Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
My example was about a 15 year old in the context of what is 'child poverty'. Try telling them that a smartphone is not essential and I predict a robust response.
You can try telling a 15 year old lots of things and expect a robust response. It does not mean you are wrong.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
Because he was facing a Speaker who was prepared to do the same?
This is getting so ridiculous, by 2030 parliament is going consist purely of young hacks who have desperately wanted to be politicians since the age of 7 and self-police their social media with their life goal in mind, and confused old people who couldn't work out how to turn the facebook on.
I’d be fine I think. Many years ago I was told “never write down anything you wouldn’t want to hear read out in open court”, and I have followed that advice ever since.
So you are saying you have deliberately tampered with documentary evidence for legal reasons? And over a prolonged period of time?
My case rests m'lud.
That’s a nice point: can a document that was never written down be said to have been tampered with because it was never written?
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
I heard a vox pop from the north recently and Boris received surprising endorsements from normal folk who liked him 'cocking a snook' at establishment, one of the lads and someone I would have a drink with were also common themes
People like rebels and Boris has done a pretty good impression of taking on the elite and if he wins, it will be because this has cut through.
This is exactly my point. That "normal folk" are setting the bar very low and it's only going to get lower as we get accustomed to the consequences.
Almost certainly Lib Dems this time around. Certainly if the election was today. I'm a floating voter, and I've chopped and changed much over the years. Let's see whether the next few weeks change my mind. For me, it's about Brexit. I want it stopped, so I'm going for the party with the strongest message about that. There are other things I'm concerned about: electoral reform, sensible economic policies (i.e. not socialism and not bloodletting austerity), the environment, and basic standards of not having loads of bigots hiding in the woodwork. Right now, the stars are all aligned for the Lib Dems for me, but of course I don't expect Brexiters would want to follow me towards a remain party. I just think the big two parties have let standards slip so badly that we have to punish them both simultaneously. We can't keep going on oscillating between tweedledum and tweedledee, because it's just not working. This country's in a fucking mess, and it's getting worse. Time to try something new.
I saw your comment last night (thanks), and the weight of evidence is that you are incorrect.
Although the Auld Alliance was going through a quiet phase at the time of Agincourt, it was hardly void. The weight of evidence is that it is highly likely that individual Scottish knights, and even possibly a modest Scottish unit, fought under French royal command at Agincourt. Certainly, in the aftermath of the defeat, the Scots sent approx 15,000 troops to France to assist their allies, initially very successfully.
So “we” is nonsense. Although not as nonsensical as when Scots say “we” in reference to the Armada, where Scots support for the Spanish is well-documented. Not that the BBC and other diddies care for inconveniences like historical fact.
Although it didn’t end terribly well for the Scots:
David is right on one point though - James I served in France under Henry V and later under Bedford. It was part of his captivity in England from 1406-24. That was very useful for Henry, as it meant any Scottish soldiers he captured could be dragged before their king, convicted of treason and beheaded.
Observe key words “in captivity”.
Folk doing bizarre things
The slaughter of the Scots seems to have been partly on their own heads: Bedford is also said to have sent a herald to Douglas once both armies had been deployed to ask what terms for battle he required, to which Douglas grimly replied that the Scots would neither give nor receive any quarter....
Grim times: Many of the English panicked in face of the Milanese advance and a Captain Young was afterwards found guilty of cowardice for retreating with the 500 men under his command without orders, considering the battle as lost. Young was hanged, drawn and quartered as punishment for his retreat...
If slaughter and grimness are your thing, look into the massacres of Berwick or at Durham, after the battle of Dunbar. Or indeed, more recently, the worlds first extermination camp at Norman Cross.
Norman Cross was not an extermination camp. If it was it was not very efficient. 1,700 prisoners died at Norman Cross out of a population at any one time of 7,000, Approximately 1,000 of those in a typhoid epidemic in 1800 to 1801. Were the conditions there poor, God yes, nowhere near the humanitarian standards we would expect today. Was it an “extermination camp” - only in your fevered Anglophobic imagination.
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
My example was about a 15 year old in the context of what is 'child poverty'. Try telling them that a smartphone is not essential and I predict a robust response.
