Howdy, Stranger!

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

Moving on from Trump punters make it 69% chance that there will be UK-EU deal this year – politicalb

1235»

Comments

  • I'll be supporting Scotland. After all, Lord Tebbit used to refer to the Cricket test as a sign as to have you assimilated into your adopted country.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    edited November 2020
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary.
    The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level.
    I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
    No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.

    One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.

    There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.



    If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
    The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.

    Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?

    Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
    I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
    Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:

    image
    The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
    So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
    The problem is that the plan for Hinckley C was conceived when everyone was convinced the world was running out of natural gas, renewables were expensive and would be a marginal contributor to total UK generation, and we didn't want to be dependent on coal for baseload power.

    Since then, the cost of wind, solar and natural gas have all collapsed, and we don't need baseload - what we need is cheap (relatively clean) natural gas combined cycle generators to step in whenever the wind isn't blowing.

    Tidal, by the way, is a good addition to the mix, with the added advantage that (while intermittent) it is relatively predictable.
    Each tidal power station produces for 14 hours in 24 hours. With the differences in high tide around the coast, you can deliver effective baseload around the clock. What tidal has over other renewables is the dependability - you know exactly how much power is delivered on any day for the next 120 years.
    You clearly haven't read Sevenevs.

    :smile:
    900 pages of Neal Stephenson? I may have read his Baroque Cycle, but I think I'll give that a pass. Man desperately needed an editor.
    Last of his I read was the first two thirds of Snowcrash
  • kle4 said:

    God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on

    Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.

    Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?

    Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
    Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
    Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
    Without wishing to be mean to the producers and participants of QT, it is pretty hard to see how the audience improves anything. The idea makes sense on paper, going round to various different places and relatively local people putting their views, but outside of local issues (or the ones in the other UK nations) most political views are pretty nationally homogenised, and you're not going to get anything that different, nor are the sort of people who show up normal, nor is it a debate between the audience and the panel.

    So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.

    My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.
    I'd love to think there was an audience for long-format forensic debate between politicians, or that there were willing and capable participants in sufficient number to make it viable.
    But I do not.
    So what can we do about it?
  • Oh dear. They've gone onto Brexit
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,392
    Scott_xP said:
    It's the Star wot won it!

    Time for Bozo to get Cum out of his hair.

    Night all.
  • When I saw the #SERSCO hashtag, I thought it was something to do with track and trace.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    kle4 said:

    God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on

    Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.

    Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?

    Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
    Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
    Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
    Without wishing to be mean to the producers and participants of QT, it is pretty hard to see how the audience improves anything. The idea makes sense on paper, going round to various different places and relatively local people putting their views, but outside of local issues (or the ones in the other UK nations) most political views are pretty nationally homogenised, and you're not going to get anything that different, nor are the sort of people who show up normal, nor is it a debate between the audience and the panel.

    So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.

    My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.
    I'd love to think there was an audience for long-format forensic debate between politicians, or that there were willing and capable participants in sufficient number to make it viable.
    But I do not.
    So what can we do about it?
    Not wishing to be morose, but nothing I suspect. Even I rarely look at longer stuff and I'm obsessed by politics, so as you say there's no audience for it. And what would create that audience? I detect no sign we are tiring of the kind of politicians and debate we currently get, rather the opposite in fact, so there's no impetus for change.
  • Scott_xP said:
    It's the Star wot won it!

    Time for Bozo to get Cum out of his hair.

    Night all.
    Doesn't he usually spaff it into someone else's hair?

    I'll get my coat...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    He achieved a lot in a short time, and won the Nobel Prize for it, but the PM of Ethopia looks like he has an awful situation on his hands

    "Scores and probably hundreds" of civilians have been massacred in the growing conflict in Tigray in northern Ethiopia, Amnesty International says.

    Witnesses blamed forces loyal to the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) for Monday's killings but Tigrayan officials have denied that pro-TPLF troops were involved.

