politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New polling finds just 28% of GE2017 LAB voters support the pa
Comments
-
Ah ok fair enough. Things you learn on PB eh?ydoethur said:
Razors were widespread tech from the Stone Age on, but more importantly after the first big shave you can use rough stone, pumice stone for preference, to rub the area and stop hair growing. Monks used both ways for their tonsures.Benpointer said:
Why so? And wouldn't access to sharp razors have been a luxury in the late first millennium?rpjs said:
I think observant Muslims are requires to shave their body hair, including armpits and pubes. Probably sensible in the context of the desert-living early Muslims.ydoethur said:
It's not modern though. There is a wonderful passage in Ousamah ibn-MUnqidh's Memoirs where a Frank gets his pubes shaved, Arab fashion, by a man at the baths. He's so pleased with the effect he drags this man to his house, orders his wife to strip and gets her pudendum shaved as well. Ousamah, not surprisingly, was rather bemused by this second action!Benpointer said:
Yes - absolutely agree. Something rather creepy about it.DavidL said:
Personally I have always felt it had more than a touch of pedophilia about. Really distasteful.Foxy said:
Any body hair is to be deplored below the neck. It is an aesthetic that has come from pornography.CD13 said:Can I ask a strange question why we're talking about attraction. Having been married for 43 years to the same woman, I didn't realise the fashion is now to shave your pubes. I saw a TV show briefly and it came as a total surprise. I had to check with my son who knows these things, and he confirmed it.
Surely pubic hair is a turn on? I can only speak about women because men are ugly, smelly creatures at the best of times (but I'm sure gay men may have different views).
Yes, I do realise I'm an old git.
And that was in twelfth century Jerusalem!0 -
I'll quite while I'm ahead before I have any more disasters about Germans.Benpointer said:
Ah ok fair enough. Things you learn on PB eh?ydoethur said:
Razors were widespread tech from the Stone Age on, but more importantly after the first big shave you can use rough stone, pumice stone for preference, to rub the area and stop hair growing. Monks used both ways for their tonsures.Benpointer said:
Why so? And wouldn't access to sharp razors have been a luxury in the late first millennium?rpjs said:
I think observant Muslims are requires to shave their body hair, including armpits and pubes. Probably sensible in the context of the desert-living early Muslims.ydoethur said:
It's not modern though. There is a wonderful passage in Ousamah ibn-MUnqidh's Memoirs where a Frank gets his pubes shaved, Arab fashion, by a man at the baths. He's so pleased with the effect he drags this man to his house, orders his wife to strip and gets her pudendum shaved as well. Ousamah, not surprisingly, was rather bemused by this second action!Benpointer said:
Yes - absolutely agree. Something rather creepy about it.DavidL said:
Personally I have always felt it had more than a touch of pedophilia about. Really distasteful.Foxy said:
Any body hair is to be deplored below the neck. It is an aesthetic that has come from pornography.CD13 said:Can I ask a strange question why we're talking about attraction. Having been married for 43 years to the same woman, I didn't realise the fashion is now to shave your pubes. I saw a TV show briefly and it came as a total surprise. I had to check with my son who knows these things, and he confirmed it.
Surely pubic hair is a turn on? I can only speak about women because men are ugly, smelly creatures at the best of times (but I'm sure gay men may have different views).
Yes, I do realise I'm an old git.
And that was in twelfth century Jerusalem!
Good night one and all.0 -
I bet there's a performance art video which does just that!kle4 said:
The topics could be combined perhaps?Benpointer said:
Re PB tonight: Shoes, pubic hair and vegan sausage rolls ?! Any chance we can just go back to Brexit?NickPalmer said:Sympathies, Jonathan - that sounds awful. I find the forum a relaxed place to escape from stresses at times: there is a lot to be said for being among peolple who are friendly but not immediately proximate - close friends and family want to talk about the problems, we just want to talk about...er..pubic hair today, apparently. Who knows what will take our fancy tomorrow and distract us further?
0 -
First it was Thomas the tank engine, then super heroes, now the fact magicians tell porkies are under fire from the woke....
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/shortcuts/2019/jan/02/mentalists-pseudoscience-neurolinguistic-programming-read-minds0 -
Shaving is horrible. The sharp ends of the hair are like a million needles. Waxing is the only way. In ancient times it was sugaring (similar to waxing). Much better resultsydoethur said:
Razors were widespread tech from the Stone Age on, but more importantly after the first big shave you can use rough stone, pumice stone for preference, to rub the area and stop hair growing. Monks used both ways for their tonsures.Benpointer said:
Why so? And wouldn't access to sharp razors have been a luxury in the late first millennium?rpjs said:
I think observant Muslims are requires to shave their body hair, including armpits and pubes. Probably sensible in the context of the desert-living early Muslims.ydoethur said:
It's not modern though. There is a wonderful passage in Ousamah ibn-MUnqidh's Memoirs where a Frank gets his pubes shaved, Arab fashion, by a man at the baths. He's so pleased with the effect he drags this man to his house, orders his wife to strip and gets her pudendum shaved as well. Ousamah, not surprisingly, was rather bemused by this second action!Benpointer said:
Yes - absolutely agree. Something rather creepy about it.DavidL said:
Personally I have always felt it had more than a touch of pedophilia about. Really distasteful.Foxy said:
Any body hair is to be deplored below the neck. It is an aesthetic that has come from pornography.CD13 said:Can I ask a strange question why we're talking about attraction. Having been married for 43 years to the same woman, I didn't realise the fashion is now to shave your pubes. I saw a TV show briefly and it came as a total surprise. I had to check with my son who knows these things, and he confirmed it.
Surely pubic hair is a turn on? I can only speak about women because men are ugly, smelly creatures at the best of times (but I'm sure gay men may have different views).
Yes, I do realise I'm an old git.
