have another toasted teacake and cup of tea!
    Are you saying they want jam on it?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    You don't think those ads ARE gender stereotyping?

    Or you do but think gender stereotyping is not harmful?

    Or you do, and you do, but think such ads should nevertheless be aired?
    On your first question, it seems to me that the VW does show gender stereotyping, but the Philadelphia one doesn't.

    Personally I think it's stark raving bonkers to have bureaucrats to determine such things, and a ludicrous over-reaction to ban such ads, not to mention a disgraceful breach of free speech, but there we go.
    I thought the VW one wasn't a good advert as such. I like quirky adverts, but that wasn't informative or amusing. IMHO anyway.
    Of course it was rubbish. It was a car advert. Have you ever seen a car advert that was informative or amusing? Serious question.

    But to claim it was showing gender stereotypes and therefore needed to be banned - ridiculous.

    And the irony is of course that there will be millions of people out there looking for those adverts on YouTube to see what he fuss is about who would otherwise never have seen them. So it will have exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.
    The best one was (IIRC) the spoof Renault advert, when they were running the Nicole/Papa series. It had Nicole as a street-walker and Papa as a potential punter.
    That on its own says quite a lot.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Filching policies from the musical Camelot.

  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695
    Streeter said:

    kjh said:

    Streeter said:

    kjh said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    Agree they are just jokes.
    No, they are appallingly sexist. What is wrong with you?
    See my other response. Your response was a bit over the top, but in fairness my comment was short and not explained. Hopefully my more detailed response will make you feel better about my view. I am strongly in favour of equality, but feel these are harmless bits of fun not to be taken seriously.
    Do a thought experiment and reverse the genders. You may come to a different conclusion.
    No not at all. In our house for instance the roles are largely reversed anyway. We have harmless jokes at each other's expense. Similarly my wife is Scottish and I'm English. Usual patter there. A close friend who is gay and, I'm straight. Same thing. But then none of us are bigoted. Banter around diy skills, girls can't throw, multi tasking, etc all in fun. I think it is pretty obvious when someone is bigoted and believes the message being portrayed and when there is a laugh to be had.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    It's still abstract though: A deal, not THE deal. I suspect a chunk of those supporting a deal in principle will still reject the Withdrawal Agreement accepted by May that includes the backstop. This is the only deal currently available.
    REMAIN Is the only game in town.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,473

    <
    More evidence there is no need to bugger about with school terms and exam dates.

    Irish universities make offers after the results are known in August. Here are the 2016 dates:

    Round One – 22 August 2016: the main body of offers are issued in the week following the release of the Irish Leaving Certificate Examination results

    Round Two – 1 September 2016: another round of offers issued

    Offers are issued on a weekly basis until mid-October to fill any remaining vacancies.

    https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/international/europe/ireland/applying-to-an-irish-university/

    Students in Ireland therefore apply to University ****before**** the Irish Leaving Certificate is known.

    Just as in the UK.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/14/labour-scrap-predicted-grades-university-admissions-fairer

    The whole point is Rayner wants students to apply for higher education courses ****after**** they receive their exam results.

    This is a direct quote from Rayner's article " This means that students will apply for higher education courses after they receive their exam results"

    You seem fully qualified to join Corbyn's front bench team.
    These days, the interweb .
    "...top degrees like PPE at Oxford", LOL

    Your postings betray no understanding of the situation, as Foxy, YDoethur and myself have all told you.

    Rayner is not arguing that Universities make offers on the basis of results. She is arguing that students must have their A Level results before they even apply to University.

    The processing of University applications by about half a million students cannot begin on or after August 15th and be completed in about a month -- unless you are proposing a massive increase in hiring Lecturers to consider all the applications.

    What do you mean the interweby thing? The time is not consumed by delays in the postal service.

    The time is consumed by the fact that for a course like PPE, there are ~ 250 places and many thousands of well-qualified applicants.
    Extra points at admission for actual results, increasing each year, are a relatively painless way to transition to a year off. I think graduate employers as well as students would benefit from graduates having frontline experience of work. My time working in petrol stations, bars and fast foods benefited my work. It certainly stops graduates from moaning. They know how hard it is to ean an honest crust.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    Play starting at 3.30pm. Probably!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    edited August 2019
    Here's another one to mull over:

    A-level grade boundaries leaked ahead of results day
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49347539

    The headline is not terribly important, to be honest. We all get results a day early. We just don't talk about them. The person who did is a twat, but is not giving away anything of vital import.

    What is interesting is the 55% to get A in Maths - bearing in mind this is the new A-level.

    Now call me old-fashioned, but I think a good assessment is one that gives you a full range of grades across a wide spectrum so it helps you clearly differentiate between candidates.

    Which this clearly hasn't. Coupled to reports of inconsistencies in marking - not helped by the fact that principal and even chief examiners don't understand the criteria and can't therefore set meaningful standards - these exams are proving a disaster.

    And remember - it was Dominic Cummings who cocked all this one up.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,853
    stodge said:

    Some comment on Johnson's blatant electioneering on law and order:

    https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/08/johnsons-justice-plans-monumental-waste-money?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=

    Reform have misunderstood the Johnson/Patel actions as serious policy proposals which of course they aren't. They are an attempt to look "tough" on crime to win support before an election. Johnson, as Mayor of London, oversaw cuts in Police numbers and the closure of operational Police stations.

    Corbyn is walking straight into the rather obvious traps Patel and Johnson are putting down for him though.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited August 2019

    What you are saying is the process we have now takes six months. That much, I can accept. I do not disagree with you there. I am saying that a slightly modified process can take six weeks, as is shown by Ireland and by Clearing. For instance, why would we need to hire lecturers to weed out applicants who have not got the grades when that could be done at the touch of a button? It could even be done at the point of application because, of course, the results would already be known.

