If you want your university years to be a roller coaster rebellion against oppressive establishment orthodoxy, the best way is to be a die-hard Conservative
Reminds me of that PLJW quote about conservatism being the 'new counter culture.' Then again he also thought Gen Z would be right wing
It meets every definition of a counterculture. You can have virtually any identity or belief system at a UK university and be embraced, but opine that you like low taxes and the freedom to question political correctness and it can be quite a different story...
There's another problem with modern life. Beer needn't be 5.3%
Beer used to be closer to 3.3%. Your 5.3 is an increase of roughly 60% in alcohol content from a standard beer. 60% more alcohol than you get in a beer of about 3.3%. Think about it.
Beer and wine have too much alcohol now.
They make a Christmas brew called 12 days. Nectar of the Gods
I'm glad we can bond over proper beer.
This is good stuff.
You want to try cotllieghs den nose rein beer 6.5 but only hve one
There's another problem with modern life. Beer needn't be 5.3%
Beer used to be closer to 3.3%. Your 5.3 is an increase of roughly 60% in alcohol content from a standard beer. 60% more alcohol than you get in a beer of about 3.3%. Think about it.
Beer and wine have too much alcohol now.
They make a Christmas brew called 12 days. Nectar of the Gods
I'm glad we can bond over proper beer.
This is good stuff.
You want to try cotllieghs den nose rein beer 6.5 but only hve one
Sounds frightfully foreign, old boy.
Time for the Lancaster Bomber.
A west country beer brewed in devon there was another one very similar but cant remember now but their is still theakstons old peculiar
And LOL at the idea that no one who is fiscally responsible voted for Corbyn.
But it's true. Anyone who voted for Corbyn was knowingly voting for unfunded spending commitments including random promises made with no idea of the costs involved, false taxation promises and sextupled borrowing. Therefore, anyone who voted for Corbyn was fiscally irresponsible.
However, what might otherwise have been a fatal flaw was somewhat neutered by the fact that May's plans insofar as she had any were nearly as bad.
There's another problem with modern life. Beer needn't be 5.3%
Beer used to be closer to 3.3%. Your 5.3 is an increase of roughly 60% in alcohol content from a standard beer. 60% more alcohol than you get in a beer of about 3.3%. Think about it.
Beer and wine have too much alcohol now.
You're no fun any more.
Unrelatedly, this is genius (lifted from @Casino_Royale's twatter feed or whatever you call it)
There's another problem with modern life. Beer needn't be 5.3%
Beer used to be closer to 3.3%. Your 5.3 is an increase of roughly 60% in alcohol content from a standard beer. 60% more alcohol than you get in a beer of about 3.3%. Think about it.
Beer and wine have too much alcohol now.
I'd rather drink 3 pints of Peroni than 9 pints of Tetleys.
I'd rather drink neither.
The only beers worth drinking are India Pale Ale, Weissbeer, or Budvar.
There's another problem with modern life. Beer needn't be 5.3%
Beer used to be closer to 3.3%. Your 5.3 is an increase of roughly 60% in alcohol content from a standard beer. 60% more alcohol than you get in a beer of about 3.3%. Think about it.
Beer and wine have too much alcohol now.
You're no fun any more.
Unrelatedly, this is genius (lifted from @Casino_Royale's twatter feed or whatever you call it)
There's another problem with modern life. Beer needn't be 5.3%
Beer used to be closer to 3.3%. Your 5.3 is an increase of roughly 60% in alcohol content from a standard beer. 60% more alcohol than you get in a beer of about 3.3%. Think about it.
Beer and wine have too much alcohol now.
I'd rather drink 3 pints of Peroni than 9 pints of Tetleys.
I'd rather drink neither.
The only beers worth drinking are India Pale Ale, Weissbeer, or Budvar.
And LOL at the idea that no one who is fiscally responsible voted for Corbyn.
But it's true. Anyone who voted for Corbyn was knowingly voting for unfunded spending commitments including random promises made with no idea of the costs involved, false taxation promises and sextupled borrowing. Therefore, anyone who voted for Corbyn was fiscally irresponsible.
However, what might otherwise have been a fatal flaw was somewhat neutered by the fact that May's plans insofar as she had any were nearly as bad.
This is just wrong. Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
@Philip_Thompson Ha, wouldn't say will be the case. People become conservative because the status quo benefits them. Right now it isn't even benefitting most working people and even those who are of an age where they starting a family.
@philiph I'd say people are looking for cheaper alternatives to entertainment. Many would have grown up with Sky, but most are relying on Netflix and YouTube because it is cheaper - whereas Sky can be very expensive, you can pay about only £5.99 for Netflix per month. Amazon Prime is around a similar price too. In order to access YouTube all you need is a smartphone/tablet/laptop and wifi.
And LOL at the idea that no one who is fiscally responsible voted for Corbyn.
But it's true. Anyone who voted for Corbyn was knowingly voting for unfunded spending commitments including random promises made with no idea of the costs involved, false taxation promises and sextupled borrowing. Therefore, anyone who voted for Corbyn was fiscally irresponsible.
However, what might otherwise have been a fatal flaw was somewhat neutered by the fact that May's plans insofar as she had any were nearly as bad.
This is just wrong. Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
And LOL at the idea that no one who is fiscally responsible voted for Corbyn.
But it's true. Anyone who voted for Corbyn was knowingly voting for unfunded spending commitments including random promises made with no idea of the costs involved, false taxation promises and sextupled borrowing. Therefore, anyone who voted for Corbyn was fiscally irresponsible.
However, what might otherwise have been a fatal flaw was somewhat neutered by the fact that May's plans insofar as she had any were nearly as bad.