And that was in twelfth century Jerusalem!0 -
Excellently mansplained!Omnium said:
Most grown-up women aren't quite at ease with what a grown-up woman's body looks like. Make-up, flattering cuts on dresses etc. They're not at ease with what a grown-up woman's body smells like either - perfume. Japanese women (at least) aren't so happy with what a grown-up woman's body sounds like.Beverley_C said:
I totally agree.Cyclefree said:
True.Beverley_C said:
More pertinently, why would I want to have sex with a man who does not love me as I am. If he wants me to look like someone else,then he should go and find that someone else.Cyclefree said:
Pubic hair performs a useful function beyond the erotic.TheJezziah said:I can't imagine many of the pubic hair fans would prefer women with leg hair or facial hair.
Obviously it is another difference again but if you prefer women not to have hair in several places where it does (or can) grow naturally then it really isn't that much of a jump to see why they some people might not want it in other places as well.
It provides a cushion against friction that can cause skin abrasion and injury, protection from bacteria and other unwanted pathogens. Shaving it can cause injury and may make the skin more vulnerable to herpes infections and genital warts. Hair helps regulate heat and sweating in the area. The hair follicles also have a nerve ending so that when the hair is lightly touched it gives a pleasant sensation.
I suppose the question for me would be this: why would I want to have sex with a man who wants to have sex with a woman whose genitals look like those of a child?
I am me, not a work in progress.
But I am suspicious of men who aren't at ease with what a grown up woman's body looks like.
There are some confusing signals here. I guess we need to be grown-up about it.
0 -
Simple, he promised work to the 6m unemployed, restoration of national pride crushed by the Versailles treaty in 1919 and he offered a scapegoat for Germany's economic ills and defeat in the first world war, namely the Jews. Very alluring to Germans at the time.Benpointer said:
How 1930s Germany fell for Hitler is a mystery to me.kle4 said:
It's why I find the optimistic adoration of certain people, parties or ideologies to be simultaneously baffling, endearing and frustrating. I have never experienced such inspiration toward a person, party or idea but I can see the appeal, how those more passionate and idealistic can probably achieve things I never could with such a cynical take on things, but I just cannot understand, in our modern democratic societies, how people can come to seemingly love certain individuals on sometimes very limited evidence, not even the truth of who someone is but the myth. Granted, the same thing does work in reverse for hatred of certain people, parties and ideologies.stodge said:
Isn't that true though of all politicians especially in democratic free societies?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems to be going pear shaped for him
The sense of novelty, of youth, of "something different" naturally wears off when you see them every day. and they face the same problems as their predecessors and the reality dawns they have the same lack of answers.
And yet, much as each of us probably likes to think we'd have resisted the rise of Nazisim if we'd been there, we can never really know can we?
0 -
O/T: Looking to set up a local community website for our village, to include a photo gallery of local village scenes. Someone queried whether we need subject permission from anyone who appeared in the photos.
Does anyone know if it is true that "there is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place" - i.e. that we only need the permission of the photographer not the subject in any photo?0 -
Depends which Canadians you are talking to, most Canadian polls still have Trudeau's Liberals aheadBig_G_NorthWales said:
Not what I am hearing from CanadiansHYUFD said:
He is not as popular as 2015 but then Scheer is not that great an alternative either.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My eldest who lives in Vancouver thinks Trudeau is overHYUFD said:
Either way looks like Trudeau could lose his majority but is still likely to have the numbers for a Liberal minority government if needed, no other parties will do a deal with the ConservativesTheWhiteRabbit said:After a bit of fiddling I have put together a UNS table for the Canadian Federal election and can tell you that the most recent poll translates to:
Liberals 165 seats (-19)
Conservative 124 seats (+25)
NPD 37 seats (-7)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 11 seats (+1)
Whereas the best poll for the Conservatives produces:
Liberals 140 seats (-44)
Conservative 143 seats (+44)
NPD 40 seats (-4)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 14 seats (+4)
Note that the new PPC is not modelled and the modelling of the BQ is not great.
I expect a repeat of the 2012 US election when Obama's ratings were down but he still beat Romney, Trudeau will be re elected but with a lower majority and less enthusiasm than the last election0 -
Please explain the Japanese Women bit.. >>>Benpointer said:
Excellently mansplained!Omnium said:
Most grown-up women aren't quite at ease with what a grown-up woman's body looks like. Make-up, flattering cuts on dresses etc. They're not at ease with what a grown-up woman's body smells like either - perfume. Japanese women (at least) aren't so happy with what a grown-up woman's body sounds like.Beverley_C said:
I totally agree.Cyclefree said:
True.Beverley_C said:
More pertinently, why would I want to have sex with a man who does not love me as I am. If he wants me to look like someone else,then he should go and find that someone else.Cyclefree said:
Pubic hair performs a useful function beyond the erotic.TheJezziah said:I can't imagine many of the pubic hair fans would prefer women with leg hair or facial hair.
Obviously it is another difference again but if you prefer women not to have hair in several places where it does (or can) grow naturally then it really isn't that much of a jump to see why they some people might not want it in other places as well.
It provides a cushion against friction that can cause skin abrasion and injury, protection from bacteria and other unwanted pathogens. Shaving it can cause injury and may make the skin more vulnerable to herpes infections and genital warts. Hair helps regulate heat and sweating in the area. The hair follicles also have a nerve ending so that when the hair is lightly touched it gives a pleasant sensation.
I suppose the question for me would be this: why would I want to have sex with a man who wants to have sex with a woman whose genitals look like those of a child?
I am me, not a work in progress.
But I am suspicious of men who aren't at ease with what a grown up woman's body looks like.
There are some confusing signals here. I guess we need to be grown-up about it.0 -
Yeah, tbf I didn't understand the Japanese women bit - but as it was only mansplaining I didn't expect it to totally make sense.SquareRoot said:
Please explain the Japanese Women bit.. >>>Benpointer said:
Excellently mansplained!Omnium said:
Most grown-up women aren't quite at ease with what a grown-up woman's body looks like. Make-up, flattering cuts on dresses etc. They're not at ease with what a grown-up woman's body smells like either - perfume. Japanese women (at least) aren't so happy with what a grown-up woman's body sounds like.Beverley_C said:
I totally agree.Cyclefree said:
True.Beverley_C said:
More pertinently, why would I want to have sex with a man who does not love me as I am. If he wants me to look like someone else,then he should go and find that someone else.Cyclefree said:
Pubic hair performs a useful function beyond the erotic.TheJezziah said:I can't imagine many of the pubic hair fans would prefer women with leg hair or facial hair.
