Howdy, Stranger!

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

Trump becomes betting favourite to win WH2024 – politicalbetting.com

1235»

Comments

  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,021
    JBriskin3 said:

    Ok KKR have done it, but this was spectacular.

    You getting excited by Twenty 20 World Cup yet? Shame I'm gonna miss it as my only Sky sports access is via Scottish pubs
    Have you found any that show cricket?
  • TazTaz Posts: 3,104
    Cyclefree said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Taz said:

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
    That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
    But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
    Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
    There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?

    Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.

    It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.

    It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.

    Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
    I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.

    You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.

    It’s totally insidious.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,113
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    My nomination for the country with the most turbulent political year in 2021 would be Bulgaria which faces its third General Election on November 14th. In addition, as well as electing a new National Assembly (240 seats), they are also electing a new President.

    The latest polling for the National Assembly election as follows:

    Changes from July 2021:

    GERB-SDS: 23.1% (-0.4)
    Coalition for Bulgaria: 16.8% (+3.4)
    We Continue the Change: 15.8% (+15.8)
    Democratic Bulgaria: 10.9% (-1.7)
    There is Such a Nation: 10.4% (-13.7)
    Movement for Rights and Freedoms: 9.3% (-1.4)
    Stand Up Bulgaria!: 3.2% (-1.8)
    Revival: 2.9% (-0.1)
    Bulgarian National Movement: 2.1% (-1.0)

    The big change since July has been the creation of We Continue the Change which was formed on September 19th based on three small existing parties and the caretaker economy and finance ministers. It has taken off an emerged as a new challenger to the conservative GERB and the leftish Coalition for Bulgaria.

    The other big event has been the spectacular collapse of There is Such a Nation (ITN) who outpolled GERB in July and won the most seats (65) in the National Assembly. However, the party's leader, Slavi Trifonov, basically refused to work with any other party and used Facebook as his primary communication medium (a change from Twitter I suppose).

    It also emerged ITN had close links with the NDSV, the party set up in 2001 as a personal vehicle for the former Prime Minister Simeon von Saxe-Coburg Gotha (so related to our royal family I believe). Simeon was only six when his father, Boris III, died in 1943 and a regency acted for him until the country was liberated by the Red Army.

    In February 1945, Simeon's three regents were removed and executed and in 1946 the monarchy abolished. Simeon and his family ended up in Spain in 1951.

    A big swing from There Is Such a Nation (seems there isn't) to We Continue the Change (indeed they do). Presumably at the next election We Then Decided Not will come to the fore.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,021

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    He could also investigate the influence of Stonewall on the Scottish Government.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,295
    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    Sheep are remarkably cunning creatures. Having lived with thousands of them surrounding my barn for a year, I know, believe me. One ewe had a cat-like ability - just by staring at me dolefully, surrounded by her two lambs - to get me to open the gate at the big house leading to the lovely green lawn, where she and all the other sheep happily grazed.

    I didn't feel too bad about this. The lawn needed cutting. Sheep used to do this job before lawnmowers and no-one was living at the house anyway. And it kept the lambs temporarily away from my plants.
  • Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Taz said:

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
    That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
    But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
    Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
    There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?

    Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.

    It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.

    It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.

    Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
    I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.

    You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.

    It’s totally insidious.
    I don't like your use of the phrase "the gay community" there. You're falling into the very pratfall that Stonewall want you to make.

    Who is this "gay community" of whom you refer? How is its membership determined? Is its leadership democratically elected? Who are its representatives?

    The "gay community" doesn't treat anyone in any way with regards to groupthink any more than the "blonde community" or the "freckles" community does.

    Stonewall and its ilk represent a teeny tiny fraction of "the gay community" almost all of whom are nothing more or less than perfectly normal individuals with their own opinions and beliefs that just so happen to be gay.

    We shouldn't recognise anyone who deems themselves self-appointed guardians of a "community". Let alone that hideous phrase a "community leader".
  • If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,021
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Dunno. I assume though we will eventually follow the Americans and use “POC” ie People Of Colour.
    Doubt it, that grates to British palettes as well. Think it might be something like a simple "minorities" next.
    I quite like it. It sounds more positive and an identity to be worn with pride.

    BAME sounds like it was dreamt up in a windowless office in Swindon.
    I'm sure it was. It's just meant to be an inoffensive term for "not white people". Some people seem to find it offensive. The non-White person I know best doesn't object to it at all, in fact uses the term happily, so that probably colours my judgement on the subject. It seems to me that there will be occasions when a synonym for the term could prove useful. So if that term has been cancelled, the cancellers might want to give us a replacement.
    It’s definitely en route to cancellation

    ‘So the term BAME has had its day. But what should replace it?’