    Fighting between government forces and the TPLF broke out last week.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-54922971
  • Scott_xP said:
    It's the Star wot won it!

    Time for Bozo to get Cum out of his hair.

    Night all.
    Doesn't he usually spaff it into someone else's hair?

    I'll get my coat...
    As long as he doesn't Cum again.

    I'll get me condom ....
  • Scott_xP said:
    It's the Star wot won it!

    Time for Bozo to get Cum out of his hair.

    Night all.
    Doesn't he usually spaff it into someone else's hair?

    I'll get my coat...
    I think it's your hat, rather than your coat, you want.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    Scott_xP said:
    It's the Star wot won it!

    Time for Bozo to get Cum out of his hair.

    Night all.
    Doesn't he usually spaff it into someone else's hair?

    I'll get my coat...
    Hopefully one with a waterproof hood.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,598

    I'll be supporting Scotland. After all, Lord Tebbit used to refer to the Cricket test as a sign as to have you assimilated into your adopted country.
    I always said you were a weird guy.

    You are English – you should support England!
  • Scott_xP said:
    It's the Star wot won it!

    Time for Bozo to get Cum out of his hair.

    Night all.
    Doesn't he usually spaff it into someone else's hair?

    I'll get my coat...
    As long as he doesn't Cum again.

    I'll get me condom ....
    Well, the trickle of puns has turned into a torrent. And that has made my evening. I do hope this isn't the last time Cummings is splashed over the front pages.
  • The real shame about the Cummings departure is that he wasn't Sacked for his Barnard Castle escapade.
  • New Covid cases in the USA topping 150,000. Trump going out in style.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2020
    In a parallel universe, Big Dom would have resigned in the summer and just being brought back into government in the New Year.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    kle4 said:

    God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on

    Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.

    Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?

    Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
    Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
    Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
    Without wishing to be mean to the producers and participants of QT, it is pretty hard to see how the audience improves anything. The idea makes sense on paper, going round to various different places and relatively local people putting their views, but outside of local issues (or the ones in the other UK nations) most political views are pretty nationally homogenised, and you're not going to get anything that different, nor are the sort of people who show up normal, nor is it a debate between the audience and the panel.

    So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.

    My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.
    I'd love to think there was an audience for long-format forensic debate between politicians, or that there were willing and capable participants in sufficient number to make it viable.
    But I do not.
    So what can we do about it?
    I think people get used to it. In every TV environment that I've lived in before (Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France), it's the norm to a greater or lesser extent. I don't remember ever seeing a political debate with a shouting audience before I came back to Britain.

    The problem is that we have some of the most trivia-obsessed media in Europe. MPs do like to debate seriously, but it attracts virtually no media attention, so coverage always features people scoring points and showing off. Most Select Committees are sober and fairly intelligent discussions but only get coverage when a sketch-writer tries to make fun of them. Debates in the main chamber can be good as well when there's a subject that catches MPs' interest without being a hot issue for point-scoring.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited November 2020

    In a parallel universe, Big Dom would have resigned in the summer and just being brought back into government in the New Year.



    Yeah, and no one would have batted an eyelid.
  • A concession of sorts? Joy to the world indeed.

    image
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2020
    RobD said:

    In a parallel universe, Big Dom would have resigned in the summer and just being brought back into government in the New Year.



    Yeah, and no one would have batted an eyelid.
    Well the Guardian would be busy writing 10,000s of words a day about it, but other than that, no.
  • New Covid cases in the USA topping 150,000. Trump going out in style.

    He did say he would make America #1 again.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,598
    Who would have thought that a former Newsnight hackette would be the one to do everyone a favour and tell Dommo to GTFO?
  • Must admit to having a wee lump in my throat reading this

    https://twitter.com/johnclarke88/status/1327023360719589376?s=20
  • That was the most interesting Question Time I've seen before. Helps too that as well as the virtual audience it was an unusually good panel too.