Obviously it is another difference again but if you prefer women not to have hair in several places where it does (or can) grow naturally then it really isn't that much of a jump to see why they some people might not want it in other places as well.
It provides a cushion against friction that can cause skin abrasion and injury, protection from bacteria and other unwanted pathogens. Shaving it can cause injury and may make the skin more vulnerable to herpes infections and genital warts. Hair helps regulate heat and sweating in the area. The hair follicles also have a nerve ending so that when the hair is lightly touched it gives a pleasant sensation.
I suppose the question for me would be this: why would I want to have sex with a man who wants to have sex with a woman whose genitals look like those of a child?
I am me, not a work in progress.
But I am suspicious of men who aren't at ease with what a grown up woman's body looks like.
There are some confusing signals here. I guess we need to be grown-up about it.0 -
As a non-shaving bear, I don't think so!Sunil_Prasannan said:
You're just racist against hairy people!Foxy said:
Unfortunately the Burt Reynolds/Magnum PI look has faded into history.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Real men should be hairy!Foxy said:
Any body hair is to be deplored below the neck. It is an aesthetic that has come from pornography.CD13 said:Can I ask a strange question why we're talking about attraction. Having been married for 43 years to the same woman, I didn't realise the fashion is now to shave your pubes. I saw a TV show briefly and it came as a total surprise. I had to check with my son who knows these things, and he confirmed it.
Surely pubic hair is a turn on? I can only speak about women because men are ugly, smelly creatures at the best of times (but I'm sure gay men may have different views).
Yes, I do realise I'm an old git.
And real women should like hairy men!
Chewbacca ain't got shit on me!
Mrs Foxy has a particular issue with nasal hair...0 -
Andrew Neil is questioning the quality of the hotels Piers stays inBenpointer said:
What an idiot he is. Gregg's must be loving all this extra publicity!ydoethur said:
No, we can still see what he was getting upright over:williamglenn said:
Piers Morgan seems to have deleted the tweet they were replying to.Theuniondivvie said:Greggs twitter account absolutely smashing it.
https://twitter.com/GreggsOfficial/status/1080527865467322369
http://www.twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1080526060507283456 He also replied to their putdown with his usual inimitable style and class:
http://www.twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1080532990940401664
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1080571490385440771
I somehow think SeanT goes to better ones (heck the ones I go to don't do Sausages Rolls and I'm a cheapskate who prefers to be by the client's office)..0 -
Mirror, mirror on the wallFoxy said:
As a non-shaving bear, I don't think so!Sunil_Prasannan said:
You're just racist against hairy people!Foxy said:
Unfortunately the Burt Reynolds/Magnum PI look has faded into history.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Real men should be hairy!Foxy said:
Any body hair is to be deplored below the neck. It is an aesthetic that has come from pornography.CD13 said:Can I ask a strange question why we're talking about attraction. Having been married for 43 years to the same woman, I didn't realise the fashion is now to shave your pubes. I saw a TV show briefly and it came as a total surprise. I had to check with my son who knows these things, and he confirmed it.
Surely pubic hair is a turn on? I can only speak about women because men are ugly, smelly creatures at the best of times (but I'm sure gay men may have different views).
Yes, I do realise I'm an old git.
And real women should like hairy men!
Chewbacca ain't got shit on me!
Mrs Foxy has a particular issue with nasal hair...
Who's the hairiest one of all? 0 -
If the Meaningful Vote debate also touches upon high heels, hair dying, train journeys, pubic hair and vegan sausage rolls then it might actually be worth tuning in0
-
Seaborne Freight clearly seem above board.
https://twitter.com/jonhall_/status/1080500704140238849?s=210 -
It doesn't have that effect on me TBH. It's not an addiction in the same way that smoking used to be in my younger days. There were times when I was so desperate for a fag that I would go out to a petrol station in the middle of the night - I wouldn't do that to watch a porn clip.kyf_100 said:
Yes, the site is polemical, but it is well researched and an interesting compilation of links.anothernick said:
I'm not qualified to challenge the science in all of that, Though the website is clearly plugging a line and is not objective; it has the slightly polemical air of the "just say no" campaigns in the US. And anyway it seems that the science is disputedkyf_100 said:
See the link I posted in reply to Anothernick, below.kinabalu said:
Has absolutely destroyed the young? That does not ring true to me.kyf_100 said:Indeed. Without wishing to go into detail on a family friendly forum, I think porn has absolutely destroyed the young. I am just about old enough that as a teenager for me porn was a furtive copy of Playboy or perhaps a well thumbed Razzle shared between friends. We knew it bore no relationship to real life. Today's teens have access to infinite amounts of hardcore in HD, any time, any where, on their phones.
It's a contradiction for me because I'm hugely against the porno ban / wanking license / drive to teach every teenager how to use a VPN that the government seem hell bent on pressing ahead with, because on principle I abhor censorship of any kind and think it sets a dangerous precedent.
On the other hand, porn is corrupting minds and - more importantly - hearts. People today expect their sex to look like porn and it is deeply damaging as most of us are not and do not want to be pornstars.
Despite being draconian and illiberal, the government has a point. But I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done.
Do you see much evidence for that?
Or have you deduced that it must be true because (i) porn is all over and (ii) young people are impressionable?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/women-who-stray/201307/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive
I'm not saying internet porn is harmless but nor do I think it will lead to the destruction of young minds and I frankly doubt that it is deeply damaging to most users.