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/08/bame-britain-ethnic-minorities-acronym?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    And you can find plenty of non-white people on Twitter who REALLY object to it. I don’t see how it survives
    I obect to it for linguistic reasons. 'Black and Minority Ethnic' - surely this is a tautology, like Cheshire West and Chester or Bath and North East Somerset? And why 'minority ethnic' - surely this is putting the noun and adjective the wrong way around? Why is 'ethnic minority' dodgy but 'minority ethnic' fine?

    I always thought that BAME stood for Bath And Mogg East (Somerset).
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,564

    If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.

    Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,478
    What on earth is going on with the booster programme? Is this a case of losing the dynamic minister who was driving the vax plans? Surely it should now just roll along by momentum?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 15,066

    Bad news for anyone backing Robert Webb in Strictly.

    He's done the right thing.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/strictlycomedancing/entries/32d3940e-4e81-4c62-889e-8b5d73744bfe

    Ah jeez. Poor guy. So young

    Also seems such a dude. Shame. GET BETTER
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,295
    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Taz said:

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
    That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
    But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
    Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
    There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?

    Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.

    It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.

    It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.

    Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
    I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.

    You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.

    It’s totally insidious.
    And creates legal risks if they interpret the law incorrectly (see, for instance, Nottinghamshire NHS wrongly stating that the Equality Act protects gender and not mentioning sex on one of its training courses) and as a result discriminate against staff or patients.

    "But I got my Rainbow badge" will not help then.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,246

    If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.

    Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
    They don't always make things better. Eg this story about growth.

    The ONS said economic growth fell by 0.1% in July compared with initial estimates of 0.1% growth.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58894904
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2021

    If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.

    Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
    If I remember right from memory it worked the other way around when Brown was Chancellor. The first release data was always better, with the forecasts for the future even better but once revisions came it would then be revised down as time went on.

    Then Osborne brought in the ONS and the situation reversed.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,564

    What on earth is going on with the booster programme? Is this a case of losing the dynamic minister who was driving the vax plans? Surely it should now just roll along by momentum?

    Is it possibly constrained by the 6 month delay requirement? So should pick up in a month or two?
  • If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.

    Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
    A former finance director used to say the first results are always estimates whereas the revisions are actuals.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,478
    Inzamam Rashid
    @inzyrashid
    EXCLUSIVE:
    @SkyNews
    can reveal 4 areas hit hardest by Covid have been identified as "areas of enduring transmission" & will receive further funding from central government on 22nd Oct.
    Includes: Bolton, Luton, Blackburn & Leicester.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,564
    kle4 said:

    If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.

    Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
    They don't always make things better. Eg this story about growth.

    The ONS said economic growth fell by 0.1% in July compared with initial estimates of 0.1% growth.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58894904
    Perhaps not always, but my impression is that it usually revises up.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,564

    If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.

    Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
    A former finance director used to say the first results are always estimates whereas the revisions are actuals.
    Which implies a systematic flaw in the estimation.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,078

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
    Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,295

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Taz said:

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
    That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
    But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
    Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
    There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?

    Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.

    It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.

    It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.

    Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
    I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.

    You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.

    It’s totally insidious.
    I don't like your use of the phrase "the gay community" there. You're falling into the very pratfall that Stonewall want you to make.

    Who is this "gay community" of whom you refer? How is its membership determined? Is its leadership democratically elected? Who are its representatives?

    The "gay community" doesn't treat anyone in any way with regards to groupthink any more than the "blonde community" or the "freckles" community does.

    Stonewall and its ilk represent a teeny tiny fraction of "the gay community" almost all of whom are nothing more or less than perfectly normal individuals with their own opinions and beliefs that just so happen to be gay.

    We shouldn't recognise anyone who deems themselves self-appointed guardians of a "community". Let alone that hideous phrase a "community leader".
    And that's exactly the point. Stonewall purport to speak for all gay people. The arrogance is appalling and dangerous.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,607

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
    Try peer reviewing one of their articles. Lots of sheep don't even get short listed for academic posts in our less prestigious universities.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,564
    Cyclefree said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Taz said:

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
    That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
    But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
    Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
    There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?

    Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.

    It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.

    It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.

    Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
    I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.

    You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.