    We'd then be left with a modified auction or exchange process as departments raise or lower requirements to get the right numbers, and students accept or refuse offers. Computers can handle that too.

    The issue is that the selection on those courses isn't being done by course grades. There are hundreds of places and thousands of candidates who have the right grades. One issue is we clump people together with grades.

    When I lived in Austalia, the VCEs [Victorian version of A-Level] were viciously competitive. You don't get a letter or number category, intead from memory you get a percentile ranking to 0.05% of a place. Thus there might be 7 people in the entire state to get a top ranking of 99.95, then 7 more who get 99.90 etc

    I'm going off memory here and didn't do that [I did the International Baccalaureate] but this ensured a more cut-throat and cleaner competition. You didn't have thousands all getting the same A grade, the top of what would be an A was distinguishable from the bottom.

    It would be possible to do what you're suggesting with that system, not our current one.
    As you say, there might in some cases need to be a lottery element if there are two or even two hundred equally qualified applicants for the last remaining place, however finely-graded is the marking scheme. There is now, except it is neither explicit nor fair. From memory, some countries do use lottery systems and it has been mooted in this country on grounds of fairness. But again, computers can handle this, and they can process personal statements and weigh applications by school, class, ethnicity and whatever else is deemed appropriate, and a damn sight faster than hundreds of lecturers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    Play starting at 3.30pm. Probably!

    If they do get play I imagine it's a day to put the other side in.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    ydoethur said:

    What is interesting is the 55% to get A in Maths - bearing in mind this is the new A-level.

    Now call me old-fashioned, but I think a good assessment is one that gives you a full range of grades across a wide spectrum so it helps you clearly differentiate between candidates.

    Which this clearly hasn't. Coupled to reports of inconsistencies in marking - not helped by the fact that principal and even chief examiners don't understand the criteria and can't therefore set meaningful standards - these exams are proving a disaster.

    And remember - it was Dominic Cummings who cocked all this one up.

    https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/1161559590670077957
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,695

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    You don't think those ads ARE gender stereotyping?

    Or you do but think gender stereotyping is not harmful?

    Or you do, and you do, but think such ads should nevertheless be aired?
    On your first question, it seems to me that the VW does show gender stereotyping, but the Philadelphia one doesn't.

    Personally I think it's stark raving bonkers to have bureaucrats to determine such things, and a ludicrous over-reaction to ban such ads, not to mention a disgraceful breach of free speech, but there we go.
    I thought the VW one wasn't a good advert as such. I like quirky adverts, but that wasn't informative or amusing. IMHO anyway.
    Of course it was rubbish. It was a car advert. Have you ever seen a car advert that was informative or amusing? Serious question.

    But to claim it was showing gender stereotypes and therefore needed to be banned - ridiculous.

    And the irony is of course that there will be millions of people out there looking for those adverts on YouTube to see what he fuss is about who would otherwise never have seen them. So it will have exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.
    The best one was (IIRC) the spoof Renault advert, when they were running the Nicole/Papa series. It had Nicole as a street-walker and Papa as a potential punter.
    Who Dares Win did a spoof on Allo Allo set in a bar in Northern Island during the troubles.

    That was unsettling. And @Streeter suggestion to me to reverse the roles is a good suggestion, because that really did translate what appeared to be a harmless comedy into something really disturbing.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,502
    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This is indeed one of the crucial questions.

    Another is: what is the path to ref 2 that does not involve Corbyn becoming PM?
    I see only two ways for that to happen and both look unlikely:
    1. Lib dems win more seats/poach more sitting MPs than Labour
    2. Labour somehow ditch Corbyn, either between now and next GE, or after a GE result.

    Yes, I think the harsh truth - and for many it IS harsh - is that if you want to stop Brexit you must stomach Jez in Number 10.
    Indeed. To some extent, I think any Labour leader would have been seen as insufficiently remainy to Lib Dems. After all it wasn't that long ago Chuka was telling people leaving the single market was an acceptable price to pay to introduce immigration restrictions. Ed Miliband wanted to be tough on immigration etc.

    The Lib dems should see it as quite a triumph that they've been part of persuading Labour to completely shift its position on brexit in just 2 years.

    Corbyn has his own baggage of course. But in terms of world view, I see similarities between him and the Lib Dems on many issues like Iraq, civil liberties, house of lords reform, tuition fees etc...
    AS I understand it, Swinson has ruled out coalition with Corbyn (which given the history of what happens to junior partners does make sense), but has not ruled out confidence and supply with either Corbyn-led Labour or Johnson-led Tories (or, indeed, coalition with Boris?). As always with the LibDems, they want votes first, and they'll get back to us later about what they do with them.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    I am amazed that BXP can win 6 seats with just 15%. The stars are lining up.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,657

    Play starting at 3.30pm. Probably!

    If the weather in Hampshire is any indication then not a chance.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,853
    2-5 No play today.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    Pulpstar said:

    2-5 No play today.

    Reasonable. Just seen this 'BBC Weather's Susan Powell: "I fear you may throw things at me. You are in a gap at the moment but we can watch the rain gathering towards the south west and I wouldn't give it long before it arrives. It probably won't be heavy but it is not looking great. Tomorrow is such a different day, much drier, with lighter winds. At the moment for Saturday I am hopeful there will be a decent amount of sunshine."'
  • CurrystardogCurrystardog Posts: 110
    edited August 2019
    Anecdote, I reckon tourism must be doing well in London, my friend has taken her son to London today and cannot do anything as the standard tourist sites are sold out or full up.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344

    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This is indeed one of the crucial questions.

    Another is: what is the path to ref 2 that does not involve Corbyn becoming PM?
    I see only two ways for that to happen and both look unlikely:
    1. Lib dems win more seats/poach more sitting MPs than Labour
    2. Labour somehow ditch Corbyn, either between now and next GE, or after a GE result.