But rather than read about it, my suggestion to anyone who thinks that porn is not addictive is to go without for 28 days and see how hard it is. Fnarr fnarr.0 -
Obviously their website is crap, we learnt that long ago.williamglenn said:Seaborne Freight clearly seem above board.
https://twitter.com/jonhall_/status/1080500704140238849?s=21
The question is whether they can deliver, and I've not seen much evidence either way.0 -
12th century Muslim chroniclers were dribbling into their beards when they described the depravity of the women of Outremer.ydoethur said:
It's not modern though. There is a wonderful passage in Ousamah ibn-MUnqidh's Memoirs where a Frank gets his pubes shaved, Arab fashion, by a man at the baths. He's so pleased with the effect he drags this man to his house, orders his wife to strip and gets her pudendum shaved as well. Ousamah, not surprisingly, was rather bemused by this second action!Benpointer said:
Yes - absolutely agree. Something rather creepy about it.DavidL said:
Personally I have always felt it had more than a touch of pedophilia about. Really distasteful.Foxy said:
Any body hair is to be deplored below the neck. It is an aesthetic that has come from pornography.CD13 said:Can I ask a strange question why we're talking about attraction. Having been married for 43 years to the same woman, I didn't realise the fashion is now to shave your pubes. I saw a TV show briefly and it came as a total surprise. I had to check with my son who knows these things, and he confirmed it.
Surely pubic hair is a turn on? I can only speak about women because men are ugly, smelly creatures at the best of times (but I'm sure gay men may have different views).
Yes, I do realise I'm an old git.
And that was in twelfth century Jerusalem!0 -
And by deliver do you mean a ferry service, or a takeaway meal?!TheWhiteRabbit said:
Obviously their website is crap, we learnt that long ago.williamglenn said:Seaborne Freight clearly seem above board.
https://twitter.com/jonhall_/status/1080500704140238849?s=21
The question is whether they can deliver, and I've not seen much evidence either way.0 -
Real ones - not pollsHYUFD said:
Depends which Canadians you are talking to, most Canadian polls still have Trudeau's Liberals aheadBig_G_NorthWales said:
Not what I am hearing from CanadiansHYUFD said:
He is not as popular as 2015 but then Scheer is not that great an alternative either.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My eldest who lives in Vancouver thinks Trudeau is overHYUFD said:
Either way looks like Trudeau could lose his majority but is still likely to have the numbers for a Liberal minority government if needed, no other parties will do a deal with the ConservativesTheWhiteRabbit said:After a bit of fiddling I have put together a UNS table for the Canadian Federal election and can tell you that the most recent poll translates to:
Liberals 165 seats (-19)
Conservative 124 seats (+25)
NPD 37 seats (-7)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 11 seats (+1)
Whereas the best poll for the Conservatives produces:
Liberals 140 seats (-44)
Conservative 143 seats (+44)
NPD 40 seats (-4)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 14 seats (+4)
Note that the new PPC is not modelled and the modelling of the BQ is not great.
I expect a repeat of the 2012 US election when Obama's ratings were down but he still beat Romney, Trudeau will be re elected but with a lower majority and less enthusiasm than the last election0 -
0
-
Polls do talk to real people you know, very few leaders are that popular anywhere in the West at the moment, Trudeau is no exception. However given the lack of enthusiasm for the opposition he still leadsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Real ones - not pollsHYUFD said:
Depends which Canadians you are talking to, most Canadian polls still have Trudeau's Liberals aheadBig_G_NorthWales said:
Not what I am hearing from CanadiansHYUFD said:
He is not as popular as 2015 but then Scheer is not that great an alternative either.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My eldest who lives in Vancouver thinks Trudeau is overHYUFD said:
Either way looks like Trudeau could lose his majority but is still likely to have the numbers for a Liberal minority government if needed, no other parties will do a deal with the ConservativesTheWhiteRabbit said:After a bit of fiddling I have put together a UNS table for the Canadian Federal election and can tell you that the most recent poll translates to:
Liberals 165 seats (-19)
Conservative 124 seats (+25)
NPD 37 seats (-7)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 11 seats (+1)
Whereas the best poll for the Conservatives produces:
Liberals 140 seats (-44)
Conservative 143 seats (+44)
NPD 40 seats (-4)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 14 seats (+4)
Note that the new PPC is not modelled and the modelling of the BQ is not great.
I expect a repeat of the 2012 US election when Obama's ratings were down but he still beat Romney, Trudeau will be re elected but with a lower majority and less enthusiasm than the last election0 -
Er... isn't the fact that they've never delivered anything (not even an original website) evidence one way?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Obviously their website is crap, we learnt that long ago.williamglenn said:Seaborne Freight clearly seem above board.
https://twitter.com/jonhall_/status/1080500704140238849?s=21
The question is whether they can deliver, and I've not seen much evidence either way.0 -
How many Canadians do you know and how many have you spoken to about TrudeauHYUFD said:
Polls do talk to real people you know, very few leaders are that popular anywhere in the West at the moment, Trudeau is no exception. However given the lack of enthusiasm for the opposition he still leadsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Real ones - not pollsHYUFD said:
Depends which Canadians you are talking to, most Canadian polls still have Trudeau's Liberals aheadBig_G_NorthWales said:
Not what I am hearing from CanadiansHYUFD said:
He is not as popular as 2015 but then Scheer is not that great an alternative either.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My eldest who lives in Vancouver thinks Trudeau is overHYUFD said:
Either way looks like Trudeau could lose his majority but is still likely to have the numbers for a Liberal minority government if needed, no other parties will do a deal with the ConservativesTheWhiteRabbit said:After a bit of fiddling I have put together a UNS table for the Canadian Federal election and can tell you that the most recent poll translates to:
Liberals 165 seats (-19)
Conservative 124 seats (+25)
NPD 37 seats (-7)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 11 seats (+1)
Whereas the best poll for the Conservatives produces:
Liberals 140 seats (-44)
Conservative 143 seats (+44)
NPD 40 seats (-4)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 14 seats (+4)
Note that the new PPC is not modelled and the modelling of the BQ is not great.