    It’s totally insidious.
    I don't like your use of the phrase "the gay community" there. You're falling into the very pratfall that Stonewall want you to make.

    Who is this "gay community" of whom you refer? How is its membership determined? Is its leadership democratically elected? Who are its representatives?

    The "gay community" doesn't treat anyone in any way with regards to groupthink any more than the "blonde community" or the "freckles" community does.

    Stonewall and its ilk represent a teeny tiny fraction of "the gay community" almost all of whom are nothing more or less than perfectly normal individuals with their own opinions and beliefs that just so happen to be gay.

    We shouldn't recognise anyone who deems themselves self-appointed guardians of a "community". Let alone that hideous phrase a "community leader".
    And that's exactly the point. Stonewall purport to speak for all gay people. The arrogance is appalling and dangerous.
    See also the Muslim council of Britain?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,564

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
    Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
    Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
  • If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.

    Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
    A former finance director used to say the first results are always estimates whereas the revisions are actuals.
    Which implies a systematic flaw in the estimation.
    I believe the ONS are systemically 'cautious'.

    In deliberate contrast to when Brown was in charge.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,246

    If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.

    Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
    A former finance director used to say the first results are always estimates whereas the revisions are actuals.
    Which implies a systematic flaw in the estimation.
    I recall observing an argument once around 'efficiency' targets being achieved, and that they were always overestimated. The one in charge made a lot of good points about the difficulty of estimating some of the issues and their impacts, but the person responding essentially just, in exasperation, went "Yes, but they are always over estimates. If it was just hard to get right wouldn't we at least occasionally be under estimating?"
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 46,478
    The shitstorm continues...


    See new Tweets Conversation
    Ben Chu @BenChu_
    ·
    2h
    BREAKING

    @BBCNewsnight has learned that gas shipping firm CNG @CNGenergyUK
    has written to its domestic supplier company customers saying it will no longer be providing them with gas - and they should seek alternative shippers...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,295

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
    Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
    ** raises hand as far as it can go and waves furiously **
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,078

    Inzamam Rashid
    @inzyrashid
    EXCLUSIVE:
    @SkyNews
    can reveal 4 areas hit hardest by Covid have been identified as "areas of enduring transmission" & will receive further funding from central government on 22nd Oct.
    Includes: Bolton, Luton, Blackburn & Leicester.

    "...will receive further funding from central government" - in 9 days time? Why delay?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,798
    The German army’s torch-lit parade past the Bundestag looks remarkably like a scene from the past.

    https://twitter.com/bmvg_bundeswehr/status/1448336684261720078
  • If I'm reading this correctly then there have been some pretty big revisions to the trade data:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/totaltradebalanceuktraderevisions

    with the UK's trade balance improving by £7bn in 2019, £16bn in 2020 and £3bn in 2021H1.

    Why do all these type of revisions always make things better? Like the double dip recession that wasn’t? Are there biases in the early data?
    A former finance director used to say the first results are always estimates whereas the revisions are actuals.
    Which implies a systematic flaw in the estimation.
    It's the way of accountants.

    Take the worst position when it comes to sales and costs.

    Don't overestimate sales and assume the costs will be on the high side.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,808

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
    Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
    Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
    He did have strong personal reasons.

    And it's too early to say yet, as the customs inward controls have still not been implemented.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,246

    Inzamam Rashid
    @inzyrashid
    EXCLUSIVE:
    @SkyNews
    can reveal 4 areas hit hardest by Covid have been identified as "areas of enduring transmission" & will receive further funding from central government on 22nd Oct.
    Includes: Bolton, Luton, Blackburn & Leicester.

    "...will receive further funding from central government" - in 9 days time? Why delay?
    Don't mess with accountants.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,078
    edited October 2021

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
    Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
    Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
    ...yet.

    To be fair, those fears (which I personally shared) related to the potential 'no deal' situation IIRC.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,564

    The German army’s torch-lit parade past the Bundestag looks remarkably like a scene from the past.

    https://twitter.com/bmvg_bundeswehr/status/1448336684261720078

    Crikey. Almost like filming another Indiana Jones film...
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,021

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Taz said:

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
    That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
    But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
    Policy thinking and implementation seems to have been subcontracted by governmental and other organisations to Stonewall. My wife works for a local authority and they have Stonewall as a partner. Their managers are very keen to get jn with stonewall and want to be ranked highly by stonewall as an employer.
    There is something a bit sinister about this. First, because managers ought to think for themselves not subcontract something as important as how to treat your staff to others. What are they? 4-year olds wanting a Blue Peter badge?