I don't own a smartphone and never have, so I don't accept that a smartphone is an essential. (I've got a laptop which is about 6 years old which is adequate).
If you think what one party says about another is serious data for earnest consideration, it is most likely that when it comes to elections you haven't been paying attention.
We're probably more interested in details than 95% of voters, but I'll confess that I've not bothered to look into the details. My takeaway has been:
* Interest rates for government are now negative so it's a good time for sensible investment * Tories no longer care about the deficit and will restore most of the cuts * Labour will borrow a lot more and actually improve stuff * There's a query about whether you can wisely spend a lot in a hurry
Net impression: Labour will improve public services, Tories will stop making them worse. All the stuff about trillions is passing me by as obvious partisan guff, and if anything mildly confirming the above impression.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
I find the argument that nobody is allowed to campaign to change a system if they themselves take advantage of that system to be bogus. Sure, take fewer flights, drive a smaller car, use public transport or offset as an individual - that is your choice. However the system is as it is and small individual actions such as Greta's in crossing the ocean in a sailing boat are praiseworthy but only governments and big business can make decisions which will have a real effect. You seem to be saying that if someone takes a flight their arguments can be ignored - even if the arguments are valid.
The main lesson from Greta’s crossing was how utterly impractical any alternative to flying is if you want to be physically there. She really should have Skyped.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
That was how she ended up. But she started out having barking mad ideas of her own. She was quite entertaining at one time.
Ive had a thought, which I'm posting for reflection, not as something I have evidence for. A return of the 'shy tory' syndrome.,... these vox pops of salt of the earthers going Boris 'one time only' etc. Could this be a wider phenomenon with working class red rosetters planning to vote Tory in the secrecy of the booth but wont openly admit that, even to pollsters? In other words, the mood music versus the polling. Are we missing a tidal wave? Similarly for Lab to Lib Dem switchers although I'm led to believe this is less of an unforgivable act
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
I find the argument that nobody is allowed to campaign to change a system if they themselves take advantage of that system to be bogus. Sure, take fewer flights, drive a smaller car, use public transport or offset as an individual - that is your choice. However the system is as it is and small individual actions such as Greta's in crossing the ocean in a sailing boat are praiseworthy but only governments and big business can make decisions which will have a real effect. You seem to be saying that if someone takes a flight their arguments can be ignored - even if the arguments are valid.
The main lesson from Greta’s crossing was how utterly impractical any alternative to flying is if you want to be physically there. She really should have Skyped.
I agree with that.
There are huge numbers of conferences that can be replaced by Zoom or Skype.
And, the UN should be taking a lead. Otherwise nothing will change.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
Because he was facing a Speaker who was prepared to do the same?
This is getting sond, and confused old people who couldn't work out how to turn the facebook on.
I’d be fine I think. Many years ago I was told “never write down anything you wouldn’t want to hear read out in open court”, and I have followed that advice ever since.
So you are saying you have deliberately tampered with documentary evidence for legal reasons? And over a prolonged period of time?
My case rests m'lud.
That’s a nice point: can a document that was never written down be said to have been tampered with because it was never written?
A notional document subject to notional tampering? Sounds like a notional crime, for which a stiff notional penalty would be in order.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
Hard to know what Plato thought about anything. His dialogues put words in the mouth of Socrates, but we don't know much about how closely they aligned with Socrates' views, versus Plato's own. There is a school of thought that says the early dialogues were Socratic and the later ones Platonic, but even putting them in order is a matter of considerable debate.
We do know Pythagoras would have been a Blairite, though. Everything was about triangulation for him..
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
My example was about a 15 year old in the context of what is 'child poverty'. Try telling them that a smartphone is not essential and I predict a robust response.
I don't own a smartphone and never have, so I don't accept that a smartphone is an essential. (I've got a laptop which is about 6 years old which is adequate).
I've never used a mobile phone. I realise that's unusual these days, but obviously a smartphone isn't essential.
Not a sustainable line that. You cannot bandy about your opponent's figures then refuse to do the same for your own. You've made the figures the point of debate.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
I findd.
The main lesson from Greta’s crossing was how utterly impractical any alternative to flying is if you want to be physically there. She really should have Skyped.