This is just wrong. Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
Yes, it was costed. The costs were however all lies as I spent a great deal of time and effort pointing out. Just to point out the most obvious, they thought 30,000 new police officers would cost £300,000,000 a year, because they had forgotten things like uniforms, offices, transport etc and only budgeted for salaries (and Abbott of course couldn't even get that figure right in three attempts).
if somebody costs everything on the basis of fantasy economics, then while it may be costed it still a fantasy. The fact that Labour are still pushing this lie when anyone with a clear eye and half a brain can see through it is worrying.
If you want your university years to be a roller coaster rebellion against oppressive establishment orthodoxy, the best way is to be a die-hard Conservative
Reminds me of that PLJW quote about conservatism being the 'new counter culture.' Then again he also thought Gen Z would be right wing
It meets every definition of a counterculture. You can have virtually any identity or belief system at a UK university and be embraced, but opine that you like low taxes and the freedom to question political correctness and it can be quite a different story...
Isn't counter culture meant to refer a context beyond that of university campuses?
And what's hilarious is that for a so called counter culture, is that young people who tend to go against the establishment have very little time for conservatism.
I may be going out on a thin and bendy limb here, but there's no chance of Davis being next out, is there? (Or in line for BoJo's gig, I guess?)
I find the whole thing about Davis's Permanent Secretary "leaving" but moving into No 10 a bit weird, especially three days before TMay is touted to be making a speech sufficiently game-changing to delay the next round of talks. If he's fallen out with DD, then at least one of them is a waste of a salary while they're both in post.
From the woman who called an election convinced of her ability to grind Labour into the dust, I can see the speech where she explains that 'nothing is more important for our country, so I'm taking personal charge of this process. I will be negotiating for X, Y and Z, and I'm booked on the first RyanAir flight to Brussels next week" (NB: it's probably on Friday; to Lille).
Minimal reshuffle... DexEU moves into the cabinet office; whichever one of BJ or DD holds on tightest gets FCO (or if they both flounce, another more loyal Brexiteer is rewarded); Doc Fox can come on the trips as long as he shares TM's bedroom
There's another problem with modern life. Beer needn't be 5.3%
Beer used to be closer to 3.3%. Your 5.3 is an increase of roughly 60% in alcohol content from a standard beer. 60% more alcohol than you get in a beer of about 3.3%. Think about it.
Beer and wine have too much alcohol now.
You're no fun any more.
Unrelatedly, this is genius (lifted from @Casino_Royale's twatter feed or whatever you call it)
From the woman who called an election convinced of her ability to grind Labour into the dust, I can see the speech where she explains that 'nothing is more important for our country, so I'm taking personal charge of this process. I will be negotiating for X, Y and Z, and I'm booked on the first RyanAir flight to Brussels next week" (NB: it's probably on Friday; to Lille).
There's none so blind as cannot see. Brexit was explicitly campaigned for as an opt out of the complexities of the modern world, a howl against immigration and homo economicus. Unfortunately, all that will do is leave Britain still worse placed to deal with the modern world.
That's mostly nonsense. Apart from die-hard kippers most people want immigration and trade to continue, what they don't want is rules drawn up by the EU, but instead rules that suit us.
A perfect example of the use of "most people" to mean "me".
The leave vote was overwhemingly about immigration.
I think immigration was a very big part of it. But, it was also a judgement on 44 years of EU membership.
But, if David Cameron had got serious movement from the EU on the substance of his Bloomberg speech, far fewer of his parliamentary party and activists would have backed Leave, which would have made a huge difference.
If Cameron had got serious movement, Remain would have have won.
Nah. Whatever Dave agreed, Leave would have set the dogs of hell on him and proclaimed it worthless. The poor man never stood a chance. We're seeing that now: someone only has to suggest the possibility of transitory period for a year or two and they're vilified. Nothing can sate Leave's blood lust.
There's another problem with modern life. Beer needn't be 5.3%
Beer used to be closer to 3.3%. Your 5.3 is an increase of roughly 60% in alcohol content from a standard beer. 60% more alcohol than you get in a beer of about 3.3%. Think about it.
Beer and wine have too much alcohol now.
You're no fun any more.
Unrelatedly, this is genius (lifted from @Casino_Royale's twatter feed or whatever you call it)
There's none so blind as cannot see. Brexit was explicitly campaigned for as an opt out of the complexities of the modern world, a howl against immigration and homo economicus. Unfortunately, all that will do is leave Britain still worse placed to deal with the modern world.
That's mostly nonsense. Apart from die-hard kippers most people want immigration and trade to continue, what they don't want is rules drawn up by the EU, but instead rules that suit us.
A perfect example of the use of "most people" to mean "me".
The leave vote was overwhemingly about immigration.
I think immigration was a very big part of it. But, it was also a judgement on 44 years of EU membership.
But, if David Cameron had got serious movement from the EU on the substance of his Bloomberg speech, far fewer of his parliamentary party and activists would have backed Leave, which would have made a huge difference.
If Cameron had got serious movement, Remain would have have won.
Nah. Whatever Dave agreed, Leave would have set the dogs of hell on him and proclaimed it worthless. The poor man never stood a chance. We're seeing that now: someone only has to suggest the possibility of transitory period for a year or two and they're vilified. Nothing can sate Leave's blood lust.
I'd have voted Leave. But Conservative supporters would have broken 60/40 Remain, rather than 60/40 Leave.
As I understand it Trump "totally destroying" DPRK is as big a fantasy as hard Brexit with Europe giving in to our "reasonable" demands. The US cant fire its ICBMs - Russia and China not minded to wait for apogee to see if they are getting hit. It can't accurately use air-dropped nukes and guarantee getting Kim's launchers. It can't go after DPRK at all without risking nuclear strikes on Seoul or Tokyo or perhaps L.A.
In short it's Trump demonstrating to the world what an impotent fuck he really is
...but the shortcomings won't worry him. If he says he can wipe out an entire nation of 23 million people I have no doubt that is what he will try and do. I would imagine his cheerleaders like Stephen Miller won't trouble him with such trifles as the potential for inaccuracy, defective equipment and retaliation.