I expect a repeat of the 2012 US election when Obama's ratings were down but he still beat Romney, Trudeau will be re elected but with a lower majority and less enthusiasm than the last election0 -
back to the 70s stuff....Theuniondivvie said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/10805857775856476160 -
Great way of getting rid of the ultimate waste of space - Chris GraylingTheuniondivvie said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/10805857775856476160 -
From the sounds of it the Canadians you have been speaking to are in the West, where Trudeau has always been less popular.Big_G_NorthWales said:
How many Canadians do you know and how many have you spoken to about TrudeauHYUFD said:
Polls do talk to real people you know, very few leaders are that popular anywhere in the West at the moment, Trudeau is no exception. However given the lack of enthusiasm for the opposition he still leadsBig_G_NorthWales said:
Real ones - not pollsHYUFD said:
Depends which Canadians you are talking to, most Canadian polls still have Trudeau's Liberals aheadBig_G_NorthWales said:
Not what I am hearing from CanadiansHYUFD said:
He is not as popular as 2015 but then Scheer is not that great an alternative either.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My eldest who lives in Vancouver thinks Trudeau is overHYUFD said:
Either way looks like Trudeau could lose his majority but is still likely to have the numbers for a Liberal minority government if needed, no other parties will do a deal with the ConservativesTheWhiteRabbit said:After a bit of fiddling I have put together a UNS table for the Canadian Federal election and can tell you that the most recent poll translates to:
Liberals 165 seats (-19)
Conservative 124 seats (+25)
NPD 37 seats (-7)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 11 seats (+1)
Whereas the best poll for the Conservatives produces:
Liberals 140 seats (-44)
Conservative 143 seats (+44)
NPD 40 seats (-4)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 14 seats (+4)
Note that the new PPC is not modelled and the modelling of the BQ is not great.
I expect a repeat of the 2012 US election when Obama's ratings were down but he still beat Romney, Trudeau will be re elected but with a lower majority and less enthusiasm than the last election
In any case nothing you have said in anyway contradicts what I said. Trudeau will be re elected by a smaller margin than last time and with less enthusiasm but still because more Canadians prefer him to Scheer, much as Obama was re elected by a smaller margin and with less enthusiasm in 2012 than 2008 as more Americans preferred him to Romney0 -
Somehow that's not very encouraging.FrancisUrquhart said:
back to the 70s stuff....Theuniondivvie said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/10805857775856476160 -
Well, in fairness I don't quite know what makes a ministry (or rather 'departments' as they all are now, other than the MoD) too big or too small in focus. Although if it were to go ahead it does sound like a jolly big job, seems like a Great Office of State.Theuniondivvie said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/10805857775856476160 -
These pubic hair conversations have gone on long enough now...FrancisUrquhart said:
back to the 70s stuff....Theuniondivvie said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/10805857775856476160 -
Grayling is a bit like those pounds you pile over Xmas. End up being a lot harder to shift than you think and no good for your health.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Great way of getting rid of the ultimate waste of space - Chris GraylingTheuniondivvie said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/10805857775856476160 -
Yes, it doesn't have that effect on me any more, although I found the "28 day challenge" extremely rewarding as it forced me to evaluate some of the unhealthy attitudes I had developed towards women as a result of porn use.anothernick said:
It doesn't have that effect on me TBH. It's not an addiction in the same way that smoking used to be in my younger days. There were times when I was so desperate for a fag that I would go out to a petrol station in the middle of the night - I wouldn't do that to watch a porn clip.kyf_100 said:
Yes, the site is polemical, but it is well researched and an interesting compilation of links.anothernick said:
I'm not qualified to challenge the science in all of that, Though the website is clearly plugging a line and is not objective; it has the slightly polemical air of the "just say no" campaigns in the US. And anyway it seems that the science is disputedkyf_100 said:
See the link I posted in reply to Anothernick, below.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/women-who-stray/201307/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive
I'm not saying internet porn is harmless but nor do I think it will lead to the destruction of young minds and I frankly doubt that it is deeply damaging to most users.
But rather than read about it, my suggestion to anyone who thinks that porn is not addictive is to go without for 28 days and see how hard it is. Fnarr fnarr.
To go back to the original point, what worries me is not porn use, but irresponsible porn use. The notion that when I was thirteen a copy of playboy was a bit risque, compared to a thirteen year old now who has a whole galaxy of filth on his phone available 24/7.
That's what I meant by "destroying our youth", which should be a time of innocence and discovery, of fumbled first kisses and tentative steps. What hope does a thirteen year old have who learnt everything he knows about women from the jackhammer world of hardcore porn? And what effect must it have on young women? A lot of porn, although not all porn, is extremely violent and misogynistic.
To bring this back to politicalbetting rather than pornobetting, for me it's a genuine test of my principles because I think porn is a pretty nasty, evil drug. Yet I also disagree entirely with what the government are trying to do in terms of this age verification malarkey, which is an illiberal measure that crosses an important line for me with regards to censorship.0 -
Iranian and Briton held in Manchester suspected of arranging "movement of migrants" across Channel - Crime Agency0
-
Not really. The track record is with the people, the money, the connections, not the company.Benpointer said:
Er... isn't the fact that they've never delivered anything (not even an original website) evidence one way?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Obviously their website is crap, we learnt that long ago.williamglenn said:Seaborne Freight clearly seem above board.
https://twitter.com/jonhall_/status/1080500704140238849?s=21
The question is whether they can deliver, and I've not seen much evidence either way.
SPVs are very common in my line of trade.0 -
Sky reporting an Iranian and a Brit arrested in Manchester for alleged migrant smuggling0
-
The Tories are now not even pretending to be engaging in anything other than a sustained leadership contest. Personal ambition is now the only guiding principle. It’s shameful.0
-
Yes, but at least it is close to being honest about the shamelessness I guess.SouthamObserver said:The Tories are now not even pretending to be engaging in anything other than a sustained leadership contest. Personal ambition is now the only guiding principle. It’s shameful.
