politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The British Trump – the similarities between the President and
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The British Trump – the similarities between the President and the Leader of the Opposition
On the eve of the 2016 US Presidential election Charlie Falconer, in Italy giving a tour d’horizon of politics to a group of distinguished lawyers, said he thought that Trump would win – it felt a lot like Brexit. He was resigned to it. And right. Farage wasted no time in getting himself photographed with Trump boasting about his special relationship with him. Yet, 3 years on, arguably it is another British politician who has a better claim to be the British Trump: our PM In-All-But-Name (© Alastair Campbell) – Jeremy Corbyn.
Comments
-
First.
Excellent article, Ms Free.
One thing I've noted in the past is that there is a common 'playbook' for nasty people in power: popularised by Putin, it covers some of the areas you mention. Telling the domestic public untruths, controlling the media, infringing on the rights of opponents.
Erdogan in Turkey seems to have copied this playbook to a certain extent, and Trump seems to have learned some lessons from it as well (although he is thankfully more constrained in what he can do). I'd argue Orban has been studying this way of running a country as well.0 -
TBH Boris is probably more our Trump, Corbyn compares better with Sanders.
In fact the Washington post called Sanders the Trump of the left, I think it just means outside the consensus in those terms, where Trump and Corbyn/Sanders separate is their words and goals. When people criticise Corbyn (as a very bad person) they usually assign some cynical or evil goal beyond what he is actually proposing or saying. There is no need to do that with Trump.0 -
While the Trump comparisons are tempting, I think there is one huge difference. Trump is driven entirely by self-interest. He is in it for himself. Whatever else you can say about Corbyn I don't think you can say that about him.0
-
Meantime, this guy, who is utterly unlike either of them, has a real (albeit outside) chance:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/03/pete-buttigieg-northeastern-university-1254963
Though 19-year-old Milton Posner shares the progressive views of candidates like Sanders and Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, he said Buttigieg’s “pragmatic solutions” would be easier to achieve than “lofty goals” or taking “one massive swipe” on issues. Warren, for example, calls for making “systemic change” in Washington on the campaign trail. Sanders often calls for a political revolution.
“I’m struggling to remember a time I was more impressed by a politician,” Posner said. “This was a ‘wow’ kind of thing.”...0 -
Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...0 -
https://twitter.com/bern_identity/status/1113271581260701696
(from the linked article)
Sanders’ campaign collected $18.2 million from 525,000 donors — most of them under age 39
_________________________________________________________
On American news and linking in with Corbyn comparisons... They are both outside the mainstream but the message of Sanders and Corbyn is a different one to Trump's which is why it appeals to the younger generations.0 -
I've listened to a few talks and videos he has done. He's very articulate and has a good line on regenerating the mid-West. His CV is great and he's charming.Nigelb said:Meantime, this guy, who is utterly unlike either of them, has a real (albeit outside) chance:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/03/pete-buttigieg-northeastern-university-1254963
Though 19-year-old Milton Posner shares the progressive views of candidates like Sanders and Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, he said Buttigieg’s “pragmatic solutions” would be easier to achieve than “lofty goals” or taking “one massive swipe” on issues. Warren, for example, calls for making “systemic change” in Washington on the campaign trail. Sanders often calls for a political revolution.
“I’m struggling to remember a time I was more impressed by a politician,” Posner said. “This was a ‘wow’ kind of thing.”...
But what really strikes me is he is consciously defining himself as a millennial. Perhaps we are starting to see the first sign of generational backlash. I don't think we have any prominent millennial politicians in the UK, but perhaps that's an angle that's available for someone to exploit.0 -
President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.
Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.
* Or son0 -
Whoops.
Jeremy Corbyn discusses his talks with the Prime Minister on the radio, and says this:
'There was no deal on her side, and there was no deal on our side.'
See why politicians should not open their mouths...0 -
His policy offering has some similarity to that of Sanders. His personality and approach is much more similar to that of Trump. Since his policy offering is unrealistic (please nobody bother claiming it was costed, when it's been repeatedly demonstrated it wasn't) it had that in common with Trump's famous 'wall.'TheJezziah said:TBH Boris is probably more our Trump, Corbyn compares better with Sanders...When people criticise Corbyn (as a very bad person) they usually assign some cynical or evil goal beyond what he is actually proposing or saying. There is no need to do that with Trump.
Ultimately, the key point to bear in mind is that Trump, Chavez, Tsipras, Modi, Orban and to a lesser extent Putin are populists who will say and do whatever it takes to get enough of the electorate to vote for them to win. That doesn't even mean they have to be popular (Trump isn't!) but it does mean that anything they say will be a lie, and anyone who criticises them will be demonised and bullied. Corbyn certainly fits that mould very well. But it's also fair to point out that it's served him pretty well electorally over the last five years, far better than we all expected.0 -
Freudian slip.ydoethur said:Whoops.
Jeremy Corbyn discusses his talks with the Prime Minister on the radio, and says this:
'There was no deal on her side, and there was no deal on our side.'
See why politicians should not open their mouths...0 -
To be honest, i wish he was.SouthamObserver said:While the Trump comparisons are tempting, I think there is one huge difference. Trump is driven entirely by self-interest. He is in it for himself. Whatever else you can say about Corbyn I don't think you can say that about him.
It’d make him far less dangerous.0 -
The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...
And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?0 -
Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?0
-
No and no.ydoethur said:
The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...
And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.
The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.
Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.0 -
His personality and approach are like that of Sanders as well, well more similar anyway Sanders tends to go for more passion than Corbyn. It was costed, compare it to the Conservative policy you voted for which was completely uncosted or is this your own personal Trump impression? Subtly done I fell for it for a second...ydoethur said:
His policy offering has some similarity to that of Sanders. His personality and approach is much more similar to that of Trump. Since his policy offering is unrealistic (please nobody bother claiming it was costed, when it's been repeatedly demonstrated it wasn't) it had that in common with Trump's famous 'wall.'TheJezziah said:TBH Boris is probably more our Trump, Corbyn compares better with Sanders...When people criticise Corbyn (as a very bad person) they usually assign some cynical or evil goal beyond what he is actually proposing or saying. There is no need to do that with Trump.
Ultimately, the key point to bear in mind is that Trump, Chavez, Tsipras, Modi, Orban and to a lesser extent Putin are populists who will say and do whatever it takes to get enough of the electorate to vote for them to win. That doesn't even mean they have to be popular (Trump isn't!) but it does mean that anything they say will be a lie, and anyone who criticises them will be demonised and bullied. Corbyn certainly fits that mould very well. But it's also fair to point out that it's served him pretty well electorally over the last five years, far better than we all expected.
Sounds like you are describing the Conservative party you vote for rather than Corbyn's Labour there in the populist bit to be honest. The Trump Brexit comparisons probably ring more true. After all Trump promised Brexit plus plus (maybe another plus)
Although it is entertaining Conservative voters accusing the opposition of being Trump like in every comparison the Conservatives are the British Republicans not Labour, arguably Boris is our Trump but they are still largely dancing to his tune.
Have a great morning y'all, must be off.0 -
Good article, Cyclefree. And very scary.0
-
Farage just wants attention.Jonathan said:Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?
0 -
Maybe some Farage Boris hybrid then...Jonathan said:Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?
0 -
More like Nimrod 2000. Comet was the 1st real passenger jetliner and they had to work out all sorts of things from scratch, although similar in the sense Nimrod was based on it.ydoethur said:
The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...
And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
No to the second question.0 -
In a country that elected Trump by a whisker and on a minority of the popular vote.Toms said:
Pete Buttigieg? In a country that can elect Trump? Nope.rcs1000 said:President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.
Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.
* Or son
That said, I still think Trump is favourite to win if he stands for re-election because:
1) However loathed he is by younger voters and minorities, they are not a majority and tend not to vote anyway;
2) His vote is efficiently distributed, the Democrats' is not;
3) He has a nice long time to campaign to voters while the enormous number of hopefuls knock lumps off each other while simultaneously preaching to the choir;
4) Unless the economy goes south (1932, 1980, 1992) it's quite rare for incumbent presidents who run in the actual election (not forgetting 1952 and 1968) not to be re-elected. I think the last time it happened for reasons other than a financial crash (leaving Ford aside) was Taft in 1912, and I see no Roosevelt to shred the Republican vote this time.
So the odds are in his favour, which is not the same as saying he will win.0 -
The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.JosiasJessop said:
No and no.ydoethur said:
The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...
And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.
The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.
Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.0 -
History tells us that the US can elect all sorts of presidents:Toms said:
Pete Buttigieg? In a country that can elect Trump? Nope.rcs1000 said:President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.
Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.
* Or son
2000 Elect opposite of Clinton
2008 Elect opposite of Bush
2016 Elect opposite of Obama
2020/24 Elect opposite of Trump?0 -
I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.TheJezziah said:His personality and approach are like that of Sanders as well, well more similar anyway Sanders tends to go for more passion than Corbyn. It was costed, compare it to the Conservative policy you voted for which was completely uncosted or is this your own personal Trump impression? Subtly done I fell for it for a second...
Sounds like you are describing the Conservative party you vote for rather than Corbyn's Labour there in the populist bit to be honest. The Trump Brexit comparisons probably ring more true. After all Trump promised Brexit plus plus (maybe another plus)
Although it is entertaining Conservative voters accusing the opposition of being Trump like in every comparison the Conservatives are the British Republicans not Labour, arguably Boris is our Trump but they are still largely dancing to his tune.
Have a great morning y'all, must be off.
And unfortunately you have just shown the most striking similarity between Labour and the Tea Party - their attempts to distract from their own lies with reference to their opponents. We had this last night too: 'Corbyn supports mass murderers and Holocaust deniers? That's nothing, the government's chums with Saudi Arabia!'
Have a good morning with whatever you are doing
Edit - I don't 'support' the Conservative party although I did vote for them at the last election. I voted Labour in 2015 but I don't vote for Nazi apologists on manifestos based on a pack of lies.
That also unfortunately is out of the Trump/Orban playbook - 'if you're not with us, you must be a Tory/millennial/Jew.'0 -
Trump wants ratings, they really are alike.Casino_Royale said:
Farage just wants attention.Jonathan said:Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?
0 -
Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.0 -
Why can NASA scientists not keep secrets?Casino_Royale said:The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.
NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.
They're all spaced out.
(De Havilland was eventually first taken over by Hawker and eventually nationalised because of numerous problems, of which the Comet was the most dramatic and best known. That might happen to Boeing, although I agree it's unlikely.)0 -
NASA and the Pentagon are also where the R&D contracts (not state aid, you understand) to bail out Boeing will come from.Casino_Royale said:
The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.JosiasJessop said:
No and no.ydoethur said:
The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...