When the rest of us have all been vaporised Mr Trump will still be standing and banging the drum to tell himself and his acolytes what a hero he was.
@Sean_F Yes it all depends how you define living standards. My lefty teacher was through the in the BBC, public libraries, access to the NHS. What would Henry Vlll have made of those ? Or the sight of the food available in a modern Tesco ? What would have one short course of antibiotics have fetched in Alexander the Great's day. Does a British child playing with a cheap Android tablet have access to greater riches than say Da Vinci ? But you are right. It's a parlour game and depends on your definitions.
Of course Henry or his subjects couldn't compare their standard of living with ours still less do anything about it if they could. Those less fortunate than us around the world now though can. They can compare their "sixteenth century"(sort of) lifestyle with ours on a phone but of course don't need a time machine to do anything about it. Hence migrant flows. The visibility of the world is far greater than even fifteen years ago.
The first time I went to Versailles, on a crisp clear winter day, I dropped a tab of very good Ecstasy, and wandered the famous gardens and Hall of Mirrors completely zoinked out of my euphoric mind on methamphetamine (while listening to exquisite Baroque music on my Walkman)
So, I arguably got more intense pleasure out of Versailles than the Sun King himself, who only had brandy and the odd string quartet.
Progress, heh.
But, he got to take leisurely baths with Madame de Montespan.
And LOL at the idea that no one who is fiscally responsible voted for Corbyn.
But it's true. Anyone who voted for Corbyn was knowingly voting for unfunded spending commitments including random promises made with no idea of the costs involved, false taxation promises and sextupled borrowing. Therefore, anyone who voted for Corbyn was fiscally irresponsible.
However, what might otherwise have been a fatal flaw was somewhat neutered by the fact that May's plans insofar as she had any were nearly as bad.
This is just wrong. Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
This.
Lie to yourself if you must, but not to me. We both know - at least, I presume you know because you do not come across as a fool - that Labour plugged any random numbers in and called that 'costing'. All they wanted was to promise everyone free goodies that someone else would foot the bill for. And Greece and Venezuela do indeed show where that ends.
In a sense that's irrelevant because the election is over and you failed to win, albeit narrowly. What's more worrying is the vast level of self-deceit I see about the problems you still have. You are still a party led by a man who however brilliant a campaigner is still a terrorist-sympathising geriatric with the intellect of a roast potato, the administrative experience of a 16 year old (literally) and the political sophistication of Incitatus. He is supported by one of the most fluent and dangerous liars and bullies in journalism who continues to peddle forged figures about both the Stasi and the Soviet Union.
Now because of the travails of the Tories, you are able to paper over these cracks. But if you leave them untreated and do - God forbid - get into government, what will you do then? How will you hold the tottering edifice together long enough for people to even see how useless your policies are and how far out your figures were? Or will you once again see everything crash and construct false comfort narratives about how you would have won if it wasn't for the evilness of your opponents, as you have about the 1930s, 1950s and 1980s? But would there be anything left for you to reconstruct?
I will leave you with those thoughts for tonight and I hope you consider them carefully. Remember what happened to the last politician who took the electorate for granted. And yet she looked far less complacent than you all do.
I just got back from my honeymoon in Oman where I learned to abseil with Stephanie Flanders.
Can anyone beat that for ludicrously unexpected remarks on PB?
Congratulations, on the honeymoon and nuptial element, not on hanging around with Ed and Eds ex
It was pure coincidence. Ms Flanders was there on hols with her husband at the same time. Turns out she's really really nice, and friendly, and super smart and modest and all that, despite her quite incredible CV (I looked it up, she was a Kennedy scholar, as well as everything else)
She is also surprisingly tall and butch and kind of, ahem, toppy? Those who know what I am talking about will know what I am talking about.
So I wonder what that says about Mr Miliband and Mr Balls.
youre young you have sod all chance of getting a house Osborne is taxing your ass off on fees why wouldnt you enjoy a bit of life ? you cant really aspire to the life style of previous generations
+1. The way the Zeitgeist and Mortimer talk, you'd think it's only those under the age of thirty (or even mid thirties and under) that are struggling with buying at house at the moment. The Tories forget that they lost even those in their early to mid forties at the GE - which goes beyond the Zeitgeist's and Mortimer's generation into Gen X. According to YouGov's how Britain voted in 2017 data, the Conservatives have a lead only among the retired and lost among students, those employed and those unemployed. The Tories are being rejected by those of working age in general, not merely 'naive' young people.
Also, the idea that older generations never went to concerts, never went on holiday, and never went out for a drink or a meal is truly hilarious. Talking to my mum (in her forties) and other family friends in their fifties and sixties, they spent much of their youth going out to parties, clubbing, going to the cinema, shopping, going out for meals, and went on holiday too. And they came from working class backgrounds. So the idea that these desires are specific to just my generation is a ridiculous assertion.
The rot set in with generation X. They were the first ones to be brought up in the "everyone's a winner, no matter how hard you try" education mentality of loony local authorities in the late 1970s.
Absolutely right. There's only ever one cause. Problems are never complex.
As an aside, it's taken about 30 listens, but I've finally fallen in love with the latest National album.
For those who have yet to listen to The National, can I just say "you lucky bastards". You still have the best US band of the last 20 years to listen to and enjoy.
Lie to yourself if you must, but not to me. We both know - at least, I presume you know because you do not come across as a fool - that Labour plugged any random numbers in and called that 'costing'. All they wanted was to promise everyone free goodies that someone else would foot the bill for. And Greece and Venezuela do indeed show where that ends.