0 -
Perhaps they could call it the Ministry of Administrative Affairs. There might even be a sitcom in it...kle4 said:
Well, in fairness I don't quite know what makes a ministry (or rather 'departments' as they all are now, other than the MoD) too big or too small in focus. Although if it were to go ahead it does sound like a jolly big job, seems like a Great Office of State.Theuniondivvie said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/10805857775856476160 -
I have a Swedish friend in his 40s who was divorced for a few years about a decade ago. His views on what women in the dating pool viewed as “normal” between when he was in his teens and when he was in his 30s was deeply shockingkyf_100 said:
Indeed. Without wishing to go into detail on a family friendly forum, I think porn has absolutely destroyed the young. I am just about old enough that as a teenager for me porn was a furtive copy of Playboy or perhaps a well thumbed Razzle shared between friends. We knew it bore no relationship to real life. Today's teens have access to infinte amounts of hardcore in HD, any time, any where, on their phones.Foxy said:
Any body hair is to be deplored below the neck. It is an aesthetic that has come from pornography.CD13 said:Can I ask a strange question why we're talking about attraction. Having been married for 43 years to the same woman, I didn't realise the fashion is now to shave your pubes. I saw a TV show briefly and it came as a total surprise. I had to check with my son who knows these things, and he confirmed it.
Surely pubic hair is a turn on? I can only speak about women because men are ugly, smelly creatures at the best of times (but I'm sure gay men may have different views).
Yes, I do realise I'm an old git.
It's a contradiction for me because I'm hugely against the porno ban / wanking license / drive to teach every teenager how to use a VPN that the government seem hell bent on pressing ahead with, because on principle I abhor censorship of any kind and think it sets a dangerous precedent.
On the other hand, porn is corrupting minds and - more importantly - hearts. People today expect their sex to look like porn and it is deeply damaging as most of us are not and do not want to be pornstars.
Despite being draconian and illiberal, the government has a point. But I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done.0 -
Anna Span is a female porn director who does porn that is not misogynistic. Indeed female porn directors are growing in number as females strive toward parity in the industry.kyf_100 said:
Yes, it doesn't have that effect on me any more, although I found the "28 day challenge" extremely rewarding as it forced me to evaluate some of the unhealthy attitudes I had developed towards women as a result of porn use.anothernick said:
It doesn't have that effect on me TBH. It's not an addiction in the same way that smoking used to be in my younger days. There were times when I was so desperate for a fag that I would go out to a petrol station in the middle of the night - I wouldn't do that to watch a porn clip.kyf_100 said:
Yes, the site is polemical, but it is well researched and an interesting compilation of links.anothernick said:
I'm not qualified to challenge the science in all of that, Though the website is clearly plugging a line and is not objective; it has the slightly polemical air of the "just say no" campaigns in the US. And anyway it seems that the science is disputedkyf_100 said:
See the link I posted in reply to Anothernick, below.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/women-who-stray/201307/your-brain-porn-its-not-addictive
I'm not saying internet porn is harmless but nor do I think it will lead to the destruction of young minds and I frankly doubt that it is deeply damaging to most users.
But rather than read about it, my suggestion to anyone who thinks that porn is not addictive is to go without for 28 days and see how hard it is. Fnarr fnarr.
To go back to the original point, what worries me is not porn use, but irresponsible porn use. The notion that when I was thirteen a copy of playboy was a bit risque, compared to a thirteen year old now who has a whole galaxy of filth on his phone available 24/7.
That's what I meant by "destroying our youth", which should be a time of innocence and discovery, of fumbled first kisses and tentative steps. What hope does a thirteen year old have who learnt everything he knows about women from the jackhammer world of hardcore porn? And what effect must it have on young women? A lot of porn, although not all porn, is extremely violent and misogynistic.
To bring this back to politicalbetting rather than pornobetting, for me it's a genuine test of my principles because I think porn is a pretty nasty, evil drug. Yet I also disagree entirely with what the government are trying to do in terms of this age verification malarkey, which is an illiberal measure that crosses an important line for me with regards to censorship.
0 -
They all think they can do the top job better than the current incumbent. I doubt they are wrong in this assessment!kle4 said:
Yes, but at least it is close to being honest about the shamelessness I guess.SouthamObserver said:The Tories are now not even pretending to be engaging in anything other than a sustained leadership contest. Personal ambition is now the only guiding principle. It’s shameful.
0 -
I believe the proposed title for the Minister governing [sic] the new superministry is "Transport Supremo". Or "Transport Muggins" as others have unkindly christened it.kyf_100 said:
Perhaps they could call it the Ministry of Administrative Affairs. There might even be a sitcom in it...kle4 said:
Well, in fairness I don't quite know what makes a ministry (or rather 'departments' as they all are now, other than the MoD) too big or too small in focus. Although if it were to go ahead it does sound like a jolly big job, seems like a Great Office of State.Theuniondivvie said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/10805857775856476160 -
That sounds very interesting, I will listen to that.FrancisUrquhart said:Fascinating Sam Harris podcast this week with a lady who is an expert in social media interference by GRU. Lots of info I have never heard as they get way past simply TRUUUUUMMP boooo that the likes of CNN never get beyond.
https://twitter.com/samharrisorg/status/1080547158577696768?s=210 -
It's not a test of principles. It is recognising that there are completely valid arguments which point in opposite directions.kyf_100 said:
To bring this back to politicalbetting rather than pornobetting, for me it's a genuine test of my principles because I think porn is a pretty nasty, evil drug. Yet I also disagree entirely with what the government are trying to do in terms of this age verification malarkey, which is an illiberal measure that crosses an important line for me with regards to censorship.
Government is hard, because to govern is to choose, and doing nothing is a choice in itself. Meanwhile the media and partisans on both sides lambast you whichever choice you make, usually misrepresenting what you are doing and invariably personalising the attacks. We could all make a start towards a better society if we at least try to avoid the latter two moral errors, but I'm not holding my breath.0 -
The references here may be useful though the article comes to no clear conclusion.Benpointer said:O/T: Looking to set up a local community website for our village, to include a photo gallery of local village scenes. Someone queried whether we need subject permission from anyone who appeared in the photos.