    If every Question Time was like that I'd watch it each week again. Perhaps they should keep the virtual audience after the pandemic is over.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    V clear Bozza needed Dom. Gone by spring I think.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2020

    That was the most interesting Question Time I've seen before. Helps too that as well as the virtual audience it was an unusually good panel too.

    If every Question Time was like that I'd watch it each week again. Perhaps they should keep the virtual audience after the pandemic is over.

    I don't watch it, but I really don't know why we need the token comedian / actor on. It really should be 3 politicians, a person from business and A.N.OTHER expert in a field relevant to the current goings on.
  • Pulpstar said:

    V clear Bozza needed Dom. Gone by spring I think.

    Of course Mrs Stratton at the centre of all this drama, big mates with Dishy Rishi.....just saying like.
  • That was the most interesting Question Time I've seen before. Helps too that as well as the virtual audience it was an unusually good panel too.

    If every Question Time was like that I'd watch it each week again. Perhaps they should keep the virtual audience after the pandemic is over.

    I don't watch it, but I really don't know why we need the token comedian / actor on. It really should be 3 politicians, a person from business and A.N.OTHER expert in a field relevant to the current goings on.
    Rosie Jones is an excellent choice for a comedian to be on as an excellent speaker on disability issues. Seen her a few times before on The Last Leg and she's very switched on so wasn't surprised she was tonight on QT too.

    Having her speaking on disability issues is entirely different to your usual comedian extra appearing.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,598

    A concession of sorts? Joy to the world indeed.

    image

    I suspect Melania is desperate to GTFO of there.
  • Roy_G_Biv said:

    kle4 said:

    God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on

    Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.

    Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?

    Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
    Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
    Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
    Without wishing to be mean to the producers and participants of QT, it is pretty hard to see how the audience improves anything. The idea makes sense on paper, going round to various different places and relatively local people putting their views, but outside of local issues (or the ones in the other UK nations) most political views are pretty nationally homogenised, and you're not going to get anything that different, nor are the sort of people who show up normal, nor is it a debate between the audience and the panel.

    So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.

    My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.
    I'd love to think there was an audience for long-format forensic debate between politicians, or that there were willing and capable participants in sufficient number to make it viable.
    But I do not.
    So what can we do about it?
    I think people get used to it. In every TV environment that I've lived in before (Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France), it's the norm to a greater or lesser extent. I don't remember ever seeing a political debate with a shouting audience before I came back to Britain.

    The problem is that we have some of the most trivia-obsessed media in Europe. MPs do like to debate seriously, but it attracts virtually no media attention, so coverage always features people scoring points and showing off. Most Select Committees are sober and fairly intelligent discussions but only get coverage when a sketch-writer tries to make fun of them. Debates in the main chamber can be good as well when there's a subject that catches MPs' interest without being a hot issue for point-scoring.

    Thanks, for the timely reminder that select committees show MPs at their best. I guess, though, they are a distillation of the more capable. Still the format is Q&A, which has its place, but isn't what I crave. I want discursive dialogues. I want to hear a socialist and a capitalist to explore the strengths and weaknesses of economic systems together. I want to hear a debate about statues in the public sphere from people who aren't just shouting "racist" or "woke" at each other. I want to hear someone challenge some of my weakly held views in a way that shows they understand the work I've done in reaching them, the logic of them, but who can argue persuasively that I'm wrong. I want to see someone change their mind mid argument because they've actually listened and realised it wasn't as simple as they first thought.

    But instead, we get the gammonati and activists pretending to be careworkers or some such shit. It degrades us all.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    That was the most interesting Question Time I've seen before. Helps too that as well as the virtual audience it was an unusually good panel too.

    If every Question Time was like that I'd watch it each week again. Perhaps they should keep the virtual audience after the pandemic is over.

    I don't watch it, but I really don't know why we need the token comedian / actor on. It really should be 3 politicians, a person from business and A.N.OTHER expert in a field relevant to the current goings on.
    "An expert in a field relevant to the current goings on."
    In what way does that usually preclude a comedian? Psychiatrist maybe at a push too.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,598
    I actually think Dommo goes and Boris will be fine.