In a sense that's irrelevant because the election is over and you failed to win, albeit narrowly. What's more worrying is the vast level of self-deceit I see about the problems you still have. You are still a party led by a man who however brilliant a campaigner is still a terrorist-sympathising geriatric with the intellect of a roast potato, the administrative experience of a 16 year old (literally) and the political sophistication of Incitatus. He is supported by one of the most fluent and dangerous liars and bullies in journalism who continues to peddle forged figures about both the Stasi and the Soviet Union.
Now because of the travails of the Tories, you are able to paper over these cracks. But if you leave them untreated and do - God forbid - get into government, what will you do then? How will you hold the tottering edifice together long enough for people to even see how useless your policies are and how far out your figures were? Or will you once again see everything crash and construct false comfort narratives about how you would have won if it wasn't for the evilness of your opponents, as you have about the 1930s, 1950s and 1980s? But would there be anything left for you to reconstruct?
I will leave you with those thoughts for tonight and I hope you consider them carefully. Remember what happened to the last politician who took the electorate for granted. And yet she looked far less complacent than you all do.
Did you really write this monologue all over a comment that was in reference to how financially responsible people are in their private lives?
You shouldn't have borthered. Also I didn't vote for Corbyn btw, and I'm not a Corbynista. I voted LD, and am most likely going to vote for them again in the future although it isn't decided. So I don't know why you're talking as if Labour is my party at the moment. I'm just not a great fan of the Tories and am sympathetic to the reasons why so many voted for Corbyn in a way I wasn't before.
And LOL at the idea that no one who is fiscally responsible voted for Corbyn.
But it's true. Anyone who voted for Corbyn was knowingly voting for unfunded spending commitments including random promises made with no idea of the costs involved, false taxation promises and sextupled borrowing. Therefore, anyone who voted for Corbyn was fiscally irresponsible.
However, what might otherwise have been a fatal flaw was somewhat neutered by the fact that May's plans insofar as she had any were nearly as bad.
This is just wrong. Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
Yes, it was costed. The costs were however all lies as I spent a great deal of time and effort pointing out. Just to point out the most obvious, they thought 30,000 new police officers would cost £300,000,000 a year, because they had forgotten things like uniforms, offices, transport etc and only budgeted for salaries (and Abbott of course couldn't even get that figure right in three attempts).
if somebody costs everything on the basis of fantasy economics, then while it may be costed it still a fantasy. The fact that Labour are still pushing this lie when anyone with a clear eye and half a brain can see through it is worrying.
Labour wanted to recruit 10,000 more coppers; since Theresa May had cut 20,000, it seems likely most of the necessary infrastructure was still there. The IFS was not uncritical of Labour's costings but the price of 10,000 tall hats is margin-of-error stuff. Look at the variance in estimated costs of Brexit, for instance.
As I understand it Trump "totally destroying" DPRK is as big a fantasy as hard Brexit with Europe giving in to our "reasonable" demands. The US cant fire its ICBMs - Russia and China not minded to wait for apogee to see if they are getting hit. It can't accurately use air-dropped nukes and guarantee getting Kim's launchers. It can't go after DPRK at all without risking nuclear strikes on Seoul or Tokyo or perhaps L.A.
In short it's Trump demonstrating to the world what an impotent fuck he really is
You know that the distance from Pyongyang to London is less than that to LA, right?
Lie to yourself if you must, but not to me. We both know - at least, I presume you know because you do not come across as a fool - that Labour plugged any random numbers in and called that 'costing'. All they wanted was to promise everyone free goodies that someone else would foot the bill for. And Greece and Venezuela do indeed show where that ends.
In a sense that's irrelevant because the election is over and you failed to win, albeit narrowly. What's more worrying is the vast level of self-deceit I see about the problems you still have. You are still a party led by a man who however brilliant a campaigner is still a terrorist-sympathising geriatric with the intellect of a roast potato, the administrative experience of a 16 year old (literally) and the political sophistication of Incitatus. He is supported by one of the most fluent and dangerous liars and bullies in journalism who continues to peddle forged figures about both the Stasi and the Soviet Union.
Now because of the travails of the Tories, you are able to paper over these cracks. But if you leave them untreated and do - God forbid - get into government, what will you do then? How will you hold the tottering edifice together long enough for people to even see how useless your policies are and how far out your figures were? Or will you once again see everything crash and construct false comfort narratives about how you would have won if it wasn't for the evilness of your opponents, as you have about the 1930s, 1950s and 1980s? But would there be anything left for you to reconstruct?
I will leave you with those thoughts for tonight and I hope you consider them carefully. Remember what happened to the last politician who took the electorate for granted. And yet she looked far less complacent than you all do.
Did you really write this monologue all over a comment that was in reference to how financially responsible people are in their private lives?
You shouldn't have borthered. Also I didn't vote for Corbyn btw, and I'm not a Corbynista. I voted LD, and am most likely vote for them again in the future although it isn't decided. So I don't know why you're talking as if Labour is my party at the moment. I'm just not a great fan of the Tories and am sympathetic to the reasons why so many voted for Corbyn in a way I wasn't before.
There seems to be a mood abroad whereby anyone who broaches the idea that Corbyn/Labour may have had a point here and there, or that one or two of their policies may be worthy of consideration is suddenly in favour of collectivising the means of production. leading Britain into being Venezuela. It is making me seriously reconsider, and not at all in the way intended.
There's another problem with modern life. Beer needn't be 5.3%
Beer used to be closer to 3.3%. Your 5.3 is an increase of roughly 60% in alcohol content from a standard beer. 60% more alcohol than you get in a beer of about 3.3%. Think about it.
Beer and wine have too much alcohol now.
You're no fun any more.
Unrelatedly, this is genius (lifted from @Casino_Royale's twatter feed or whatever you call it)
I just got back from my honeymoon in Oman where I learned to abseil with Stephanie Flanders.
Can anyone beat that for ludicrously unexpected remarks on PB?