    Yes, I think the harsh truth - and for many it IS harsh - is that if you want to stop Brexit you must stomach Jez in Number 10.
    Indeed. To some extent, I think any Labour leader would have been seen as insufficiently remainy to Lib Dems. After all it wasn't that long ago Chuka was telling people leaving the single market was an acceptable price to pay to introduce immigration restrictions. Ed Miliband wanted to be tough on immigration etc.

    The Lib dems should see it as quite a triumph that they've been part of persuading Labour to completely shift its position on brexit in just 2 years.

    Corbyn has his own baggage of course. But in terms of world view, I see similarities between him and the Lib Dems on many issues like Iraq, civil liberties, house of lords reform, tuition fees etc...
    AS I understand it, Swinson has ruled out coalition with Corbyn (which given the history of what happens to junior partners does make sense), but has not ruled out confidence and supply with either Corbyn-led Labour or Johnson-led Tories (or, indeed, coalition with Boris?). As always with the LibDems, they want votes first, and they'll get back to us later about what they do with them.
    Cannot believe that Swinson would ever consider coalition with Boris. Even if the agreement was signed in Boris' blood.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Aaaaaand it's raining again.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172



    What you are saying is the process we have now takes six months. That much, I can accept. I do not disagree with you there. I am saying that a slightly modified process can take six weeks, as is shown by Ireland and by Clearing. For instance, why would we need to hire lecturers to weed out applicants who have not got the grades when that could be done at the touch of a button? It could even be done at the point of application because, of course, the results would already be known.

    So, oh I don't know, somewhat who just missed an A* because their father died during their exams now just gets a "No" from the DecrepitJohnL algorithm.

    Just a touch of the button, we know the grades.

    Somewhat who didn't get an A because the maths teacher at their school was not replaced for 3 months gets a B instead of an A

    No problem, the DecriptJohnL algorithm speeds into action and send them a rejection.

    Someone whose parents got divorced and underperformed -- fuck it, she didn't get a B, we know the grades, we'll send her the No via the DecrepitJohnL algorithm.

    There a million reasons why someone can underperform, a million reasons why you might want human intervention. You can't just make a hard cut on grades.

    For the umpteenth time, Ireland does not take 6 weeks to process all the applications. In Ireland, you apply BEFORE your exam results are known. The university has been looking at your application for months, and then after the Leaving Certificate results are known, it sends you an offer.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,509
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    You don't think those ads ARE gender stereotyping?

    Or you do but think gender stereotyping is not harmful?

    Or you do, and you do, but think such ads should nevertheless be aired?
    On your first question, it seems to me that the VW does show gender stereotyping, but the Philadelphia one doesn't.

    Personally I think it's stark raving bonkers to have bureaucrats to determine such things, and a ludicrous over-reaction to ban such ads, not to mention a disgraceful breach of free speech, but there we go.
    I thought the VW one wasn't a good advert as such. I like quirky adverts, but that wasn't informative or amusing. IMHO anyway.
    Of course it was rubbish. It was a car advert. Have you ever seen a car advert that was informative or amusing? Serious question.

    But to claim it was showing gender stereotypes and therefore needed to be banned - ridiculous.

    And the irony is of course that there will be millions of people out there looking for those adverts on YouTube to see what he fuss is about who would otherwise never have seen them. So it will have exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.
    Hardly.
    The point of such rules is presumably to modify the constant day to day drip feed of stereotyping; a couple of adverts in isolation are neither here nor there.

    The actual judgment made in the particular case, and the free speech arguments are, of course, another matter.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    TOPPING said:

    Problem is that the pesky parliamentary arithmetic won't change and Lab as a matter of policy won't support a Boris tweaked WA. Nor will the DUP as it stands (and I think it will continue to stand if we are to take the EU at their word).

    Now, as a WA pass believer, I suppose one option is for Boris to say it really is the deal or Jezza but how the fuckety fucking fuck does it actually get to pass?

    Ah good. So you haven't quite given up on the WA. Thought for a minute I was now all alone. Couldn't bear that.

    How will he pass it? Do what TM chickened out of. Say to Parliament you vote for this or it's No Deal. He can't do this now - his leadership campaign bullshit is too fresh - but in spring 2020 after some talks with the EU and some minor concessions dressed up to be big wins ... well, he's not called 'Boris' for nothing.

    And then, whether he gets it through or is stymied, we get that election. Either in a similar context to now - "My long suffering people, give me a mandate to finally deliver your Brexit" - or (better for him) - "I've done it, my good and faithful people, now reward me".
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Anecdote, I reckon tourism must be doing well in London, my friend has taken her son to London today and cannot do anything as the standard tourist sites are sold out or full up.

    Usually just means it's raining

  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    Awkward. Old Trafford is always a higher risk of being a draw, if it is and this is a draw then that leaves only 2 games remaining both of which are then must-wins.

    Remember a tied series is the Aussies celebrating retaining the Ashes. We have to win outright.
    England haven't lost at Old Trafford in 18 years and in that time only two tests have been drawn - 2005 and 2013. Admittedly both of them were against Australia.
    There hasn't been an Ashes Test won at Old Trafford this century

    2001 - No Test
    2005 - Draw
    2009 - No Test
    2013 - Draw
    2015 - No Test

    Previously:
    1989, 1993 1997 - Australia won
    1985 - Draw

    England haven't beaten Australia at Old Trafford in my lifetime. Last time they won there was Botham's 1981
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,509

    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This is indeed one of the crucial questions.

    Another is: what is the path to ref 2 that does not involve Corbyn becoming PM?
    I see only two ways for that to happen and both look unlikely:
    1. Lib dems win more seats/poach more sitting MPs than Labour
    2. Labour somehow ditch Corbyn, either between now and next GE, or after a GE result.