    He's a lucky fucker – will ride a wave of national optimism on the back of the vaccine rollout, and will move sharply to the left, cave into the EU and will – as I say – be fine.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    I actually think Dommo goes and Boris will be fine.

    He's a lucky fucker – will ride a wave of national optimism on the back of the vaccine rollout, and will move sharply to the left, cave into the EU and will – as I say – be fine.

    I can see it now, celebrating VC day waving to the masses from the balcony on Buck House with HM. :D
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Pulpstar said:

    So what was the actual point of the Gov't spending so much political capital and losing so much public health messaging defending Dom again ?!?!?

    God only knows, particularly as at the time there was a lot more leeway for government missteps in the pandemic. Being an adviser can be a great gig and a sucky gig, and the sucky part is you are disposable and have to know that.
  • I actually think Dommo goes and Boris will be fine.

    He's a lucky fucker – will ride a wave of national optimism on the back of the vaccine rollout, and will move sharply to the left, cave into the EU and will – as I say – be fine.

    And then when he has to decide to endorse Sunak making big cuts and / or tax rises, neither of which will be popular.....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited November 2020

    I actually think Dommo goes and Boris will be fine.

    I don't think so... the rats are deserting the ship. The stench of rot and decay is in the air.

    This government looks more and more like a dying government every day.
  • That was the most interesting Question Time I've seen before. Helps too that as well as the virtual audience it was an unusually good panel too.

    If every Question Time was like that I'd watch it each week again. Perhaps they should keep the virtual audience after the pandemic is over.

    I don't watch it, but I really don't know why we need the token comedian / actor on. It really should be 3 politicians, a person from business and A.N.OTHER expert in a field relevant to the current goings on.
    "person from business" = someone from a trade union?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,841
    South Dakota 68% positivity rate :o
  • We want to improve performance and make me much less important — and within a year largely redundant. At the moment I have to make decisions well outside what Charlie Munger calls my ‘circle of competence’ and we do not have the sort of expertise supporting the PM and ministers that is needed. This must change fast so we can properly serve the public.

    https://dominiccummings.com/2020/01/02/two-hands-are-a-lot-were-hiring-data-scientists-project-managers-policy-experts-assorted-weirdos/
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835
    edited November 2020
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    kle4 said:

    God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on

    Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.

    Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?

    Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
    Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
    Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
    Without wishing to be mean to the producers and participants of QT, it is pretty hard to see how the audience improves anything. The idea makes sense on paper, going round to various different places and relatively local people putting their views, but outside of local issues (or the ones in the other UK nations) most political views are pretty nationally homogenised, and you're not going to get anything that different, nor are the sort of people who show up normal, nor is it a debate between the audience and the panel.

    So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.

    My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.
    I'd love to think there was an audience for long-format forensic debate between politicians, or that there were willing and capable participants in sufficient number to make it viable.
    But I do not.
    So what can we do about it?
    I think people get used to it. In every TV environment that I've lived in before (Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France), it's the norm to a greater or lesser extent. I don't remember ever seeing a political debate with a shouting audience before I came back to Britain.

    The problem is that we have some of the most trivia-obsessed media in Europe. MPs do like to debate seriously, but it attracts virtually no media attention, so coverage always features people scoring points and showing off. Most Select Committees are sober and fairly intelligent discussions but only get coverage when a sketch-writer tries to make fun of them. Debates in the main chamber can be good as well when there's a subject that catches MPs' interest without being a hot issue for point-scoring.