Congratulations, on the honeymoon and nuptial element, not on hanging around with Ed and Eds ex
It was pure coincidence. Ms Flanders was there on hols with her husband at the same time. Turns out she's really really nice, and friendly, and super smart and modest and all that, despite her quite incredible CV (I looked it up, she was a Kennedy scholar, as well as everything else)
She is also surprisingly tall and butch and kind of, ahem, toppy? Those who know what I am talking about will know what I am talking about.
So I wonder what that says about Mr Miliband and Mr Balls.
Or Mrs balls and Mrs milliband
Indeed. I am reminded of the sometimes surprising definitions of the verb "pegging".
I just got back from my honeymoon in Oman where I learned to abseil with Stephanie Flanders.
Can anyone beat that for ludicrously unexpected remarks on PB?
Congratulations, on the honeymoon and nuptial element, not on hanging around with Ed and Eds ex
It was pure coincidence. Ms Flanders was there on hols with her husband at the same time. Turns out she's really really nice, and friendly, and super smart and modest and all that, despite her quite incredible CV (I looked it up, she was a Kennedy scholar, as well as everything else)
She is also surprisingly tall and butch and kind of, ahem, toppy? Those who know what I am talking about will know what I am talking about.
So I wonder what that says about Mr Miliband and Mr Balls.
Or Mrs balls and Mrs milliband
Indeed. I am reminded of the sometimes surprising definitions of the verb "pegging".
I had to look that one up!
Somehow it is more redolent of banana man
"Pegging is a method of stabilizing a country's currency by fixing its exchange rate to that of another country."
Was DMili advocating linking the pound to the euro?
I just got back from my honeymoon in Oman where I learned to abseil with Stephanie Flanders.
Can anyone beat that for ludicrously unexpected remarks on PB?
Congratulations, on the honeymoon and nuptial element, not on hanging around with Ed and Eds ex
It was pure coincidence. Ms Flanders was there on hols with her husband at the same time. Turns out she's really really nice, and friendly, and super smart and modest and all that, despite her quite incredible CV (I looked it up, she was a Kennedy scholar, as well as everything else)
She is also surprisingly tall and butch and kind of, ahem, toppy? Those who know what I am talking about will know what I am talking about.
So I wonder what that says about Mr Miliband and Mr Balls.
Or Mrs balls and Mrs milliband
Indeed. I am reminded of the sometimes surprising definitions of the verb "pegging".
I had to look that one up!
Somehow it is more redolent of banana man
"Pegging is a method of stabilizing a country's currency by fixing its exchange rate to that of another country."
Was DMili advocating linking the pound to the euro?
@Sean_F Yes it all depends how you define living standards. My lefty teacher was through the in the BBC, public libraries, access to the NHS. What would Henry Vlll have made of those ? Or the sight of the food available in a modern Tesco ? What would have one short course of antibiotics have fetched in Alexander the Great's day. Does a British child playing with a cheap Android tablet have access to greater riches than say Da Vinci ? But you are right. It's a parlour game and depends on your definitions.
Of course Henry or his subjects couldn't compare their standard of living with ours still less do anything about it if they could. Those less fortunate than us around the world now though can. They can compare their "sixteenth century"(sort of) lifestyle with ours on a phone but of course don't need a time machine to do anything about it. Hence migrant flows. The visibility of the world is far greater than even fifteen years ago.
The first time I went to Versailles, on a crisp clear winter day, I dropped a tab of very good Ecstasy, and wandered the famous gardens and Hall of Mirrors completely zoinked out of my euphoric mind on methamphetamine (while listening to exquisite Baroque music on my Walkman)
So, I arguably got more intense pleasure out of Versailles than the Sun King himself, who only had brandy and the odd string quartet.
Progress, heh.
I am working on the theory that the baby boomers (we baby boomers) didn't just have it good by comparison with generation x; it has actually been the best time in history ever to be alive. Medicine has got us to the stage where we are reasonably confident of living in good health to 70 or 80, but we are not too deep into pointless struldbruggery. We have the internet and serious drugs (recreational or not) and lived through the sweet spot when cars were fast and speed cameras were not a thing and there were moon landings and Concorde. And we have Spotify, and Dylan and Young and Led Zeppelin to play on it. And apres nous le deluge, because the only thing which will stop the earth grinding to a halt from over-population and scarcity of resources is nuclear war. Oh, and if global warming is a thing, the chances of it being a stoppable or reversible thing are negligible, because catastrophes in general are not reversible.
The poster purporting to be SeanT appears remarkably chipper! An imposter?
Russian hackers?
I just got a frankly MAHOOSIVE royalty payment. I just got married to a phenomenally beautiful 22 year old woman who inexplicably seems to love me. I have two adorable daughters age 11. In three weeks I go to the cruellest place on earth, the Danakil Depression, possibly the greatest destination on the planet for any professional travel writer (like me).
Frankly, if I wasn't feeling a bit chipper about now, there's something very wrong.
After this, all is decline and fall. Expect suicidally depressive comments from mid-late October as my absurdly young and attractive wife leaves me for a hipster tennis instructor, and I get my tax bill, etc.
So Mrs Knox, what was it about the royalty-soaked Sean Thomas that first attracted you?
And apres nous le deluge, because the only thing which will stop the earth grinding to a halt from over-population and scarcity of resources is nuclear war.
@Sean_F Yes it all depends how you define living standards. My lefty teacher was through the in the BBC, public libraries, access to the NHS. What would Henry Vlll have made of those ? Or the sight of the food available in a modern Tesco ? What would have one short course of antibiotics have fetched in Alexander the Great's day. Does a British child playing with a cheap Android tablet have access to greater riches than say Da Vinci ? But you are right. It's a parlour game and depends on your definitions.