    Yes, I think the harsh truth - and for many it IS harsh - is that if you want to stop Brexit you must stomach Jez in Number 10.
    Indeed. To some extent, I think any Labour leader would have been seen as insufficiently remainy to Lib Dems. After all it wasn't that long ago Chuka was telling people leaving the single market was an acceptable price to pay to introduce immigration restrictions. Ed Miliband wanted to be tough on immigration etc.

    The Lib dems should see it as quite a triumph that they've been part of persuading Labour to completely shift its position on brexit in just 2 years.

    Corbyn has his own baggage of course. But in terms of world view, I see similarities between him and the Lib Dems on many issues like Iraq, civil liberties, house of lords reform, tuition fees etc...
    AS I understand it, Swinson has ruled out coalition with Corbyn (which given the history of what happens to junior partners does make sense), but has not ruled out confidence and supply with either Corbyn-led Labour or Johnson-led Tories (or, indeed, coalition with Boris?). As always with the LibDems, they want votes first, and they'll get back to us later about what they do with them.
    Cannot believe that Swinson would ever consider coalition with Boris. Even if the agreement was signed in Boris' blood.
    I don't think, while FPTP still exists, that the Lib Dems will go into coalition with anyone, ever.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    The Liberal Democrats are propping up the Tories in lots of local councils, not least in Jo Swinson’s East Dunbartonshire. Will they be leaving these arrangements to increase pressure on the Tories regarding No Deal?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300



    What you are saying is the process we have now takes six months. That much, I can accept. I do not disagree with you there. I am saying that a slightly modified process can take six weeks, as is shown by Ireland and by Clearing. For instance, why would we need to hire lecturers to weed out applicants who have not got the grades when that could be done at the touch of a button? It could even be done at the point of application because, of course, the results would already be known.

    So, oh I don't know, somewhat who just missed an A* because their father died during their exams now just gets a "No" from the DecrepitJohnL algorithm.

    Just a touch of the button, we know the grades.

    Somewhat who didn't get an A because the maths teacher at their school was not replaced for 3 months gets a B instead of an A

    No problem, the DecriptJohnL algorithm speeds into action and send them a rejection.

    Someone whose parents got divorced and underperformed -- fuck it, she didn't get a B, we know the grades, we'll send her the No via the DecrepitJohnL algorithm.

    There a million reasons why someone can underperform, a million reasons why you might want human intervention. You can't just make a hard cut on grades.

    For the umpteenth time, Ireland does not take 6 weeks to process all the applications. In Ireland, you apply BEFORE your exam results are known. The university has been looking at your application for months, and then after the Leaving Certificate results are known, it sends you an offer.

    The tech nerds can include a space to enter mitigating factors. (And as a side-effect, after a few years there would be enough accumulated data to judge the size of these effects on performance, just as we'd know if studying Shakespeare through A-level drama or A-level English was a better predictor.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    Awkward. Old Trafford is always a higher risk of being a draw, if it is and this is a draw then that leaves only 2 games remaining both of which are then must-wins.

    Remember a tied series is the Aussies celebrating retaining the Ashes. We have to win outright.
    England haven't lost at Old Trafford in 18 years and in that time only two tests have been drawn - 2005 and 2013. Admittedly both of them were against Australia.
    There hasn't been an Ashes Test won at Old Trafford this century

    2001 - No Test
    2005 - Draw
    2009 - No Test
    2013 - Draw
    2015 - No Test

    Previously:
    1989, 1993 1997 - Australia won
    1985 - Draw

    England haven't beaten Australia at Old Trafford in my lifetime. Last time they won there was Botham's 1981
    But you said 'a higher risk of being a draw.' Which I don't think is correct on the overall record of recent tests. It might be of course that there is a special reason why the Aussies draw and the other sides get hammered, but it is a result venue on the whole.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    Problem is that the pesky parliamentary arithmetic won't change and Lab as a matter of policy won't support a Boris tweaked WA. Nor will the DUP as it stands (and I think it will continue to stand if we are to take the EU at their word).

    Now, as a WA pass believer, I suppose one option is for Boris to say it really is the deal or Jezza but how the fuckety fucking fuck does it actually get to pass?

    Ah good. So you haven't quite given up on the WA. Thought for a minute I was now all alone. Couldn't bear that.

    How will he pass it? Do what TM chickened out of. Say to Parliament you vote for this or it's No Deal. He can't do this now - his leadership campaign bullshit is too fresh - but in spring 2020 after some talks with the EU and some minor concessions dressed up to be big wins ... well, he's not called 'Boris' for nothing.

    And then, whether he gets it through or is stymied, we get that election. Either in a similar context to now - "My long suffering people, give me a mandate to finally deliver your Brexit" - or (better for him) - "I've done it, my good and faithful people, now reward me".
    "I've done it, my good and faithful people, now reward me". Just like Churchill, eh!
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    In general, I don't like the idea of policing ideas.

    No, that does sound rather sinister.

    But can the ad industry self-regulating be fairly described as policing?

    And is gender stereotyping an idea?
    The policing of the ad industry should come from the target audience. If they are offended / don't like the advert, then don't buy the product. Aren't we advanced enough to make our own minds up?
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    Awkward. Old Trafford is always a higher risk of being a draw, if it is and this is a draw then that leaves only 2 games remaining both of which are then must-wins.