    Thanks, for the timely reminder that select committees show MPs at their best. I guess, though, they are a distillation of the more capable. Still the format is Q&A, which has its place, but isn't what I crave. I want discursive dialogues. I want to hear a socialist and a capitalist to explore the strengths and weaknesses of economic systems together. I want to hear a debate about statues in the public sphere from people who aren't just shouting "racist" or "woke" at each other. I want to hear someone challenge some of my weakly held views in a way that shows they understand the work I've done in reaching them, the logic of them, but who can argue persuasively that I'm wrong. I want to see someone change their mind mid argument because they've actually listened and realised it wasn't as simple as they first thought.

    But instead, we get the gammonati and activists pretending to be careworkers or some such shit. It degrades us all.
    Me too.
    Though we are in a minority. Most people want their prejudices reinforced. And a 2 minute hate to fill the sad, empty void in their lives.
    It's why I come on here tbh.
    Though too often it is folk shouting racist and woke.
    But far from always.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2020
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    That was the most interesting Question Time I've seen before. Helps too that as well as the virtual audience it was an unusually good panel too.

    If every Question Time was like that I'd watch it each week again. Perhaps they should keep the virtual audience after the pandemic is over.

    I don't watch it, but I really don't know why we need the token comedian / actor on. It really should be 3 politicians, a person from business and A.N.OTHER expert in a field relevant to the current goings on.
    "person from business" = someone from a trade union?
    Of course. I wasn't setting the exact parameters, more commenting on the fact every week there is a random comedian, an actor, a "commentator" type people, who normally add absolutely nothing. It should be 3 politicians, plus 2 with genuine expert insight into things currently in the news.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,052
    Roy_G_Biv said:

    kle4 said:

    God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on

    Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.

    Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?

    Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
    Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
    Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
    Without wishing to be mean to the producers and participants of QT, it is pretty hard to see how the audience improves anything. The idea makes sense on paper, going round to various different places and relatively local people putting their views, but outside of local issues (or the ones in the other UK nations) most political views are pretty nationally homogenised, and you're not going to get anything that different, nor are the sort of people who show up normal, nor is it a debate between the audience and the panel.

    So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.

    My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.
    I'd love to think there was an audience for long-format forensic debate between politicians, or that there were willing and capable participants in sufficient number to make it viable.
    But I do not.
    So what can we do about it?
    Back in the Seventies there was.

    https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2020
    Long form interviews are really popular in podcast form. I don't see why people wouldn't be interested in genuine exchange of ideas, rather than the short interviews squeezed into 5 minute where the interviewer interrupts for 60% of the time. If politicians want to do them, that might be a different matter.

    However, Andrew Yang showed, you keep doing them, you can gain a fair bit of traction and a lot of credit. He did basically every reasonable podcast going.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Foxy said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    kle4 said:

    God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on

    Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.

    Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?

    Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
    Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
    Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
    Without wishing to be mean to the producers and participants of QT, it is pretty hard to see how the audience improves anything. The idea makes sense on paper, going round to various different places and relatively local people putting their views, but outside of local issues (or the ones in the other UK nations) most political views are pretty nationally homogenised, and you're not going to get anything that different, nor are the sort of people who show up normal, nor is it a debate between the audience and the panel.

    So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.

    My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.
    I'd love to think there was an audience for long-format forensic debate between politicians, or that there were willing and capable participants in sufficient number to make it viable.
    But I do not.
    So what can we do about it?
    Back in the Seventies there was.

    https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs
    It really has gone to shit in the last decade or two, hasn't it?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766
    TimT said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
    Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
    Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
    The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.

    Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.

    Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.

    Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary.
    The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level.
    I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
    No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.

    One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.

    There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.



    If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
    The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.

    Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?

    Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
    I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
    Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:

    image
    The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
    So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
    The problem is that the plan for Hinckley C was conceived when everyone was convinced the world was running out of natural gas, renewables were expensive and would be a marginal contributor to total UK generation, and we didn't want to be dependent on coal for baseload power.

    Since then, the cost of wind, solar and natural gas have all collapsed, and we don't need baseload - what we need is cheap (relatively clean) natural gas combined cycle generators to step in whenever the wind isn't blowing.