Of course Henry or his subjects couldn't compare their standard of living with ours still less do anything about it if they could. Those less fortunate than us around the world now though can. They can compare their "sixteenth century"(sort of) lifestyle with ours on a phone but of course don't need a time machine to do anything about it. Hence migrant flows. The visibility of the world is far greater than even fifteen years ago.
The first time I went to Versailles, on a crisp clear winter day, I dropped a tab of very good Ecstasy, and wandered the famous gardens and Hall of Mirrors completely zoinked out of my euphoric mind on methamphetamine (while listening to exquisite Baroque music on my Walkman)
So, I arguably got more intense pleasure out of Versailles than the Sun King himself, who only had brandy and the odd string quartet.
Progress, heh.
I am working on the theory that the baby boomers (we baby boomers) didn't just have it good by comparison with generation x; it has actually been the best time in history ever to be alive. Medicine has got us to the stage where we are reasonably confident of living in good health to 70 or 80, but we are not too deep into pointless struldbruggery. We have the internet and serious drugs (recreational or not) and lived through the sweet spot when cars were fast and speed cameras were not a thing and there were moon landings and Concorde. And we have Spotify, and Dylan and Young and Led Zeppelin to play on it. And apres nous le deluge, because the only thing which will stop the earth grinding to a halt from over-population and scarcity of resources is nuclear war. Oh, and if global warming is a thing, the chances of it being a stoppable or reversible thing are negligible, because catastrophes in general are not reversible.
Sorry gen X, but there it is.
I would tend to agree tho my Dad (now age 82) thinks HIS generation had it best.
Certainly you were comparatively and maybe uniquely lucky if you were a westerner growing up and coming of age from about 1955 to 2000, or maybe 2005. Since then, hmm....
Though Mrs. Knox obviously bucked the post-2005 trend
FFS why has it taken 6 months to come up with a counter offer to the EU's demands?
I'm not sure the EU has made a specific demand on the figure they want.
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
I've heard it said that the smartest negotiating tactic is silence. Let the other person try and fill the gap in conversation, because it is likely to be a concession.
Certainly you were comparatively and maybe uniquely lucky if you were a westerner growing up and coming of age from about 1955 to 2000, or maybe 2005. Since then, hmm....
Avoiding being born between about 1880 and 1940 was a damn smart move, but I'm not convinced that the post war years were truly a golden age.
People born this century should do very well in the long term. The pessimism seems quite unfounded to me.
FFS why has it taken 6 months to come up with a counter offer to the EU's demands?
I'm not sure the EU has made a specific demand on the figure they want.
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
I've heard it said that the smartest negotiating tactic is silence. Let the other person try and fill the gap in conversation, because it is likely to be a concession.
Perhaps we should say a little less.
Isn't that one of the major complaints we hear about David Davis, not making offers for this or that? By and large a sound strategy at this stage, I would think.
And apres nous le deluge, because the only thing which will stop the earth grinding to a halt from over-population and scarcity of resources is nuclear war.
I think you need to watch this: htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM
59:15 is about 57:15 longer than my usual youtube attention span; but i'll try to watch it tomorrow.
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
FFS why has it taken 6 months to come up with a counter offer to the EU's demands?
I'm not sure the EU has made a specific demand on the figure they want.
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
I've heard it said that the smartest negotiating tactic is silence. Let the other person try and fill the gap in conversation, because it is likely to be a concession.
Perhaps we should say a little less.
If both parties take that approach you're not going to get very far.
FFS why has it taken 6 months to come up with a counter offer to the EU's demands?
I'm not sure the EU has made a specific demand on the figure they want.
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
So the deadlock has been 6 months of "You owe us some money but we're not saying how much" versus "We're not going to pay you anything"?
Is there a market on how much we end up paying?
No, in negotiations we haven't said we are paying nothing, according to reports I've read.
God, that's even sillier then... six months of both sides refusing to say how much they want/will pay.
It is pretty much incumbent upon the EU to give a figure and the justification of that figure. They are the ones who think they have a justification for a large figure, so need to share that information with us in order to move forward.
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
If, and it is a big if, Theresa kick starts the process with her Florence speech that ultimately results in a deal she will be able to hand over the batton with her reputation restored.
However, I am sure many will have a very negative view of the hopes on a deal
Time will tell but Friday's Florence speech is about as important as it gets for the UK, the EU and May herself
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
I think you are describing politics in action.
That's a very fair point @philiph but it confirms that we are still negotiating with ourselves. 6 months into the A50 period and we are still negotiating with ourselves.
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
Your last sentence is the best one (the bit about waiting for the speech)
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
I think you are describing politics in action.
That's a very point @philiph but it confirms that we are still negotiating with ourselves. 6 months into the A50 period and we are still negotiating with ourselves.
Effectively we are 1/3rd of the way through the negotiating period because I believe the ratifications that have to be done before 29 March 2019 will take six months.
FFS why has it taken 6 months to come up with a counter offer to the EU's demands?
I'm not sure the EU has made a specific demand on the figure they want.
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
So the deadlock has been 6 months of "You owe us some money but we're not saying how much" versus "We're not going to pay you anything"?
Is there a market on how much we end up paying?
So far we’ve had about a week’s worth of talks, and about three million words written about them.
Wake me up again when there’s a substantive deal actually close.
Suggest you snooze then until 29 March 2019.
Probably. At 11:30pm. And there’s no betting markets on the outcome either!
Actually, leave it till 7.30 the next morning. Apart from some joke on here about the British delegation's messengers being DExEUs midnight runners, nothing worthwhile will be announced until then.
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
I think you are describing politics in action.
That's a very fair point @philiph but it confirms that we are still negotiating with ourselves. 6 months into the A50 period and we are still negotiating with ourselves.
In part because the other side hadn't given a figure. Our intention of not naming a figure is a negotiating tactic.