    Remember a tied series is the Aussies celebrating retaining the Ashes. We have to win outright.
    England haven't lost at Old Trafford in 18 years and in that time only two tests have been drawn - 2005 and 2013. Admittedly both of them were against Australia.
    There hasn't been an Ashes Test won at Old Trafford this century

    2001 - No Test
    2005 - Draw
    2009 - No Test
    2013 - Draw
    2015 - No Test

    Previously:
    1989, 1993 1997 - Australia won
    1985 - Draw

    England haven't beaten Australia at Old Trafford in my lifetime. Last time they won there was Botham's 1981
    But you said 'a higher risk of being a draw.' Which I don't think is correct on the overall record of recent tests. It might be of course that there is a special reason why the Aussies draw and the other sides get hammered, but it is a result venue on the whole.
    Every Ashes Test this century held there has been drawn! If that's not a higher risk, then what is?

    The issue is of course Manchester gets a statistically significant amount more rain than further South or East do.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    If we leave with No Deal and fall back on WTO rules would we be allowed to have sector by sector deals with the US or would it have to be a full FTA or nothing?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344

    The Liberal Democrats are propping up the Tories in lots of local councils, not least in Jo Swinson’s East Dunbartonshire. Will they be leaving these arrangements to increase pressure on the Tories regarding No Deal?

    There are all sorts of bizarre arrangements in local councils, to ensure that business gets done. When I was a student in the NE, back in around 1960 there was alleged to be an informal arrangement in one council between the local Ratepayers and the Communists.
  • OllyT said:

    If we leave with No Deal and fall back on WTO rules would we be allowed to have sector by sector deals with the US or would it have to be a full FTA or nothing?

    AFAIK sector by sector is allowed. Each sector deal is a deal.

    The thing people sometimes forget is we are already on WTO rules. WTO rules apply to us as the EU except where we have deals, it will just change to us being the UK and the UK's deals, instead of us being the EU and the EU's deals. So can the EU negotiate sector by sector today? AFAIK it can.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    OllyT said:

    If we leave with No Deal and fall back on WTO rules would we be allowed to have sector by sector deals with the US or would it have to be a full FTA or nothing?

    AFAIK sector by sector is allowed. Each sector deal is a deal.

    The thing people sometimes forget is we are already on WTO rules. WTO rules apply to us as the EU except where we have deals, it will just change to us being the UK and the UK's deals, instead of us being the EU and the EU's deals. So can the EU negotiate sector by sector today? AFAIK it can.
    It came up on the news yesterday that sector by sector was not allowed under GATT 24 (?) but I can’t remember specifics.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172



    The tech nerds can include a space to enter mitigating factors. (And as a side-effect, after a few years there would be enough accumulated data to judge the size of these effects on performance, just as we'd know if studying Shakespeare through A-level drama or A-level English was a better predictor.)

    Write the algorithm then. (You come across as someone who once wrote a bad program in Basic Plus on a Vax sometime in 1985).

    In fact, your algorithm is not just limited to University admission. No-one need ever waste time on filling any vacancy ever again -- we just use DecrepitJohnL's magic back box. It is a very valuable piece of software.

    When your algorithm is ready and tested, we can implement Angela Rayner's proposal.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    OllyT said:

    If we leave with No Deal and fall back on WTO rules would we be allowed to have sector by sector deals with the US or would it have to be a full FTA or nothing?

    AFAIK sector by sector is allowed. Each sector deal is a deal.

    No, that is wrong. It has to be a full free-trade agreement:

    The formation of free-trade areas is considered an exception to the most favored nation (MFN) principle in the World Trade Organization (WTO) because the preferences that parties to a free-trade area exclusively grant each other go beyond their accession commitments. Although Article XXIV of the GATT allows WTO members to establish free-trade areas or to adopt interim agreements necessary for the establishment thereof, there are several conditions with respect to free-trade areas, or interim agreements leading to the formation of free-trade areas.

    ... A second requirement stipulated by Article XXIV is that tariffs and other barriers to trade must be eliminated to substantially all the trade within the free-trade area.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-trade_area
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163

    Anecdote, I reckon tourism must be doing well in London, my friend has taken her son to London today and cannot do anything as the standard tourist sites are sold out or full up.

    Of course - Brexit is making the Pound slump so foreign currencies buy more Pounds.

    It is the Brexit Benefit - lots of forriners coming here and stopping the residents from using the facilities

    :D:D:D
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    Churchill didn't win in 1945.

    He didn't and that is food for thought. If PB had been around then I bet 100% of posters would have called that election as a certain landslide for the man who had led the nation to the successful conclusion of a long and painful struggle in Europe.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,898

    The Liberal Democrats are propping up the Tories in lots of local councils, not least in Jo Swinson’s East Dunbartonshire. Will they be leaving these arrangements to increase pressure on the Tories regarding No Deal?

    There are all sorts of bizarre arrangements in local councils, to ensure that business gets done. When I was a student in the NE, back in around 1960 there was alleged to be an informal arrangement in one council between the local Ratepayers and the Communists.
    Also there have been some Con/Lab coalitions.
    " The Conservatives have agreed a deal with Labour to and independents to run Aberdeen City Council – this puts the Lib Dems and SNP into opposition. In East Lothian there is also talk of a Labour/Conservative deal. There will also be a joint Labour/Conservative administration in Stirling."
    https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2012/05/labourconservative-coalition-to-run-aberdeen.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    edited August 2019

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    England having a stunningly brilliant day in the cricket. They haven't lost a single wicket.

    IMO this is good for us. The match is more of a 'cannot lose' than a 'must win'.
    A draw would do well enough with Headingly, Old Trafford and the Oval to come.

    I still cannot believe they left Trent Bridge off the list. Mad decision.
    Awkward. Old Trafford is always a higher risk of being a draw, if it is and this is a draw then that leaves only 2 games remaining both of which are then must-wins.