    Tidal, by the way, is a good addition to the mix, with the added advantage that (while intermittent) it is relatively predictable.
    Each tidal power station produces for 14 hours in 24 hours. With the differences in high tide around the coast, you can deliver effective baseload around the clock. What tidal has over other renewables is the dependability - you know exactly how much power is delivered on any day for the next 120 years.
    You clearly haven't read Sevenevs.

    :smile:
    900 pages of Neal Stephenson? I may have read his Baroque Cycle, but I think I'll give that a pass. Man desperately needed an editor.
    Last of his I read was the first two thirds of Snowcrash
    You didn't finish Snowcrash?

    I'm genuinely shocked.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,178
    There are stories old Trump is still pulling a lot strings in the Middle East. Rumours of the release of long held US hostage Austin Tice and that Morocco will conclude some kind of diplomatic deal with Israel.

    The one big ticket item is will he decide to have a go at Iran. The sheer amount of shuttling of senior Trump appointees to Israel & the Gulf states in recent days suggests some kind of notable business is being wrapped up or underway. Trump family relationships with the Gulf monarchs became very close very quickly over the last 4 years.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Long form interviews are really popular in podcast form. I don't see why people wouldn't be interested in genuine exchange of ideas, rather than the short interviews squeezed into 5 minute where the interviewer interrupts for 60% of the time. If politicians want to do them, that might be a different matter.

    However, Andrew Yang showed, you keep doing them, you can gain a fair bit of traction and a lot of credit. He did basically every reasonable podcast going.

    Slow interviews, like the one @Foxy linked, really are much better than the stuff you get these days.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,224
    edited November 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    South Dakota 68% positivity rate :o

    If you rank US States in order of Covid cases per million of population, North Dakota tops the bill. South Dakota is second, Iowa third. At fourth, Wisconsin is the first blue State, then it's red States all the way down to Illinois at 12.

    Try it. It's easily done and quite a revelation. The preponderance of Red States towards the top of the league table is quite astonishing.
  • So what's next for Big Dom...a new think tank?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,835

    Pulpstar said:

    South Dakota 68% positivity rate :o

    If you rank US States in order of Covid cases per million of population, North Dakota tops the bill. South Dakota is second, Iowa third. At fourth, Wisconsin is the first blue State, then it's red States all the way down to Illinois at 12.

    Try it. It's easily done and quite a revelation. The preponderance of Red States towards the top of the league table is quite astonishing.
    Does it run through the Mid West.? No excuse. And further proof that Trump lost through sheer incompetence, not ideology
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,766

    Pulpstar said:

    South Dakota 68% positivity rate :o

    If you rank US States in order of Covid cases per million of population, North Dakota tops the bill. South Dakota is second, Iowa third. At fourth, Wisconsin is the first blue State, then it's red States all the way down to Illinois at 12.

    Try it. It's easily done and quite a revelation. The preponderance of Red States towards the top of the league table is quite astonishing.
    Part of the problem is that these States largely missed out on the first wave (thus prompting Dan Hannan to pronounce the Dakotas enormous successes), and therefore people in them were under the mistaken impression that there was something about them that made them immune.

    Right now, in North Dakota, they're so short of medical staff, they're asking nurses who've tested postive for Covid to work.

    That's fucked up.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    South Dakota 68% positivity rate :o

    If you rank US States in order of Covid cases per million of population, North Dakota tops the bill. South Dakota is second, Iowa third. At fourth, Wisconsin is the first blue State, then it's red States all the way down to Illinois at 12.

    Try it. It's easily done and quite a revelation. The preponderance of Red States towards the top of the league table is quite astonishing.
    Part of the problem is that these States largely missed out on the first wave (thus prompting Dan Hannan to pronounce the Dakotas enormous successes), and therefore people in them were under the mistaken impression that there was something about them that made them immune.

    Right now, in North Dakota, they're so short of medical staff, they're asking nurses who've tested postive for Covid to work.