And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.
The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.
Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.0 -
NASA have an anonymous database onto which any pilot can report concerns freestyle, for one, which is then periodically collated and published.ydoethur said:
Why can NASA scientists not keep secrets?Casino_Royale said:The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.
NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.
They're all spaced out.
(De Havilland was eventually first taken over by Hawker and eventually nationalised because of numerous problems, of which the Comet was the most dramatic and best known. That might happen to Boeing, although I agree it's unlikely.)0 -
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.DavidL said:Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.0 -
Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?0
-
O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.0
-
The Conservative manifesto was not costed at all.ydoethur said:
I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Labour's was costed, and when you say it was made up, that appears to be based on your own made up version of its social care policy. You might disagree with its policies, or even find its costings over-optimistic but at least they were there.0 -
It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.RochdalePioneers said:Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?
0 -
Fuck me this really is a Trump impression you are going for, they got people in to cost it. I realise anything that isn't white nationalism is some kind of anathema to you but flat out lying just makes you look stupid.ydoethur said:
I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.TheJezziah said:His personality and approach are like that of Sanders as well, well more similar anyway Sanders tends to go for more passion than Corbyn. It was costed, compare it to the Conservative policy you voted for which was completely uncosted or is this your own personal Trump impression? Subtly done I fell for it for a second...
Sounds like you are describing the Conservative party you vote for rather than Corbyn's Labour there in the populist bit to be honest. The Trump Brexit comparisons probably ring more true. After all Trump promised Brexit plus plus (maybe another plus)
Although it is entertaining Conservative voters accusing the opposition of being Trump like in every comparison the Conservatives are the British Republicans not Labour, arguably Boris is our Trump but they are still largely dancing to his tune.
Have a great morning y'all, must be off.
And unfortunately you have just shown the most striking similarity between Labour and the Tea Party - their attempts to distract from their own lies with reference to their opponents. We had this last night too: 'Corbyn supports mass murderers and Holocaust deniers? That's nothing, the government's chums with Saudi Arabia!'
Have a good morning with whatever you are doing
Edit - I don't 'support' the Conservative party although I did vote for them at the last election. I voted Labour in 2015 but I don't vote for Nazi apologists on manifestos based on a pack of lies.
That also unfortunately is out of the Trump/Orban playbook - 'if you're not with us, you must be a Tory/millennial/Jew.'
Let's drop the pretense, the reason you support our Republicans is because you don't mind the Americans republicans either. The tea party was UKIP which has migrated to its new home of the Conservatives where your vote is right at home.
A bit of confusion in your edit as well, the Nazi apologists don't like Labour, about as much as you actually, it is why the far right copy the lines, much like people like you come out with actually. Coincidence I'm sure that you and the Nazi's hate Labour for similar reasons.-1 -
No it wasn't. I have demonstrated that to you at least a dozen times. But you do not want to know. So I shall stop bothering.DecrepitJohnL said:
The Conservative manifesto was not costed at all.ydoethur said:
I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Labour's was costed, and when you say it was made up, that appears to be based on your own made up version of its social care policy. You might disagree with its policies, or even find its costings over-optimistic but at least they were there.
It's a disturbing reflection on democracy though that people swallow such bullshit.0 -
Much appreciated. May's government racking up those top 5 record defeats aren't they?DavidL said:
It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.RochdalePioneers said:Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?
0 -
At my CLP meeting on Friday we are going to discuss safety. When we have done street stalls in the past, some of the "contributions" have been verbally abusive. As we are now likely to do street stalls every week leading up to the elections in May various members especially female members are genuinely apprehensive about the potential for screaming abuse or worse from the mouth foamers.Casino_Royale said:O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
0 -
I must confess that even as a political nerd, I have lost track of all the votes and ammendments!DavidL said:
It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.RochdalePioneers said:Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?
0 -
I don't support your republicans, and unlike Corbyn I have never donated money to neo-Nazis like Eisen.TheJezziah said:Fuck me this really is a Trump impression you are going for, they got people in to cost it. I realise anything that isn't white nationalism is some kind of anathema to you but flat out lying just makes you look stupid.
Let's drop the pretense, the reason you support our Republicans is because you don't mind the Americans republicans either. The tea party was UKIP which has migrated to its new home of the Conservatives where your vote is right at home.
A bit of confusion in your edit as well, the Nazi apologists don't like Labour, about as much as you actually, it is why the far right copy the lines, much like people like you come out with actually. Coincidence I'm sure that you and the Nazi's hate Labour for similar reasons.
The fact you now have to actually smear me by calling me a Nazi myself just because I have caught Corbyn out is I fear very telling.
The reason I hate Corbyn - not Labour - is because of his long track record of dishonesty and bullying, and the company he keeps. Get rid of him, and there's every chance Labour will get my vote again.
As for your first invitation - I'm sure you're charming, but really you're not my type.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Or is it?0 -
Really, not so alike.Jonathan said:
Trump wants ratings, they really are alike.Casino_Royale said:
Farage just wants attention.Jonathan said:Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?
Trump sees the Presidency as a promotional arm for his wider business interests. His term(s) will serve him well later on when still promoting Brand Trump. That brand will continue on through his family*
Farage has no brand to sell. He's just some gobby bloke, raking in what he can from the system he supposedly despises.