Does anyone know if it is true that "there is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place" - i.e. that we only need the permission of the photographer not the subject in any photo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
Guidance in the Labour Party is that we should only photograph people from behind (i.e. not recognisably) without permission, though that may be merely to avoid embarassing complaints from non-supporters. In general photographing children without parental permission is frowned upon for obvious reasons. I'd have thought that your harmless project would avoid trouble, if you included a small print note that pictures are displayed merely to give an impression of village life, and if anyone shown would prefer not, the photo will be removed. But I'm not a lawyer so best not to count on my advice...0 -
That might well be so, but in which case they should have removed her ages ago. If they think now is the perfect time to be making a pitch for the top job and that other things don't really matter then there really was no issue with replacing her right now, or 6 months ago.The_Taxman said:
They all think they can do the top job better than the current incumbent. I doubt they are wrong in this assessment!kle4 said:
Yes, but at least it is close to being honest about the shamelessness I guess.SouthamObserver said:The Tories are now not even pretending to be engaging in anything other than a sustained leadership contest. Personal ambition is now the only guiding principle. It’s shameful.
0 -
A very valid point. Thanks.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not a test of principles. It is recognising that there are completely valid arguments which point in opposite directions.kyf_100 said:
To bring this back to politicalbetting rather than pornobetting, for me it's a genuine test of my principles because I think porn is a pretty nasty, evil drug. Yet I also disagree entirely with what the government are trying to do in terms of this age verification malarkey, which is an illiberal measure that crosses an important line for me with regards to censorship.
Government is hard, because to govern is to choose, and doing nothing is a choice in itself. Meanwhile the media and partisans on both sides lambast you whichever choice you make, usually misrepresenting what you are doing and invariably personalising the attacks. We could all make a start towards a better society if we at least try to avoid the latter two moral errors, but I'm not holding my breath.0 -
The law is very clear - there is absolutely no problem taking photographs in public places including photographs of adults and of children, and absolutely no problem publishing them, with a few very specific exceptions which wouldn't apply in @Benpointer's scenario.NickPalmer said:
The references here may be useful though the article comes to no clear conclusion.Benpointer said:O/T: Looking to set up a local community website for our village, to include a photo gallery of local village scenes. Someone queried whether we need subject permission from anyone who appeared in the photos.
Does anyone know if it is true that "there is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place" - i.e. that we only need the permission of the photographer not the subject in any photo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
Guidance in the Labour Party is that we should only photograph people from behind (i.e. not recognisably) without permission, though that may be merely to avoid embarassing complaints from non-supporters. In general photographing children without parental permission is frowned upon for obvious reasons. I'd have thought that your harmless project would avoid trouble, if you included a small print note that pictures are displayed merely to give an impression of village life, and if anyone shown would prefer not, the photo will be removed. But I'm not a lawyer so best not to count on my advice...0 -
I'm not a lawyer either but fairly sure there is no general right to privacy in public, something the Institute of Amateur Cinematographers agree with in their fairly detailed guide to this. Especially if your website is for a non-profit organisation.Benpointer said:O/T: Looking to set up a local community website for our village, to include a photo gallery of local village scenes. Someone queried whether we need subject permission from anyone who appeared in the photos.
Does anyone know if it is true that "there is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place" - i.e. that we only need the permission of the photographer not the subject in any photo?
https://www.theiac.org.uk/resourcesnew/filming-in-public/filming-in-public.html0 -
Might not stop people complaining though Richard.Richard_Nabavi said:
The law is very clear - there is absolutely no problem taking photographs in public places including photographs of adults and of children, and absolutely no problem publishing them, with a few very specific exceptions which wouldn't apply in @Benpointer's scenario.NickPalmer said:
The references here may be useful though the article comes to no clear conclusion.Benpointer said:O/T: Looking to set up a local community website for our village, to include a photo gallery of local village scenes. Someone queried whether we need subject permission from anyone who appeared in the photos.
Does anyone know if it is true that "there is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place" - i.e. that we only need the permission of the photographer not the subject in any photo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
Guidance in the Labour Party is that we should only photograph people from behind (i.e. not recognisably) without permission, though that may be merely to avoid embarassing complaints from non-supporters. In general photographing children without parental permission is frowned upon for obvious reasons. I'd have thought that your harmless project would avoid trouble, if you included a small print note that pictures are displayed merely to give an impression of village life, and if anyone shown would prefer not, the photo will be removed. But I'm not a lawyer so best not to count on my advice...
The legal truth is of course secondary to the reality.0 -
Mmmm porn and Canadian politics....looks like I picked the wrong week to go on retreat.0
-
Jesus Christ, I am glad I don't try and make a living out of selling products on Amazon..
https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/19/18140799/amazon-marketplace-scams-seller-court-appeal-reinstatement0 -
I have always thought that "Tsar" as in "Drug Tsar" is a particularly inapposite title. Tsars being noted for arbitrary despotism, cruelty, and finally being murdered by their own people.viewcode said:
I believe the proposed title for the Minister governing [sic] the new superministry is "Transport Supremo". Or "Transport Muggins" as others have unkindly christened it.kyf_100 said:
Perhaps they could call it the Ministry of Administrative Affairs. There might even be a sitcom in it...kle4 said:
Well, in fairness I don't quite know what makes a ministry (or rather 'departments' as they all are now, other than the MoD) too big or too small in focus. Although if it were to go ahead it does sound like a jolly big job, seems like a Great Office of State.Theuniondivvie said:What could possibly go wrong?
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/10805857775856476160 -
So we know that they can deliver?williamglenn said:Seaborne Freight clearly seem above board.
https://twitter.com/jonhall_/status/1080500704140238849?s=21
Is that my coat...0 -
Is there any way a referendum could be held before 29th March?0
-
Yes, but only if Parliament specified in the bill calling for it that the normal process of Electoral Commission deciding on the question and then the campaign period was to be abbreviated/skipped. The usual process takes several months. But practically it is possible to hold a referendum much quicker, Greece held their 2015 Bailout Referendum barely a week after the PM announced it.AndyJS said:Is there any way a referendum could be held before 29th March?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Greek_bailout_referendum
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/09/05/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/0 -
In previous discussions it appears that the regulations governing referenda specify a minimum campaigning period, there is also a requirement to run the question past the Electoral Commission, and legislation has to be passed to hold a referendum.AndyJS said:Is there any way a referendum could be held before 29th March?