    That's fucked up.
    See Eastern Europe here..
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    edited November 2020
    Don't ask me why but Brian Rose is now second-favourite on Betfair Exchange for London mayor.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/uk-mayoral-elections-betting-28051236

    He's also ahead of Shaun Bailey on Betfair Sports, 5/1 versus 7/1.

    https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics
  • Andy_JS said:

    Don't ask me why but Brian Rose is now second-favourite on Betfair Exchange for London mayor.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics/uk-mayoral-elections-betting-28051236

    He's also ahead of Shaun Bailey on Betfair Sports, 5/1 versus 7/1.

    https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics

    Never heard of him but he has 1 million followers on Instagram, apparently. Perhaps part of his appeal is he puts five different things first.
    https://brianformayor.london/

    The Betfair market graph shows £3,582 matched (so halve that).
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    edited November 2020
    CNN CALLS ARIZONA FOR BIDEN.

    Batch of just under 4,000 votes just reported - split Biden 55, Trump 45.

    Biden now leads by 11,434 with a maximum of 11,645 votes still to be counted.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    MikeL said:

    CNN CALL ARIZONA FOR BIDEN.

    Yep.

    He will finish on 306 to Trump's 232 and Biden will have won by between 4.5% and 5% of the popular vote.

    The myth that this election was close will persist for a long time but it wasn't really. Only because of the way the votes were counted and because it was tight in a few swing states does it appear closer than it actually was.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited November 2020
    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    Roy_G_Biv said:

    kle4 said:

    God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on

    Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.

    Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?

    Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
    Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
    Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
    Without wishing to be mean to the producers and participants of QT, it is pretty hard to see how the audience improves anything. The idea makes sense on paper, going round to various different places and relatively local people putting their views, but outside of local issues (or the ones in the other UK nations) most political views are pretty nationally homogenised, and you're not going to get anything that different, nor are the sort of people who show up normal, nor is it a debate between the audience and the panel.

    So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.

    My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.
    I'd love to think there was an audience for long-format forensic debate between politicians, or that there were willing and capable participants in sufficient number to make it viable.
    But I do not.
    So what can we do about it?
    Back in the Seventies there was.

    https://youtu.be/CuZrzwm6CJs
    It really has gone to shit in the last decade or two, hasn't it?
    Infotainment in Britain is really a product of the early to mid-1990s, so it's really around 25 years, here. Don't forget that at this time, anyone raising these kinds of concerns was dismissed as a dyed-in-the-wool elitist in both the left and rightwing press, trying to hold back the popular will, neatly represented by the shiny new market research approaching to broadcasting, naturally.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199

    MikeL said:

    CNN CALL ARIZONA FOR BIDEN.

    Yep.

    He will finish on 306 to Trump's 232 and Biden will have won by between 4.5% and 5% of the popular vote.

    The myth that this election was close will persist for a long time but it wasn't really. Only because of the way the votes were counted and because it was tight in a few swing states does it appear closer than it actually was.
    In EC terms it is pretty close. About as close as last time. The losing candidate needing 3 states they lost by less than 1% ish.

    In popular vote terms less close, but about as close as the Brexit referendum result.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,728
    The government is poised to reach a settlement with an aide who was marched out of Downing Street by armed police after being sacked by Dominic Cummings.

    Government sources said that Sonia Khan, a former special adviser to the then chancellor Sajid Javid, will receive a settlement worth between £50,000 and £100,000.

    The dispute was headed to an employment tribunal next month which could have resulted in Mr Cummings having to give evidence as well as the publication of a cache of WhatsApp messages, texts and emails between senior Downing Street advisers that were submitted as part of the tribunal.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/settlement-for-sonia-khan-adviser-marched-out-of-no-10-gkt56d6jn
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
    A paper looking at what might have happened in the US with a mass screening program using an 80% specificity antigen test back in the summer.

    https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1326438745634185216
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,557
This discussion has been closed.