*presuming always they aren't in jail0 -
I'm fairly sure it's morning. If it's 7.30 at night I have an awkward conversation with my boss ahead of me.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Or is it?0 -
TBH I'm not sure Labour wants the votes of white nationalists. If you hate Muslims so much that standing up for their rights makes you an anti semite then stay voting with your racist friends in the Conservative party, you deserve each other.ydoethur said:
I don't support your republicans, and unlike Corbyn I have never donated money to neo-Nazis like Eisen.TheJezziah said:Fuck me this really is a Trump impression you are going for, they got people in to cost it. I realise anything that isn't white nationalism is some kind of anathema to you but flat out lying just makes you look stupid.
Let's drop the pretense, the reason you support our Republicans is because you don't mind the Americans republicans either. The tea party was UKIP which has migrated to its new home of the Conservatives where your vote is right at home.
A bit of confusion in your edit as well, the Nazi apologists don't like Labour, about as much as you actually, it is why the far right copy the lines, much like people like you come out with actually. Coincidence I'm sure that you and the Nazi's hate Labour for similar reasons.
The fact you now have to actually smear me by calling me a Nazi myself just because I have caught Corbyn out is I fear very telling.
The reason I hate Corbyn - not Labour - is because of his long track record of dishonesty and bullying, and the company he keeps. Get rid of him, and there's every chance Labour will get my vote again.
As for your first invitation - I'm sure you're charming, but really you're not my type.-1 -
Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:Casino_Royale said:O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/05/the-sick-rose-the-disease-in-the-english-hard-right-and-the-failure-of-the-rest-of-the-right-to-confront-it/0 -
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.Casino_Royale said:
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.DavidL said:Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.0 -
Okaaay...TheJezziah said:
TBH I'm not sure Labour wants the votes of white nationalists. If you hate Muslims so much that standing up for their rights makes you an anti semite then stay voting with your racist friends in the Conservative party, you deserve each other.ydoethur said:
I don't support your republicans, and unlike Corbyn I have never donated money to neo-Nazis like Eisen.TheJezziah said:Fuck me this really is a Trump impression you are going for, they got people in to cost it. I realise anything that isn't white nationalism is some kind of anathema to you but flat out lying just makes you look stupid.
Let's drop the pretense, the reason you support our Republicans is because you don't mind the Americans republicans either. The tea party was UKIP which has migrated to its new home of the Conservatives where your vote is right at home.
A bit of confusion in your edit as well, the Nazi apologists don't like Labour, about as much as you actually, it is why the far right copy the lines, much like people like you come out with actually. Coincidence I'm sure that you and the Nazi's hate Labour for similar reasons.
The fact you now have to actually smear me by calling me a Nazi myself just because I have caught Corbyn out is I fear very telling.
The reason I hate Corbyn - not Labour - is because of his long track record of dishonesty and bullying, and the company he keeps. Get rid of him, and there's every chance Labour will get my vote again.
As for your first invitation - I'm sure you're charming, but really you're not my type.
I'm revising my views. It must be 7.30 at night if you're running off down making libellous remarks without realising it.
Or was it an all-nighter?0 -
Wasn't there another, more fundamental, problem with Comet and the UK's civil aviation? We saw air travel as being a luxurious, cruise-liner style experience. Hence the brilliant but spectacularly ill-conceived Barabazon. Whilst the US went for the cram-them-in style to reduce ticket costs. Needless to say, the latter was the 'correct' approach.ydoethur said:
Why can NASA scientists not keep secrets?Casino_Royale said:The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.
NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.
They're all spaced out.
(De Havilland was eventually first taken over by Hawker and eventually nationalised because of numerous problems, of which the Comet was the most dramatic and best known. That might happen to Boeing, although I agree it's unlikely.)
The Comet 1 carried 36 to 44 passengers. The equivalent (but later) DC-8 initially had well over double that, and so did the 707. Even without the Comet-1 crash, it is unlikely that the British would have gone for the mass market in the same way as the Americans did.
You can argue that the Comet-1 was a world-beating aircraft that was ultimately going for the wrong market - and it would have been hard to just cram many more seats in without significant changes.0 -
I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.JosiasJessop said:
No and no.ydoethur said:
The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...
And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.
The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.
Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.0 -
One of the reasons Buttigieg has a chance is that he’s very much not preaching to the choir.ydoethur said:
In a country that elected Trump by a whisker and on a minority of the popular vote.Toms said:
Pete Buttigieg? In a country that can elect Trump? Nope.rcs1000 said:President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.
Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.
* Or son
That said, I still think Trump is favourite to win if he stands for re-election because:
1) However loathed he is by younger voters and minorities, they are not a majority and tend not to vote anyway;
2) His vote is efficiently distributed, the Democrats' is not;
3) He has a nice long time to campaign to voters while the enormous number of hopefuls knock lumps off each other while simultaneously preaching to the choir;
4) Unless the economy goes south (1932, 1980, 1992) it's quite rare for incumbent presidents who run in the actual election (not forgetting 1952 and 1968) not to be re-elected. I think the last time it happened for reasons other than a financial crash (leaving Ford aside) was Taft in 1912, and I see no Roosevelt to shred the Republican vote this time.
So the odds are in his favour, which is not the same as saying he will win.
0 -
That's why he might have a chance in the election, but it reduces his chances in the primaries. Awkward paradox.Nigelb said:
One of the reasons Buttigieg has a chance is that he’s very much not preaching to the choir.ydoethur said:
In a country that elected Trump by a whisker and on a minority of the popular vote.Toms said:
Pete Buttigieg? In a country that can elect Trump? Nope.rcs1000 said:President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.
Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.
* Or son
That said, I still think Trump is favourite to win if he stands for re-election because:
1) However loathed he is by younger voters and minorities, they are not a majority and tend not to vote anyway;
2) His vote is efficiently distributed, the Democrats' is not;
3) He has a nice long time to campaign to voters while the enormous number of hopefuls knock lumps off each other while simultaneously preaching to the choir;
4) Unless the economy goes south (1932, 1980, 1992) it's quite rare for incumbent presidents who run in the actual election (not forgetting 1952 and 1968) not to be re-elected. I think the last time it happened for reasons other than a financial crash (leaving Ford aside) was Taft in 1912, and I see no Roosevelt to shred the Republican vote this time.
So the odds are in his favour, which is not the same as saying he will win.0 -
Well, it did stay in commercial service for 33 years, which considering the tech available at the time it was built was a pretty good record.JosiasJessop said:
Wasn't there another, more fundamental, problem with Comet and the UK's civil aviation? We saw air travel as being a luxurious, cruise-liner style experience. Hence the brilliant but spectacularly ill-conceived Barabazon. Whilst the US went for the cram-them-in style to reduce ticket costs. Needless to say, the latter was the 'correct' approach.ydoethur said:
Why can NASA scientists not keep secrets?Casino_Royale said:The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.
NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.
They're all spaced out.
(De Havilland was eventually first taken over by Hawker and eventually nationalised because of numerous problems, of which the Comet was the most dramatic and best known. That might happen to Boeing, although I agree it's unlikely.)
The Comet 1 carried 36 to 44 passengers. The equivalent (but later) DC-8 initially had well over double that, and so did the 707. Even without the Comet-1 crash, it is unlikely that the British would have gone for the mass market in the same way as the Americans did.
You can argue that the Comet-1 was a world-beating aircraft that was ultimately going for the wrong market - and it would have been hard to just cram many more seats in without significant changes.
But it still can't really be called 'world beating' given what happened.0 -
Oh likewise, I went to bed. Wake up this morning and find that the Bill has passed by 1 vote. Presumably the woman on a tag who shouldn't be there but hey, there's plenty of dodgy characters on both sides. Didn't expect it to be that close tbh. DUP voted against. I wonder if this is the tipping point for them to come around to May's deal after all. There are many worse options out there.Foxy said:
I must confess that even as a political nerd, I have lost track of all the votes and ammendments!DavidL said:
It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.RochdalePioneers said:Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?
0 -
I don't think it's necessarily the software at fault rather than the hardware sensors that send in the data. It is a good example of why design should fail safe, which clearly isn't the case here.Foxy said:
I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.JosiasJessop said:
No and no.ydoethur said:
The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...
And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.
The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.
Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.0 -
And more importantly their location, changing COG and centre of thrust.Foxy said:
I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.JosiasJessop said:
No and no.ydoethur said:
The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...
And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.
The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.
Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
There’s actually nothing wrong with artificial stability, if implemented well. Boeing’s egregious error was to try graft a patch onto flight control software designed for the previous airframe. Doing it properly would have taken much more time - and required properly qualifying pilots to fly a new system, which would have been a big cost in time and money for their customers.
0 -
After you've had a fitful night's sleep....ydoethur said:
I'm fairly sure it's morning. If it's 7.30 at night I have an awkward conversation with my boss ahead of me.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Or is it?0 -
Every option at this moment is for one reason or another a worse option than endorsing May's deal. Even Labour's policy requires it to be signed, so far as can be judged.DavidL said:
Oh likewise, I went to bed. Wake up this morning and find that the Bill has passed by 1 vote. Presumably the woman on a tag who shouldn't be there but hey, there's plenty of dodgy characters on both sides. Didn't expect it to be that close tbh. DUP voted against. I wonder if this is the tipping point for them to come around to May's deal after all. There are many worse options out there.Foxy said:
I must confess that even as a political nerd, I have lost track of all the votes and ammendments!DavidL said:
It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.RochdalePioneers said:Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?
The problem is the House of Commons cannot see this because there are too many on all sides chasing their personal unicorns of Remain, No Deal, or standing on your head riding a unicycle while whistling Ode to Joy (OK, I made that up).0 -
That's what lots of people are saying: and if it gains currency then Boeing could be in significantly more trouble. In particular, if it turns out the 737 NG planes have issues as well as the Max (though they'd be different issues) as I mentioned below.Foxy said:I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.
My semi-educated guess is that Boeing were startled by the success of Airbus' competitor, the A320NEO. They wanted something in the air quick. To get sales, they told airlines their pilots would not need any simulator time for difference training when moving from the 737NG to the 737Max - which reduces the airlines' cost significantly.
As the engineering progressed, they realised that they had issues with the aerodynamics. Rather then make changes to the plane that would invalidate their promises to airlines wrt training, they retrofitted MCAS, which was already on military refuelling aircraft, to the civilian 737 Max. After all, it worked fine on the military planes, didn't it?
Yet to prevent retraining requirements and make the Max like the NG, they had to omit some of the features the military planes had - like using two sensors instead of one ...
It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.0 -
Well, it would have been a much better night's sleep than I realised!MarqueeMark said:
After you've had a fitful night's sleep....ydoethur said:
I'm fairly sure it's morning. If it's 7.30 at night I have an awkward conversation with my boss ahead of me.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Or is it?