Florence, assuming it names a figure, is to push them into a counter figure or agreement. Boris is right from a negotiating stance, start it low.
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
Your last sentence is the best one (the bit about waiting for the speech)
On which topic, this habit nowadays of bigging-up speeches weeks in advance does make me laugh (well cringe). If Mrs May has something to announce, why doesn't she just step out into Downing Street and say it, or announce it at a press conferences whilst on tour? - it's not like she lacks a platform.
I cannot see how all the speculation generated by the planned Florence speech is helping her (or our) cause one bit.
And apres nous le deluge, because the only thing which will stop the earth grinding to a halt from over-population and scarcity of resources is nuclear war.
I think you need to watch this: htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM
59:15 is about 57:15 longer than my usual youtube attention span; but i'll try to watch it tomorrow.
You won't regret it. It's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.
FFS why has it taken 6 months to come up with a counter offer to the EU's demands?
I'm not sure the EU has made a specific demand on the figure they want.
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
So the deadlock has been 6 months of "You owe us some money but we're not saying how much" versus "We're not going to pay you anything"?
Is there a market on how much we end up paying?
So far we’ve had about a week’s worth of talks, and about three million words written about them.
Wake me up again when there’s a substantive deal actually close.
Suggest you snooze then until 29 March 2019.
Probably. At 11:30pm. And there’s no betting markets on the outcome either!
Actually, leave it till 7.30 the next morning. Apart from some joke on here about the British delegation's messengers being DExEUs midnight runners, nothing worthwhile will be announced until then.
Ha, you’ve just spoiled TSE’s pun headline for that night’s thread!!
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
Your last sentence is the best one (the bit about waiting for the speech)
On which topic, this habit nowadays of bigging-up speeches weeks in advance does make me laugh (well cringe). If Mrs May has something to announce, why doesn't she just step out into Downing Street and say it, or announce it at a press conferences whilst on tour? - it's not like she lacks a platform.
I cannot see how all the speculation generated by the planned Florence speech is helping her (or our) cause one bit.
FFS why has it taken 6 months to come up with a counter offer to the EU's demands?
I'm not sure the EU has made a specific demand on the figure they want.
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
So the deadlock has been 6 months of "You owe us some money but we're not saying how much" versus "We're not going to pay you anything"?
Is there a market on how much we end up paying?
So far we’ve had about a week’s worth of talks, and about three million words written about them.
Wake me up again when there’s a substantive deal actually close.
Suggest you snooze then until 29 March 2019.
Probably. At 11:30pm. And there’s no betting markets on the outcome either!
Actually, leave it till 7.30 the next morning. Apart from some joke on here about the British delegation's messengers being DExEUs midnight runners, nothing worthwhile will be announced until then.
Ha, you’ve just spoiled TSE’s pun headline for that night’s thread!!
I've got an awesome musical pun lined up for the morning thread.
If Alastair Meeks and Tissue Price say they came up with it, then they are WRONG.
FFS why has it taken 6 months to come up with a counter offer to the EU's demands?
I'm not sure the EU has made a specific demand on the figure they want.
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
So the deadlock has been 6 months of "You owe us some money but we're not saying how much" versus "We're not going to pay you anything"?
Is there a market on how much we end up paying?
So far we’ve had about a week’s worth of talks, and about three million words written about them.
Wake me up again when there’s a substantive deal actually close.
Suggest you snooze then until 29 March 2019.
Probably. At 11:30pm. And there’s no betting markets on the outcome either!
Actually, leave it till 7.30 the next morning. Apart from some joke on here about the British delegation's messengers being DExEUs midnight runners, nothing worthwhile will be announced until then.
Ha, you’ve just spoiled TSE’s pun headline for that night’s thread!!
I begin to think he might do it. After writing him off for several years.
Why does he want it?
In my opinion, most of the great men of the past were only there for the beer - the wealth, prestige and grandeur that went with the power." A J P Taylor.
FFS why has it taken 6 months to come up with a counter offer to the EU's demands?
I'm not sure the EU has made a specific demand on the figure they want.
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
So the deadlock has been 6 months of "You owe us some money but we're not saying how much" versus "We're not going to pay you anything"?
Is there a market on how much we end up paying?
So far we’ve had about a week’s worth of talks, and about three million words written about them.
Wake me up again when there’s a substantive deal actually close.
Suggest you snooze then until 29 March 2019.
Probably. At 11:30pm. And there’s no betting markets on the outcome either!
Actually, leave it till 7.30 the next morning. Apart from some joke on here about the British delegation's messengers being DExEUs midnight runners, nothing worthwhile will be announced until then.
Ha, you’ve just spoiled TSE’s pun headline for that night’s thread!!
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
Your last sentence is the best one (the bit about waiting for the speech)
On which topic, this habit nowadays of bigging-up speeches weeks in advance does make me laugh (well cringe). If Mrs May has something to announce, why doesn't she just step out into Downing Street and say it, or announce it at a press conferences whilst on tour? - it's not like she lacks a platform.
I cannot see how all the speculation generated by the planned Florence speech is helping her (or our) cause one bit.
Better still she could actually go to Parliament and make a statement to the MPs who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.
So the pre pre briefing on Florence was May would offer £30bn. Now the pre briefing is she's offering €20bn. In the meantime Boris has threatened resignation and then walked back from the brink. So have in fact May and Boris sat down and split the difference ? And what does that do to the negotiations ? How does leaking a higher figure then announcing a lower one unblock anything ? Of course we have to wait for the actual speech but it all smacks of extraordinary chaos.
Your last sentence is the best one (the bit about waiting for the speech)
On which topic, this habit nowadays of bigging-up speeches weeks in advance does make me laugh (well cringe). If Mrs May has something to announce, why doesn't she just step out into Downing Street and say it, or announce it at a press conferences whilst on tour? - it's not like she lacks a platform.