    Second, there is plenty of accurate training information out there about the relevant legislation, best practice etc without needing to involve a charity let alone one which scores you as if you have to pass their exam.

    It also mistakenly assumes two very damaging things: (1) that all gay people (or any other minority) all think in the same way or have exactly the same interests - a dubious assumption; and (2) that only one organisation can and does and should represent them and should be seen as their only spokesman. It's the equivalent of assuming that the MCB represents all Muslims. Imagine if a local authority decided that it needed to get the approval of the local Catholic Archbishop and a certificate from him on how it behaves to and talks about Catholics in its employment.

    It creates a conflict of interest. Stonewall campaigns for a change in the law - which it is entitled to do - but it is also using its position as a sort of referee (in its own mind) as a way of getting firms to behave as if the law had already been changed in the way that it wants. This is not on - not least because it is trying to stop any debate on whether those changes are necessary or welcome or indeed whether there may be harmful consequences from them.

    Finally, I dislike the Mafia-style protection racket going on: if you don't do as we want we'll publicly shame you. Who made them judge and jury?
    I think they pretty much are the equivalent of 4 year olds after a blue peter badge. They see this as a good thing to have and something of value, so they want it.

    You are right about it’s view on uniformity of thinking. Just look at how the gay community treats those who don’t go along with the groupthink. People who, if it was not for them truly standing up against prejudice, then these people wouldn’t be able to hold their partners hand in public or show them affection without attracting derision or violence.

    It’s totally insidious.
    I don't like your use of the phrase "the gay community" there. You're falling into the very pratfall that Stonewall want you to make.

    Who is this "gay community" of whom you refer? How is its membership determined? Is its leadership democratically elected? Who are its representatives?

    The "gay community" doesn't treat anyone in any way with regards to groupthink any more than the "blonde community" or the "freckles" community does.

    Stonewall and its ilk represent a teeny tiny fraction of "the gay community" almost all of whom are nothing more or less than perfectly normal individuals with their own opinions and beliefs that just so happen to be gay.

    We shouldn't recognise anyone who deems themselves self-appointed guardians of a "community". Let alone that hideous phrase a "community leader".
    Stonewall are as representative of the gay community as Jeremy Corbyn is representative of Labour MPs or the IRA are of Catholics.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 5,564
    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
    Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
    Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
    He did have strong personal reasons.

    And it's too early to say yet, as the customs inward controls have still not been implemented.
    I’m aware of his concerns, but I think he went way over the top. He is missed here.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,960
    edited October 2021

    The German army’s torch-lit parade past the Bundestag looks remarkably like a scene from the past.

    https://twitter.com/bmvg_bundeswehr/status/1448336684261720078

    Crikey. Almost like filming another Indiana Jones film...
    Seriously if you told me that was for the new film I'd believe you. Yikes!
  • The German army’s torch-lit parade past the Bundestag looks remarkably like a scene from the past.

    https://twitter.com/bmvg_bundeswehr/status/1448336684261720078

    It's meant to!

    It's a tradition that goes back a couple of centures.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,078
    Cyclefree said:

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
    Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
    ** raises hand as far as it can go and waves furiously **
    Ha! Yes, yours too @Cyclefree!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,798

    The German army’s torch-lit parade past the Bundestag looks remarkably like a scene from the past.

    https://twitter.com/bmvg_bundeswehr/status/1448336684261720078

    It's meant to!

    It's a tradition that goes back a couple of centures.
    You mean back to Prussian times?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,955

    The German army’s torch-lit parade past the Bundestag looks remarkably like a scene from the past.

    https://twitter.com/bmvg_bundeswehr/status/1448336684261720078

    It's meant to!

    It's a tradition that goes back a couple of centures.
    You mean back to Prussian times?
    They were on the alert for Saxon violence.
  • The German army’s torch-lit parade past the Bundestag looks remarkably like a scene from the past.

    https://twitter.com/bmvg_bundeswehr/status/1448336684261720078

    It's meant to!

    It's a tradition that goes back a couple of centures.
    You mean back to Prussian times?
    Yes.

    https://www-bundeswehr-de.translate.goog/de/aktuelles/meldungen/grosser-zapfenstreich-feierlichste-zeremonie-bundeswehr-5228576
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,736
    tlg86 said:

    Good God. That Corbyn video is horrific.

    First I've heard of it. Can we watch it anywhere?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,955
    Andy_JS said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good God. That Corbyn video is horrific.