    Remember a tied series is the Aussies celebrating retaining the Ashes. We have to win outright.
    England haven't lost at Old Trafford in 18 years and in that time only two tests have been drawn - 2005 and 2013. Admittedly both of them were against Australia.
    There hasn't been an Ashes Test won at Old Trafford this century

    2001 - No Test
    2005 - Draw
    2009 - No Test
    2013 - Draw
    2015 - No Test

    Previously:
    1989, 1993 1997 - Australia won
    1985 - Draw

    England haven't beaten Australia at Old Trafford in my lifetime. Last time they won there was Botham's 1981
    But you said 'a higher risk of being a draw.' Which I don't think is correct on the overall record of recent tests. It might be of course that there is a special reason why the Aussies draw and the other sides get hammered, but it is a result venue on the whole.
    Every Ashes Test this century held there has been drawn! If that's not a higher risk, then what is?

    The issue is of course Manchester gets a statistically significant amount more rain than further South or East do.
    THey have drawn two Ashes Tests but won every other match they have played there.

    In fact, England have a worse record - including against Australia - at Headingley. The last time they beat Australia there was in 2001, and since then it's played 16, won six, with one draw.
  • kinabalu said:

    Churchill didn't win in 1945.

    He didn't and that is food for thought. If PB had been around then I bet 100% of posters would have called that election as a certain landslide for the man who had led the nation to the successful conclusion of a long and painful struggle in Europe.
    Of course there is a world of difference between Attlee, the man who helped lead that struggle, and best friend of Russia, Press TV and Hamas Jeremy Corbyn.
  • OllyT said:

    If we leave with No Deal and fall back on WTO rules would we be allowed to have sector by sector deals with the US or would it have to be a full FTA or nothing?

    AFAIK sector by sector is allowed. Each sector deal is a deal.

    No, that is wrong. It has to be a full free-trade agreement:

    The formation of free-trade areas is considered an exception to the most favored nation (MFN) principle in the World Trade Organization (WTO) because the preferences that parties to a free-trade area exclusively grant each other go beyond their accession commitments. Although Article XXIV of the GATT allows WTO members to establish free-trade areas or to adopt interim agreements necessary for the establishment thereof, there are several conditions with respect to free-trade areas, or interim agreements leading to the formation of free-trade areas.

    ... A second requirement stipulated by Article XXIV is that tariffs and other barriers to trade must be eliminated to substantially all the trade within the free-trade area.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-trade_area
    Doesn't it depend upon what the sector deal is?

    For instance doesn't the EU have a deal with the USA for the aviation sector? That is permitted despite that restriction. If so, presumably we would be permitted one on the same grounds?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,898
    Just as crazy as UKIP.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947

    "I've done it, my good and faithful people, now reward me". Just like Churchill, eh!

    Exactly!

    When he died we were told how we would not see his like again.

    We were told wrong.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,473

    kinabalu said:

    Churchill didn't win in 1945.

    He didn't and that is food for thought. If PB had been around then I bet 100% of posters would have called that election as a certain landslide for the man who had led the nation to the successful conclusion of a long and painful struggle in Europe.
    Of course there is a world of difference between Attlee, the man who helped lead that struggle, and best friend of Russia, Press TV and Hamas Jeremy Corbyn.
    Yes, the irony is that it is the right wing that are now the friends of Russian hegemony, Farage, Bankks, Trump, etc etc
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300



    The tech nerds can include a space to enter mitigating factors. (And as a side-effect, after a few years there would be enough accumulated data to judge the size of these effects on performance, just as we'd know if studying Shakespeare through A-level drama or A-level English was a better predictor.)

    Write the algorithm then. (You come across as someone who once wrote a bad program in Basic Plus on a Vax sometime in 1985).

    In fact, your algorithm is not just limited to University admission. No-one need ever waste time on filling any vacancy ever again -- we just use DecrepitJohnL's magic back box. It is a very valuable piece of software.

    When your algorithm is ready and tested, we can implement Angela Rayner's proposal.
    As a first draft of the algorithm, why don't you tell us how much allowance is currently made for each circumstance by every one of the hundreds of admissions tutors? Of course it is unlikely everyone makes the same allowance, and they can't all be right, can they? And if they are different then most of them must be unfair, and perhaps all of them are.

    The process as it currently exists can be automated. If you want a human to judge the handful of applicants who lost a parent in exam-week, then the computer can filter out just those applicants (one or two at most, surely, for most courses) for the admissions tutor to consider, but do not suppose that would be any fairer; it would, however, be quick because the tutor would not have to scour the obituaries in a thousand local papers for the six months since early applications, as doesn't happen now, or even wait for a phone call from a concerned headteacher.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    Scott_P said:
    When one thinks there is no better Recuiting Sergeant for the Tories than Corbyn, up pops the hateful McCluskey. Where can I join?
  • Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Churchill didn't win in 1945.

    He didn't and that is food for thought. If PB had been around then I bet 100% of posters would have called that election as a certain landslide for the man who had led the nation to the successful conclusion of a long and painful struggle in Europe.
    Of course there is a world of difference between Attlee, the man who helped lead that struggle, and best friend of Russia, Press TV and Hamas Jeremy Corbyn.
    Yes, the irony is that it is the right wing that are now the friends of Russian hegemony, Farage, Bankks, Trump, etc etc
    Yes Corbyn is in the same group as Farage, Banks, Trump etc . . . I wouldn't vote for any of them.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    You don't think those ads ARE gender stereotyping?

    Or you do but think gender stereotyping is not harmful?

    Or you do, and you do, but think such ads should nevertheless be aired?
    not seen them but sounds like more snowflake liberal crackpots being offended. Time they started telling these halfwits to go f*** themselves and man up.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited August 2019
    philiph said:

    The policing of the ad industry should come from the target audience. If they are offended / don't like the advert, then don't buy the product. Aren't we advanced enough to make our own minds up?

    Just leave it to the market in other words?

    I would not be comfortable with that. I can easily imagine an ad that was toxic but superbly made and effective, which for the general good should not be granted mainstream release.