Have a good morning. At least - what I hope is morning!0 -
TBF she’ll be on the government defeats leaderboard for a long timeRochdalePioneers said:
Much appreciated. May's government racking up those top 5 record defeats aren't they?DavidL said:
It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.RochdalePioneers said:Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?
Bit like when you used to go into a pub and “MaxZap” had 6 of the top 10 scores and there was no shifting him.
It’s a legacy of a sort...0 -
It’s got noteably worse in the last week.AlastairMeeks said:
Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:Casino_Royale said:O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/05/the-sick-rose-the-disease-in-the-english-hard-right-and-the-failure-of-the-rest-of-the-right-to-confront-it/0 -
Labour’s costings were absolute fantasy.DecrepitJohnL said:
The Conservative manifesto was not costed at all.ydoethur said:
I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Labour's was costed, and when you say it was made up, that appears to be based on your own made up version of its social care policy. You might disagree with its policies, or even find its costings over-optimistic but at least they were there.0 -
I think that the bill which passed the Commons yesterday will prove to be an albatross around the neck of a government finding this too hard already. Not for the first time we are undermining our own negotiating position such as it is. The pressure is now on May and Corbyn to find a face saving "compromise" that allows a tweaked version of May's deal to pass before this nonsense gets through the Lords and becomes law. The fox of the ERG, the default position, has been shot and they really need to rescue what they can from the wreckage of a badly overplayed hand.
But what it also shows, for all I disagree with what she has done here, is what a poor choice Labour made in Corbyn instead of Cooper. To achieve this as a back bencher is something truly remarkable, unprecedented as I understand it. If May had 1/5th of her ability to build a consensus around a position we would not be in this mess.0 -
You’re mainly noticing it because you’re now outside the in group. Its seeds were in the casual use of the language of treachery, betrayal and quislings. It was already being acted on by many and indulged by many more.Casino_Royale said:
It’s got noteably worse in the last week.AlastairMeeks said:
Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:Casino_Royale said:O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/05/the-sick-rose-the-disease-in-the-english-hard-right-and-the-failure-of-the-rest-of-the-right-to-confront-it/0 -
He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.DavidL said:
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.Casino_Royale said:
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.DavidL said:Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.
Why shouldn’t he win?0 -
0
-
Charlie Falconer in the threader?0
-
Obviously. Not one of them is talented enough to do something as complicated as that.ydoethur said:
Every option at this moment is for one reason or another a worse option than endorsing May's deal. Even Labour's policy requires it to be signed, so far as can be judged.DavidL said:
Oh likewise, I went to bed. Wake up this morning and find that the Bill has passed by 1 vote. Presumably the woman on a tag who shouldn't be there but hey, there's plenty of dodgy characters on both sides. Didn't expect it to be that close tbh. DUP voted against. I wonder if this is the tipping point for them to come around to May's deal after all. There are many worse options out there.Foxy said:
I must confess that even as a political nerd, I have lost track of all the votes and ammendments!DavidL said:
It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.RochdalePioneers said:Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?
The problem is the House of Commons cannot see this because there are too many on all sides chasing their personal unicorns of Remain, No Deal, or standing on your head riding a unicycle while whistling Ode to Joy (OK, I made that up).0 -
The answer to that question is quite a long list.Casino_Royale said:
He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.DavidL said:
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.Casino_Royale said:
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.DavidL said:Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.
Why shouldn’t he win?
But I think he will.0 -
And therefore, worthless.JosiasJessop said:
It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.
If I were in the market for a fleet of jets, I'd have some penetrating questions when I finally got to Boeing - after quizzing Airbus at length on their ability to meet delivery deadlines with all this new demand....
0 -
May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.DavidL said:I think that the bill which passed the Commons yesterday will prove to be an albatross around the neck of a government finding this too hard already. Not for the first time we are undermining our own negotiating position such as it is. The pressure is now on May and Corbyn to find a face saving "compromise" that allows a tweaked version of May's deal to pass before this nonsense gets through the Lords and becomes law. The fox of the ERG, the default position, has been shot and they really need to rescue what they can from the wreckage of a badly overplayed hand.
But what it also shows, for all I disagree with what she has done here, is what a poor choice Labour made in Corbyn instead of Cooper. To achieve this as a back bencher is something truly remarkable, unprecedented as I understand it. If May had 1/5th of her ability to build a consensus around a position we would not be in this mess.
Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.
Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.
Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.0 -
Why the heated discussion about 2017 manifestos? Both went in the bin as soon as the election was over.
Or is this just the kind of Brexit cascade reaction that we can look forward to as hackles rise and tempers fray? I refer you all back to my public safety as a candidate post of earlier.0 -
The greatest similarity between Cornyn and Trump is that neither are pluralists - they don't believe opinions which run contrary to theirs can be valid.0
-
One of the good things about the web is that it enables people with niche interests, such as betting on politics, to easily find each other to an extent not possible without it. Many otherwise lonely and isolated people are able to find a community of joint interest.DavidL said:
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.Casino_Royale said:
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.DavidL said:Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
However it turns out that sometimes these interests are in just-so stories about the world that have little grounding in reality, and we can see that the web makes cult-like behaviour much easier to fall into. A little bit of a cult is a good thing - the confidence that derives from being part of a like-minded group, the feeling of fellowship, etc - but too much is not good for us.