I cannot see how all the speculation generated by the planned Florence speech is helping her (or our) cause one bit.
Better still she could actually go to Parliament and make a statement to the MPs who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.
I begin to think he might do it. After writing him off for several years.
Why does he want it?
In my opinion, most of the great men of the past were only there for the beer - the wealth, prestige and grandeur that went with the power." A J P Taylor.
Well. He's likely to be disappointed. More beer, prestige, grandeur and power available elsewhere.
Comments
really good and I dont even like beer
https://puritybrewing.com/tag/saddle-black/
However, what might otherwise have been a fatal flaw was somewhat neutered by the fact that May's plans insofar as she had any were nearly as bad.
Unrelatedly, this is genius (lifted from @Casino_Royale's twatter feed or whatever you call it)
https://twitter.com/JElvisWeinstein/status/909110782553595904
The only beers worth drinking are India Pale Ale, Weissbeer, or Budvar.
Ha, wouldn't say will be the case. People become conservative because the status quo benefits them. Right now it isn't even benefitting most working people and even those who are of an age where they starting a family.
Stephen Bush did a good article on this: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/06/why-britains-ageing-population-wont-save-tories
@philiph I'd say people are looking for cheaper alternatives to entertainment. Many would have grown up with Sky, but most are relying on Netflix and YouTube because it is cheaper - whereas Sky can be very expensive, you can pay about only £5.99 for Netflix per month. Amazon Prime is around a similar price too. In order to access YouTube all you need is a smartphone/tablet/laptop and wifi.
if somebody costs everything on the basis of fantasy economics, then while it may be costed it still a fantasy. The fact that Labour are still pushing this lie when anyone with a clear eye and half a brain can see through it is worrying.
And what's hilarious is that for a so called counter culture, is that young people who tend to go against the establishment have very little time for conservatism.
I find the whole thing about Davis's Permanent Secretary "leaving" but moving into No 10 a bit weird, especially three days before TMay is touted to be making a speech sufficiently game-changing to delay the next round of talks. If he's fallen out with DD, then at least one of them is a waste of a salary while they're both in post.
From the woman who called an election convinced of her ability to grind Labour into the dust, I can see the speech where she explains that 'nothing is more important for our country, so I'm taking personal charge of this process. I will be negotiating for X, Y and Z, and I'm booked on the first RyanAir flight to Brussels next week" (NB: it's probably on Friday; to Lille).
Minimal reshuffle... DexEU moves into the cabinet office; whichever one of BJ or DD holds on tightest gets FCO (or if they both flounce, another more loyal Brexiteer is rewarded); Doc Fox can come on the trips as long as he shares TM's bedroom
A Permanent Lapse of Reason?
But I will make an exception.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/910233185778315264
When the rest of us have all been vaporised Mr Trump will still be standing and banging the drum to tell himself and his acolytes what a hero he was.
In a sense that's irrelevant because the election is over and you failed to win, albeit narrowly. What's more worrying is the vast level of self-deceit I see about the problems you still have. You are still a party led by a man who however brilliant a campaigner is still a terrorist-sympathising geriatric with the intellect of a roast potato, the administrative experience of a 16 year old (literally) and the political sophistication of Incitatus. He is supported by one of the most fluent and dangerous liars and bullies in journalism who continues to peddle forged figures about both the Stasi and the Soviet Union.
Now because of the travails of the Tories, you are able to paper over these cracks. But if you leave them untreated and do - God forbid - get into government, what will you do then? How will you hold the tottering edifice together long enough for people to even see how useless your policies are and how far out your figures were? Or will you once again see everything crash and construct false comfort narratives about how you would have won if it wasn't for the evilness of your opponents, as you have about the 1930s, 1950s and 1980s? But would there be anything left for you to reconstruct?
I will leave you with those thoughts for tonight and I hope you consider them carefully. Remember what happened to the last politician who took the electorate for granted. And yet she looked far less complacent than you all do.
Fuck nuance.
For those who have yet to listen to The National, can I just say "you lucky bastards". You still have the best US band of the last 20 years to listen to and enjoy.
Here's one of my favourite tracks, from Boxer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KhGUE_KjIo
You shouldn't have borthered. Also I didn't vote for Corbyn btw, and I'm not a Corbynista. I voted LD, and am most likely going to vote for them again in the future although it isn't decided. So I don't know why you're talking as if Labour is my party at the moment. I'm just not a great fan of the Tories and am sympathetic to the reasons why so many voted for Corbyn in a way I wasn't before.
I didn't have breadfruit for breakfast.
A flea can jump up to 3.9 feet.
...
It is making me seriously reconsider, and not at all in the way intended.
Somehow it is more redolent of banana man
Was DMili advocating linking the pound to the euro?
https://nyti.ms/2ybBdhW
Sorry gen X, but there it is.
https://www.express.co.uk/pictures/pics/4733/90-s-00-s-boy-bands-embarrassing-pictures/Let-Loose-Their-debit-single-Crazy-for-You-was-the-8th-best-selling-single-of-1994-in-the-UK-106077
The question can therefore be addressed both ways.
Is there a market on how much we end up paying?
Perhaps we should say a little less.
http://wapo.st/2ymqjqF
People born this century should do very well in the long term. The pessimism seems quite unfounded to me.
Wake me up again when there’s a substantive deal actually close.
However, I am sure many will have a very negative view of the hopes on a deal
Time will tell but Friday's Florence speech is about as important as it gets for the UK, the EU and May herself
Florence, assuming it names a figure, is to push them into a counter figure or agreement. Boris is right from a negotiating stance, start it low.
I cannot see how all the speculation generated by the planned Florence speech is helping her (or our) cause one bit.
If Alastair Meeks and Tissue Price say they came up with it, then they are WRONG.
So which one is in charge here?
https://twitter.com/johngapper/status/758315746774622208