    I think it's good to have some self-regulation.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172



    The tech nerds can include a space to enter mitigating factors. (And as a side-effect, after a few years there would be enough accumulated data to judge the size of these effects on performance, just as we'd know if studying Shakespeare through A-level drama or A-level English was a better predictor.)

    Write the algorithm then. (You come across as someone who once wrote a bad program in Basic Plus on a Vax sometime in 1985).

    In fact, your algorithm is not just limited to University admission. No-one need ever waste time on filling any vacancy ever again -- we just use DecrepitJohnL's magic back box. It is a very valuable piece of software.

    When your algorithm is ready and tested, we can implement Angela Rayner's proposal.
    As a first draft of the algorithm, why don't you tell us how much allowance is currently made for each circumstance by every one of the hundreds of admissions tutors? Of course it is unlikely everyone makes the same allowance, and they can't all be right, can they? And if they are different then most of them must be unfair, and perhaps all of them are.

    The process as it currently exists can be automated. If you want a human to judge the handful of applicants who lost a parent in exam-week, then the computer can filter out just those applicants (one or two at most, surely, for most courses) for the admissions tutor to consider, but do not suppose that would be any fairer; it would, however, be quick because the tutor would not have to scour the obituaries in a thousand local papers for the six months since early applications, as doesn't happen now, or even wait for a phone call from a concerned headteacher.
    You write the algorithm, test it and let me know when it it is done. Once you have got the algorithm to work, and verified it on some test data, we'll switch to Angela Rayner's proposal. (You can hire someone if your BasicPlus is not up to it).

    The advantage for you is that you will now become a hugely wealthy billionaire because you will have an extremely valuable piece of software that has multitudinous applications (not just University applications).

    Hell, instead of the crappy selection of Labour MPs that gives us Jared O'Mara & Fiona Onansanya, we can now use your the super-slick DecrepitJohnL algorithm to process the applicants. Human intervention not needed, just those neural networks buzzing away.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,418
    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    You don't think those ads ARE gender stereotyping?

    Or you do but think gender stereotyping is not harmful?

    Or you do, and you do, but think such ads should nevertheless be aired?
    not seen them but sounds like more snowflake liberal crackpots being offended. Time they started telling these halfwits to go f*** themselves and man up.
    You should be more woke like me.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    leslie48 said:

    We must always say 'Corbyn Labour' because this is a different entity to previous Labour and disliked by just about every section of the voters from young to old , urban and rural , college and non-college , working class and middle class, English and non-English regions.. Boris will easily beat Corbyn and it is to the eternal shame of Labour members that they allow McCluskey, Milne and the other ex-Communists to run this dreadful cult depriving our country of a proper and normal opposition. The abysmal defeat of the modern Labour party now being polled leaves these Stalinist's as enemies of the people.

    If alternative is Watson the Weak Coward, why bother.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Mr. G, during the Conservative leadership campaign, someone or other (journalist) was outraged that Hunt called for Johnson to 'man up' and face him in an earlier debate.

    Apparently it was sexist language. Saying to a specific man he should act like a man.

    It's reminiscent of this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    malcolmg said:

    not seen them but sounds like more snowflake liberal crackpots being offended. Time they started telling these halfwits to go f*** themselves and man up.

    Well it's the Advertising Standards Authority.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    Yorkcity said:

    kinabalu said:

    If you insist on saying 'Corbyn Labour' can you also say 'Bozo Tories' for balance?

    Optimistic to look to a Conservative PPB for political balance, TBF.
    To be fair HYFUD is a lot more balanced , than some of the new posters who have just appeared gab2 and leslie48 to name but two.

    I guess a possible election fires up the trolls.
    paid trolls everywhere nowadays (army unit included), just have taken some of indyref2 and redeployed on this for a spell.
  • malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK. At what point do we say this country has officially lost its marbles?

    Philadelphia and VW ads banned for gender stereotyping
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49332640

    I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader, but...

    You don't think those ads ARE gender stereotyping?

    Or you do but think gender stereotyping is not harmful?

    Or you do, and you do, but think such ads should nevertheless be aired?
    not seen them but sounds like more snowflake liberal crackpots being offended. Time they started telling these halfwits to go f*** themselves and man up.
    You can't say man up that's sexist and presumes a gender (!)
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    Doesn't it depend upon what the sector deal is?

    For instance doesn't the EU have a deal with the USA for the aviation sector? That is permitted despite that restriction. If so, presumably we would be permitted one on the same grounds?

    I think agreements on services are different, but I'm reaching the limits of my knowledge on the exact rules.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300



    The tech nerds can include a space to enter mitigating factors. (And as a side-effect, after a few years there would be enough accumulated data to judge the size of these effects on performance, just as we'd know if studying Shakespeare through A-level drama or A-level English was a better predictor.)

    Write the algorithm then. (You come across as someone who once wrote a bad program in Basic Plus on a Vax sometime in 1985).

    In fact, your algorithm is not just limited to University admission. No-one need ever waste time on filling any vacancy ever again -- we just use DecrepitJohnL's magic back box. It is a very valuable piece of software.

    When your algorithm is ready and tested, we can implement Angela Rayner's proposal.
    As a first draft of the algorithm, why don't you tell us how much allowance is currently made for each circumstance by every one of the hundreds of admissions tutors? Of course it is unlikely everyone makes the same allowance, and they can't all be right, can they? And if they are different then most of them must be unfair, and perhaps all of them are.

    The process as it currently exists can be automated. If you want a human to judge the handful of applicants who lost a parent in exam-week, then the computer can filter out just those applicants (one or two at most, surely, for most courses) for the admissions tutor to consider, but do not suppose that would be any fairer; it would, however, be quick because the tutor would not have to scour the obituaries in a thousand local papers for the six months since early applications, as doesn't happen now, or even wait for a phone call from a concerned headteacher.
    You write the algorithm, test it and let me know when it it is done. Once you have got the algorithm to work, and verified it on some test data, we'll switch to Angela Rayner's proposal. (You can hire someone if your BasicPlus is not up to it).