It would take someone smarter than me to find a way to strike the right balance.0 -
Or existent, but overruled by management...JosiasJessop said:
It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.0 -
May will agree anything to get this through now, she is that desperate. Corbyn has to work out what he wants. The main prize is a GE. So we put through the WA with an agreement that there will be a GE in 6 months and that the government will not commit the UK to a final deal until after a new government has been elected giving them 18 months to sort this out. Simples.IanB2 said:
May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.DavidL said:I think that the bill which passed the Commons yesterday will prove to be an albatross around the neck of a government finding this too hard already. Not for the first time we are undermining our own negotiating position such as it is. The pressure is now on May and Corbyn to find a face saving "compromise" that allows a tweaked version of May's deal to pass before this nonsense gets through the Lords and becomes law. The fox of the ERG, the default position, has been shot and they really need to rescue what they can from the wreckage of a badly overplayed hand.
But what it also shows, for all I disagree with what she has done here, is what a poor choice Labour made in Corbyn instead of Cooper. To achieve this as a back bencher is something truly remarkable, unprecedented as I understand it. If May had 1/5th of her ability to build a consensus around a position we would not be in this mess.
Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.
Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.
Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.0 -
Perfect explanation of where we are.IanB2 said:
May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.DavidL said:I think that the bill which passed the Commons yesterday will prove to be an albatross around the neck of a government finding this too hard already. Not for the first time we are undermining our own negotiating position such as it is. The pressure is now on May and Corbyn to find a face saving "compromise" that allows a tweaked version of May's deal to pass before this nonsense gets through the Lords and becomes law. The fox of the ERG, the default position, has been shot and they really need to rescue what they can from the wreckage of a badly overplayed hand.
But what it also shows, for all I disagree with what she has done here, is what a poor choice Labour made in Corbyn instead of Cooper. To achieve this as a back bencher is something truly remarkable, unprecedented as I understand it. If May had 1/5th of her ability to build a consensus around a position we would not be in this mess.
Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.
Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.
Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.0 -
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.Casino_Royale said:O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
0 -
So we're all cultists now? Sounds about right. Personally PB is a cult I feel very at home in with a wide enough range of views that I can delude myself that I am informed and actually thinking. Thanks Mike, its genuinely appreciated.OblitusSumMe said:
One of the good things about the web is that it enables people with niche interests, such as betting on politics, to easily find each other to an extent not possible without it. Many otherwise lonely and isolated people are able to find a community of joint interest.DavidL said:
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.Casino_Royale said:
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.DavidL said:Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
However it turns out that sometimes these interests are in just-so stories about the world that have little grounding in reality, and we can see that the web makes cult-like behaviour much easier to fall into. A little bit of a cult is a good thing - the confidence that derives from being part of a like-minded group, the feeling of fellowship, etc - but too much is not good for us.
It would take someone smarter than me to find a way to strike the right balance.0 -
The election is still 18 months away, so lots can happen. The US economy is improving, but isnt that mostly on the coasts rather than Trumpland? As incumbent he has the advantage, but not nailed on.Casino_Royale said:
He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.DavidL said:
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.Casino_Royale said:
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.DavidL said:Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.
Why shouldn’t he win?
The Dems need a good candidate, but surely not Sanders or Biden? both should be pensioned off.0 -
I think any similarities between Trump and Corbyn are largely superficial. The fundamental difference is that Trump acts in the interests of the wealthy and big business, while Corbyn does the opposite. This piece falls into the right wing trap of seeing the culture war as a fundamental element of the political space rather than what it is - a distraction and a trick designed to protect the economic interests of the elite in an era of mass democracy.
One other point: do we really need another article demonising Corbyn? The Paras are using him for target practice, and one Labour MP has already been murdered by the far right. Like him or loath him, he is the legitimate leader of Britain's largest political party, he is the leader of her majesty's loyal opposition and has worked inside democratic politics his whole life. Words have consequences, and personally I think some of the anti-Corbyn rhetoric on this site is not only absurd and melodramatic, it is also dangerous.0 -
Good morning everyone
I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois furious response to the ERG defeat quoting Jesus saying
'Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do'
I had no idea prior to Brexit that my party contained so many unpleasant mps
0 -
its pretty much the logic of revolutions.Casino_Royale said:
It’s got noteably worse in the last week.AlastairMeeks said:
Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:Casino_Royale said:O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/05/the-sick-rose-the-disease-in-the-english-hard-right-and-the-failure-of-the-rest-of-the-right-to-confront-it/0 -
Someone at Boeing has a to do list that looks a bit like this.edmundintokyo said:
Or existent, but overruled by management...JosiasJessop said:
It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BvuMPl9h3xg/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=4zzptgfyb4eb0 -
This is the first I've heard or read about the MCAS problems beyond headlines. If that's true then it's absolutely astonishing.Nigelb said:
And more importantly their location, changing COG and centre of thrust.Foxy said:
I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.JosiasJessop said:
No and no.ydoethur said:
The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?JosiasJessop said:Off-topic:
In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.
Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.
Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.
If true, then ooops...
And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.
The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.
Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
There’s actually nothing wrong with artificial stability, if implemented well. Boeing’s egregious error was to try graft a patch onto flight control software designed for the previous airframe. Doing it properly would have taken much more time - and required properly qualifying pilots to fly a new system, which would have been a big cost in time and money for their customers.0 -
I made the same point downthread Big_G. A Labour party led by Cooper would probably be in power by now, let alone out of sight in the polling.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning everyone
I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois furious response to the ERG defeat quoting Jesus saying
'Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do'
I had no idea that my party contained so many unpleasant mps0 -
There is an inversion in the bond yield in the US now. Normally means a recession within 12-18 months. Could be very bad timing for Trump whose debt fuelled growth is not sustainable.Foxy said:
The election is still 18 months away, so lots can happen. The US economy is improving, but isnt that mostly on the coasts rather than Trumpland? As incumbent he has the advantage, but not nailed on.Casino_Royale said:
He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.DavidL said:
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.Casino_Royale said:
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.DavidL said:Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.
Why shouldn’t he win?
The Dems need a good candidate, but surely not Sanders or Biden? both should be pensioned off.0 -
Which is as good as non-existent.edmundintokyo said:
Or existent, but overruled by management...JosiasJessop said:
It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.
I used to manage graduate students (which was funny, because I wasn't a graduate). One of the things I'd tell them was a lesson I'd picked up from an old NASA anecdote: always ask yourself "How does it fail?"
How something works is important. If you are working on anything that is critical, particularly for life, then as much, if not more, effort has to be put into failure. When it fails (and it will), what are the effects and consequences?
In this case, they didn't (or worse, as you say, ignored), the simple question of what would happen if an AoA vane gave incorrect values at low altitude. This seems such an obvious failure mode that it is staggering it was not addressed.0 -
I know we are not on the same page politically but I really do share your concern for all party helpers in the coming locals facing unacceptable threats to their right to campaignRochdalePioneers said:Why the heated discussion about 2017 manifestos? Both went in the bin as soon as the election was over.
Or is this just the kind of Brexit cascade reaction that we can look forward to as hackles rise and tempers fray? I refer you all back to my public safety as a candidate post of earlier.
Brexit has made so many so intolerant to others views and it will go down in the nations history as a deeply destablising period that brought condemnation of the whole political and media class0 -
That's superb but my non downloaded brain now needs to be transferred to Edinburgh. Good morning to all my fellow cultists.OblitusSumMe said:
Someone at Boeing has a to do list that looks a bit like this.edmundintokyo said:
Or existent, but overruled by management...JosiasJessop said:
It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BvuMPl9h3xg/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=4zzptgfyb4eb0 -
Yes indeedDavidL said:
I made the same point downthread Big_G. A Labour party led by Cooper would probably be in power by now, let alone out of sight in the polling.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning everyone
I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois furious response to the ERG defeat quoting Jesus saying
'Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do'
I had no idea that my party contained so many unpleasant mps0 -
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....Jonathan said:
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.Casino_Royale said:O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
0 -
If we get a long extension, with EP elections then we are now I think, for the first time, heading for ref2 as it will soon be the brexiters only hope -or an election which labour win and the price of coalition with SNP etc is ref2.
If no extension (which seems unlikely) it will be revoke followed by a coupon election with both parties all over the place and resulting in a coalition with ref2 as the price.
Talks with Labour were really only a gambit to get MV4 passed next week by frightening the horses but it is pretty obvious that has backfired. If there is a long extension Tories have to get a new leader and then an election which leads to the same outcome as above.
I thought for a long time the peoples vote strategy of last man standing was wrong - but it was me who was wrong all along.0 -
That's a great summary. So isn't the likely upshot just that parliament fails to pass anything and TMay goes off to Brussels to ask for an extension armed with a blank piece of paper and a weak smile?IanB2 said:
May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.
Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.
Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.
Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.
Then the 27 have to decide whether to let the irritation drag on inconclusively or to set Ireland on fire. I think they'll say, "OK, do what you like but don't bother us again for at least 18 months."0 -
This rhetoric needs dialling downMarqueeMark said:
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....Jonathan said:
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.Casino_Royale said:O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
0 -
Brexit doesn't even have 17.4 million supporters any more, let alone 17.4 million angry ones.MarqueeMark said:
Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....Jonathan said:
That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.Casino_Royale said:O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
0 -
I should add to my previous posts that politicians should also spend more time asking themselves: "How does it fail?"
Asking that question, and putting in a few safeguards, could save themselves and the public a great deal of hassle.0 -
On the end bit, I think you're right, underlined by the soon-to-be-law Cooper Bill that compels the PM to ask for an extension in those circumstances anyway.edmundintokyo said:
That's a great summary. So isn't the likely upshot just that parliament fails to pass anything and TMay goes off to Brussels to ask for an extension armed with a blank piece of paper and a weak smile?IanB2 said:
May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.
Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.
Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.
Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.
Then the 27 have to decide whether to let the irritation drag on inconclusively or to set Ireland on fire. I think they'll say, "OK, do what you like but don't bother us again for at least 18 months."
Monday depends on the voting system (there is some talk of using AV to narrow the options), whether the "composite" options being prepared by MPs (notably CU+PV) prove more popular or less popular than their elements separately, and the extent of whipping. Given how close some of the options have become, getting a decision isn't out of the question.
The issue then becomes whether, if for example, the House goes for CU or CM2 on Monday, it is still feasible to aim for 22 May or whether a longer delay is now inevitable? I had assumed the latter but there has been some talk of still being able to leave quickly.
0 -
I think it’s simpler than that: people hear what they want to hear and in the age of social media they now do not need to hear anything else. Trump and Corbyn (and many others now) understand that instinctively because it’s how they’ve lived their entire lives.DavidL said:
I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.Casino_Royale said:
Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.DavidL said:Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.
That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
0