    First I've heard of it. Can we watch it anywhere?
    I’m afraid Pornhub took it down.
  • Andy_JS said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good God. That Corbyn video is horrific.

    First I've heard of it. Can we watch it anywhere?
    Evening all! Yes, lets see what he has been up to - is it his audition tape for Doctor Who?
  • Oh my word, this truly is a crime against graphs.

    Are the Lib Dems behind this?

    https://twitter.com/GraphCrimes/status/1448190784239554563
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 14,736

    Andy_JS said:

    Is it just me or has the term BAME vanished without trace.

    I believe @Leon predicted thus.

    What's the new term/acronym?
    Do we really need one?
    I don't think we do.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,078

    Andy_JS said:

    tlg86 said:

    Good God. That Corbyn video is horrific.

    First I've heard of it. Can we watch it anywhere?
    Evening all! Yes, lets see what he has been up to - is it his audition tape for Doctor Who?
    Is he replacing Robert Webb on Strictly?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,955

    Oh my word, this truly is a crime against graphs.

    Are the Lib Dems behind this?

    https://twitter.com/GraphCrimes/status/1448190784239554563

    Even @Sunil_Prasannan wouldn’t produce a monstrosity like that.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,294
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Taz said:

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
    That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
    But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
    Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
    You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.

    You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
    I don't pretend to really understand why some positions have gotten to where they are now. It seems in some areas to be at the point that we should all be hyper aware of peoples differences, and make those all consuming identities, and in others that to suggest biology has any relevance at all is a hateful stance.

    But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
    You can change the law.

    You cannot change biology.

    King Canute taught us that.

    Any law which is fundamentally out of line with reality will not last long in practice, will often be broken and will likely cause a great deal of misery while it exists.

    Laws making homosexuality illegal, for instance.
    In fairness, Cyclefree, that final one lasted over 400 years. It was frequently broken and undoubtedly caused much misery, but you can hardly say it ‘didn’t last long in practice.’
    And it certainly put paid to the genius Alan Turing who helped Bletchley Park save many many lives in WW2.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,078
    edited October 2021
    Interesting that the BBC are reporting this as if it were a done deal:

    Brexit: Most NI checks on British goods to be scrapped
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-58871221
  • The German army’s torch-lit parade past the Bundestag looks remarkably like a scene from the past.

    https://twitter.com/bmvg_bundeswehr/status/1448336684261720078

    Crikey. Almost like filming another Indiana Jones film...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4lq3SOB8sw
  • OK, have seen the Jezbollah video. Very funny - that he made a bully and a liar head the party complaints department demonstrates just how idiotic the cult had become.
  • This truly is a leftie government, Sunak is a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    Pension savers face risk of higher fees as Sunak seeks billions for ‘levelling up’

    Ministers are looking to relax rules shielding tens of millions of UK retirement savers from high charges as they step up efforts to funnel pension fund cash into the government’s “levelling up” agenda.

    Officials are working on proposals to dilute the 0.75 per cent ceiling on annual management fees, which was put in place in 2016 to protect workers auto-enrolled into workplace pensions from having their savings eroded by high charges.

    Chancellor Rishi Sunak is looking at ways to tap billions of pounds of pension fund cash to invest in long-term projects, including infrastructure schemes, renewable energy projects and innovative tech firms, to help deliver on UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s pledge to spread economic growth across the UK.


    https://www.ft.com/content/a8cad0f1-fd85-40ed-aa19-e71728f10825
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,907
    Toms said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Taz said:

    1) NEW: the ⁦@StephenNolan⁩ programme has launched a series of podcasts on ⁦@BBCSounds⁩ investigating the influence of ⁦@stonewalluk on public institutions - including ⁦@Ofcom and the ⁦@BBC

    https://twitter.com/JohnMcM1/status/1448313805327458304?s=20

    Worth a listen - the BBC now defines a homosexual as someone attracted to others of the same gender. That might come as a bit of a surprise to some……
    That is perfectly in line with the Stonewall view.
    But, unfortunately, not in line with either reality or the law.
    Reality and the law are frequently inconvenient. The latter can be changed to control the former.
    You can write as many laws as you want. You are not going to make a gay woman sexually attracted to a man. Or a gay man sexually attracted to a woman.