    The advantage for you is that you will now become a hugely wealthy billionaire because you will have an extremely valuable piece of software that has multitudinous applications (not just University applications).

    Hell, instead of the crappy selection of Labour MPs that gives us Jared O'Mara & Fiona Onansanya, we can now use your the super-slick DecrepitJohnL algorithm to process the applicants. Human intervention not needed, just those neural networks buzzing away.
    Do you have any serious objection? I expect whoever does write the algorithm will be cleverer than me, perhaps nearly as clever as you, and as already pointed out, as years go by there will be actual data. Oh, and some companies already use algorithms to filter job applications, and don't get me started on match.com, Tinder and Grindr.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    kinabalu said:

    Churchill didn't win in 1945.

    He didn't and that is food for thought. If PB had been around then I bet 100% of posters would have called that election as a certain landslide for the man who had led the nation to the successful conclusion of a long and painful struggle in Europe.
    I sure would have done.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,853
    Chris Gayle has won the toss and elected to smash the Indian attack all over the place.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209

    The Liberal Democrats are propping up the Tories in lots of local councils, not least in Jo Swinson’s East Dunbartonshire. Will they be leaving these arrangements to increase pressure on the Tories regarding No Deal?

    There are all sorts of bizarre arrangements in local councils, to ensure that business gets done. When I was a student in the NE, back in around 1960 there was alleged to be an informal arrangement in one council between the local Ratepayers and the Communists.
    Also there have been some Con/Lab coalitions.
    " The Conservatives have agreed a deal with Labour to and independents to run Aberdeen City Council – this puts the Lib Dems and SNP into opposition. In East Lothian there is also talk of a Labour/Conservative deal. There will also be a joint Labour/Conservative administration in Stirling."
    https://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2012/05/labourconservative-coalition-to-run-aberdeen.html
    A lot of good that is doing Aberdeen, what flustercluck they are making of it
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,687
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/14/johnson-hits-out-at-terrible-collaboration-of-mps-and-eu-trying-to-block-brexit

    Johnson now using the language of "collaboration"... How long until he or his proxies start calling Remainers traitors? Presumably an election is imminent.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209

    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    rkrkrk said:

    This is indeed one of the crucial questions.

    Another is: what is the path to ref 2 that does not involve Corbyn becoming PM?
    I see only two ways for that to happen and both look unlikely:
    1. Lib dems win more seats/poach more sitting MPs than Labour
    2. Labour somehow ditch Corbyn, either between now and next GE, or after a GE result.

    Yes, I think the harsh truth - and for many it IS harsh - is that if you want to stop Brexit you must stomach Jez in Number 10.
    Indeed. To some extent, I think any Labour leader would have been seen as insufficiently remainy to Lib Dems. After all it wasn't that long ago Chuka was telling people leaving the single market was an acceptable price to pay to introduce immigration restrictions. Ed Miliband wanted to be tough on immigration etc.

    The Lib dems should see it as quite a triumph that they've been part of persuading Labour to completely shift its position on brexit in just 2 years.

    Corbyn has his own baggage of course. But in terms of world view, I see similarities between him and the Lib Dems on many issues like Iraq, civil liberties, house of lords reform, tuition fees etc...
    AS I understand it, Swinson has ruled out coalition with Corbyn (which given the history of what happens to junior partners does make sense), but has not ruled out confidence and supply with either Corbyn-led Labour or Johnson-led Tories (or, indeed, coalition with Boris?). As always with the LibDems, they want votes first, and they'll get back to us later about what they do with them.
    Cannot believe that Swinson would ever consider coalition with Boris. Even if the agreement was signed in Boris' blood.
    First whiff of ministerial cars and the pants will be dropped , they have no principles OKC.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,865

    OllyT said:

    If we leave with No Deal and fall back on WTO rules would we be allowed to have sector by sector deals with the US or would it have to be a full FTA or nothing?

    AFAIK sector by sector is allowed. Each sector deal is a deal.

    No, that is wrong. It has to be a full free-trade agreement:

    The formation of free-trade areas is considered an exception to the most favored nation (MFN) principle in the World Trade Organization (WTO) because the preferences that parties to a free-trade area exclusively grant each other go beyond their accession commitments. Although Article XXIV of the GATT allows WTO members to establish free-trade areas or to adopt interim agreements necessary for the establishment thereof, there are several conditions with respect to free-trade areas, or interim agreements leading to the formation of free-trade areas.

    ... A second requirement stipulated by Article XXIV is that tariffs and other barriers to trade must be eliminated to substantially all the trade within the free-trade area.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-trade_area
    Doesn't it depend upon what the sector deal is?

    For instance doesn't the EU have a deal with the USA for the aviation sector? That is permitted despite that restriction. If so, presumably we would be permitted one on the same grounds?
    Aviation is part of a different set of accords to WTO/GATT
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    kinabalu said:

    philiph said:

    The policing of the ad industry should come from the target audience. If they are offended / don't like the advert, then don't buy the product. Aren't we advanced enough to make our own minds up?

    Just leave it to the market in other words?

    I would not be comfortable with that. I can easily imagine an ad that was toxic but superbly made and effective, which for the general good should not be granted mainstream release.

    I think it's good to have some self-regulation.
    Marketing cigarettes to children?
    Advertising medicinal properties a product doesn't really possess?
    Making false claims about a competitor's product?

    Don't worry, the Free Market™ will prevent all that. Because if there's one thing we know, it's that nothing harmful is ever profitable.
This discussion has been closed.