These points impose a minimum time between the decision to hold a referendum and the referendum itself. Consequently we cannot now have a referendum by March 29th.
However...
I have speculated that Parliament and the law can be bypassed entirely by the PM and orders-in-council, but that's a stretch. Others have pointed out that the March 29 departure can be postponed: I do not know how to assign a probability to that.
Best I can do, @AndyJS0 -
Thanks for the replies.viewcode said:
In previous discussions it appears that the regulations governing referenda specify a minimum campaigning period, there is also a requirement to run the question past the Electoral Commission, and legislation has to be passed to hold a referendum.AndyJS said:Is there any way a referendum could be held before 29th March?
These points impose a minimum time between the decision to hold a referendum and the referendum itself. Consequently we cannot now have a referendum by March 29th.
However...
I have speculated that Parliament and the law can be bypassed entirely by the PM and orders-in-council, but that's a stretch. Others have pointed out that the March 29 departure can be postponed: I do not know how to assign a probability to that.
Best I can do, @AndyJS0 -
Very interesting. Not least because while it is hard to assign probabilities to it, there mere fact of additional procedural hurdles given the timescales surely adds complications to the remain unicorn options which are not being acknowledge, as much as the brexit unicorn options we are getting.viewcode said:
In previous discussions it appears that the regulations governing referenda specify a minimum campaigning period, there is also a requirement to run the question past the Electoral Commission, and legislation has to be passed to hold a referendum.AndyJS said:Is there any way a referendum could be held before 29th March?
These points impose a minimum time between the decision to hold a referendum and the referendum itself. Consequently we cannot now have a referendum by March 29th.
However...
I have speculated that Parliament and the law can be bypassed entirely by the PM and orders-in-council, but that's a stretch. Others have pointed out that the March 29 departure can be postponed: I do not know how to assign a probability to that.
Best I can do, @AndyJS0 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems to be going pear shaped for himkle4 said:
Has the luster worn off him? It can be hard to tell as, in ways similar to Macron, because Trudeau is a bit of a liberal darling if you only casually pay attention you'd only ever hear positive things (though with the recent protests that might not be true of Macron's image any longer)Big_G_NorthWales said:
My eldest who lives in Vancouver thinks Trudeau is overHYUFD said:
Either way looks like Trudeau could lose his majority but is still likely to have the numbers for a Liberal minority government if needed, no other parties will do a deal with the ConservativesTheWhiteRabbit said:After a bit of fiddling I have put together a UNS table for the Canadian Federal election and can tell you that the most recent poll translates to:
Liberals 165 seats (-19)
Conservative 124 seats (+25)
NPD 37 seats (-7)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 11 seats (+1)
Whereas the best poll for the Conservatives produces:
Liberals 140 seats (-44)
Conservative 143 seats (+44)
NPD 40 seats (-4)
Green 1 seats (+0)
BQ 14 seats (+4)
Note that the new PPC is not modelled and the modelling of the BQ is not great.0 -
In the 1950s we had songs celebrating 'Rock n Roll' and 'Slippin and a Sliding' neither of which I appreciated the full meaning of at the time.
It was only in the 1960s that the middle classes discovered what the working classes had been enjoying since the year dot.0 -
I’d love to know how that conversation started.Sean_F said:0 -
Don't congratulate me just yet: I'm speed-reading the PPERA: the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.[1] It goes like this:AndyJS said:
Thanks for the replies.viewcode said:
In previous discussions it appears that the regulations governing referenda specify a minimum campaigning period, there is also a requirement to run the question past the Electoral Commission, and legislation has to be passed to hold a referendum.AndyJS said:Is there any way a referendum could be held before 29th March?
These points impose a minimum time between the decision to hold a referendum and the referendum itself. Consequently we cannot now have a referendum by March 29th.
However...
I have speculated that Parliament and the law can be bypassed entirely by the PM and orders-in-council, but that's a stretch. Others have pointed out that the March 29 departure can be postponed: I do not know how to assign a probability to that.
Best I can do, @AndyJS
1) A Bill has to be introduced[3]
2) The Commission shall consider the wording of the referendum and shall publish a statement of any views of the Commission as soon as reasonably practicable after the Bill is introduced[3]
3) You have to pass an Act. I don't know how fast it takes to get thru committee, HoC, HoL and Queen consent
4) Once passed, participants have 28 days to apply to the Electoral Commission to become a permitted participant.[4]
5) After that 28 days, the EC have 14 days to say yea or nay to the applicant.[4]
6) After that 14 days, the ref must then be at least 28 days after that.[2]
However, the PPERA is littered with things like "The Secretary of State may...by order provide for...the periods of 28 and 14 days...was instead such shorter or longer period as is specified in the order."[4]
So. The period specified in the PPERA is quite lengthy and measured, but the PPERA also contains getout clauses that can reduce the period quite dramatically. It's theoretically possible for the referendum period after the Act is passed to be just one day, but that's driving a coach-and-horses thru the whole thing and even this Parliament is not that crazy. At this point, my recommendation that Parliament be bypassed entirely via order-in-Council begins to look sensible in comparison.
FURTHER READING
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents
[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/103
[3] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/104
[4] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/109
PS IANAL.
0 -
Well, there’s an MA dissertation right there! What shoe-wearing vegans with pubic hair think of Brexit.kle4 said:
The topics could be combined perhaps?Benpointer said:
Re PB tonight: Shoes, pubic hair and vegan sausage rolls ?! Any chance we can just go back to Brexit?NickPalmer said:Sympathies, Jonathan - that sounds awful. I find the forum a relaxed place to escape from stresses at times: there is a lot to be said for being among peolple who are friendly but not immediately proximate - close friends and family want to talk about the problems, we just want to talk about...er..pubic hair today, apparently. Who knows what will take our fancy tomorrow and distract us further?
0