    You could of course make laws which make it illegal to be sexually attracted to or sexually active only with the same sex. But this is hardly a liberal or progressive position. Though - oddly and, frankly, shamefully - attacking lesbians as phobic for not wanting to have sex with men with penises is coming quite close to this. It is a curious position for a supposedly pro-gay charity to be adopting.
    I don't pretend to really understand why some positions have gotten to where they are now. It seems in some areas to be at the point that we should all be hyper aware of peoples differences, and make those all consuming identities, and in others that to suggest biology has any relevance at all is a hateful stance.

    But my summation seems to be how some groups operate. Change the law, change the thinking.
    You can change the law.

    You cannot change biology.

    King Canute taught us that.

    Any law which is fundamentally out of line with reality will not last long in practice, will often be broken and will likely cause a great deal of misery while it exists.

    Laws making homosexuality illegal, for instance.
    In fairness, Cyclefree, that final one lasted over 400 years. It was frequently broken and undoubtedly caused much misery, but you can hardly say it ‘didn’t last long in practice.’
    And it certainly put paid to the genius Alan Turing who helped Bletchley Park save many many lives in WW2.
    No it didn't. There is a lot of doubt as to whether Turing s death was suicide at all.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 19,078

    New Thread

  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    Inzamam Rashid
    @inzyrashid
    EXCLUSIVE:
    @SkyNews
    can reveal 4 areas hit hardest by Covid have been identified as "areas of enduring transmission" & will receive further funding from central government on 22nd Oct.
    Includes: Bolton, Luton, Blackburn & Leicester.

    The others are Bradford, Rochdale, Slough, Bristol, Peterborough, Oldham, Sandwell, Kirklees, Preston, Hartlepool, Tameside, Middlesbrough, Burnley, Ealing, Manchester and Hyndburn.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 11,907
    ydoethur said:

    Oh my word, this truly is a crime against graphs.

    Are the Lib Dems behind this?

    https://twitter.com/GraphCrimes/status/1448190784239554563

    Even @Sunil_Prasannan wouldn’t produce a monstrosity like that.
    That is fabulous. The perpetrator is truly a giant among graph makers.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,439
    FF43 said:

    TimT said:

    MattW said:

    Euro-twitter getting quiet poetic in their frustration, about UK not being trustworthy:

    https://twitter.com/PalmeirasCk/status/1448238277933387783
    Absolutely, but it’s not like this hasn’t happened before. Argentina was the 6th largest economy on earth in 1900. And it collapsed as a result of this very thing, it could no longer be trusted. It’s fine to already be wealthy like Johnson, etc, and think this is a game.

    What happened to Argentina?

    I know there is interesting military history in that they all had bigger navies than the USA.

    I thought the crash was mainly because it had run out of bird-poo.

    In my understanding:

    Military coup, leading to import substitution instead of investing in agriculture (where it had a comparative advantage and which had made it rich in the first place). Coupled with political instability and poor macroeconomic management, the result was hyperinflation and underinvestment.
    What makes it pertinent is that Johsononism is Peronism. Not similar, actually is, including the three pillars of social justice, national sovereignty and economic independence, as well as a system of patronage that goes through the party. As Argentina is hardly a poster child, it raises the question of whether the UK is destined for a similar trajectory.

    Answer, not necessarily. The rot had already set in by the 1930s - Peron just made it worse, although his first few years were relatively successful. The diversion from a solid base in agriculture was certainly to blame, as you point out, plus intermittent military coups.

    I think Johnson may end up doing less damage than Peron simply because he lacks that man's energy. Levelling Up is just a slogan to Johnson. Peron tried to put into practice.
    You're genuinely delusional at this stage.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,439
    edited October 2021
    @turbotubbs

    Yes, ONS data has long been an undercount in a lot of areas.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,725

    tlg86 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    BTW there are two very interesting articles by the much-missed (certainly by me) Mr Meeks on medium.com -

    1. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1448289527030812681?s=21 - on Levelling Up

    and

    2. https://twitter.com/alastairmeeks/status/1447490267892830215?s=21 - on sheep but really about what going green means.

    Thanks for that. Sheep have a habit of looking at you whilst chewing and they look like they’re thinking deeply.
    They're thinking something but I'm not sure it's quite as profound as the article makes out.
    Both of Meeks' articles are interesting reads though. One of the broadsheets should snap him up for an occasional column; his output is better than a lot of the tosh that gets published week in week out, especially in the weekend supplements.
    Yes I think he is missed from here. It’s a shame he lost it big time when he flounced out. I think Brexit really got to him. I’d note his apocalyptic fears about medicines did not come to pass.
    He didn't flounce out. It was more a constructive dismissal by another poster.
This discussion has been closed.