Yes. I think it was an effective stunt in one sense in that it got plenty of attention, but the actual thing that they want is less flights, not more boat trips (which would be impractical for reaching the destination in a timely manner, which is why we invented planes to begin with), so skyping in would have made the point more effectively. But not as iconic and newsworthy.
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
My example was about a 15 year old in the context of what is 'child poverty'. Try telling them that a smartphone is not essential and I predict a robust response.
I don't own a smartphone and never have, so I don't accept that a smartphone is an essential. (I've got a laptop which is about 6 years old which is adequate).
Lots of people dislike Johnson (I'm not his biggest fan) but if he does win, lets give him a chance. The country needs to stop stressing about things that haven't happened yet because that is the main cause of the division we have. Same with Brexit, let's see what actually happens.
If it is as bad as some are saying then it is inevitable that a party that has a policy of renewing closer ties with Europe will be elected.
When I grew up in the 70s, I experienced real poverty. We didn't have food banks - we went hungry. The generation before had it even tougher after the war.
Most people experiencing 'poverty' today have Sky, mobiles, the latest trainers. When I was part of a one parent family in the 70s, I wore shoes with elastic bands and we didn't have a TV. When we did get one, you had to put 50p in it to watch it and when that ran out it switched itself off.
Yes, there are lots things that could be better now. But things are miles better now than they have been in even the fairly recent past, and even then I don't recall the whinging and whining that we have to put up with these days.
But we have to update our understanding of what poverty entails as time passes and society develops. If we didn't do that, someone in straitened circumstances in the 70s would have been deemed to have never had it so good compared to, say, Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.
Likewise, today, a mobile telephonic device with internet access - "smartphone" - is quite rightly considered an essential tool of modern life. If you are 15 and cannot afford one, it is likely to lead to exclusion and isolation. This is child poverty - where the poverty is poverty not "poverty". The fact that smartphones did not exist in 1979 does not make them merely a "nice to have" in 2019.
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
All that shows is that you are (probably) over 50.
You can get a smartphone for under £100. Makes more economic sense than buying a phone and a laptop.
Ever tried working a spreadsheet on a smartphone?
You can get a cheap monitor and keyboard and use a phone as a replacement for a computer. I've seen the CTO of a finance company working in exactly that way in recent years, was fascinating to see it in action. Not what I would choose to do, but it worked for him.
Well, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask how often Lucas is flying? And whether those flights are really necessary?
Lucas is one of the most judgemental figures in modern politics, so I am not impressed with her response ("let's not sit in judgment on each other")
Clearly, it is hypocritical when touring rock stars take a heavily Green stance. Or Lewis Hamilton.
Their entire lifestyle (which after all is nothing very vital) is based around taking lots of international flights for themselves and their entourage.
Basically, you can't advocate vegetarianism if you are a prominent cannibal.
Indeed. It all depends.
Flying every now and again to visit her son in America? - Surely OK to a reasonable person.
Zipping around on planes willy nilly, several times a year, conferences, holidays, taking her PPL at Biggin Hill? - Rank hypocrisy.
If there is one question the Leader of the Greens needs to have a good answer for, it is this.
(She should have talked about offsetting).
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
I find the argument that nobody is allowed to campaign to change a system if they themselves take advantage of that system to be bogus.
I think that very much depends on how self-righteous that person might be. If someone is hugely judgemental of others' personal actions, but acts similarly, it undermines their arguments quite a bit. If someone advocates for societal change whilst acknowledging they too could do more, that's a lot more reasonable.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
Hard to know what Plato thought about anything. His dialogues put words in the mouth of Socrates, but we don't know much about how closely they aligned with Socrates' views, versus Plato's own. There is a school of thought that says the early dialogues were Socratic and the later ones Platonic, but even putting them in order is a matter of considerable debate.
We do know Pythagoras would have been a Blairite, though. Everything was about triangulation for him..
Ye gods, you were talking about the PB Plato, not the Ancient Greek one, weren't you? Ah well, I got my Pythagoras gag in there.
Quite. Plus how it is justified that she wants to make it harder and prohibitively expensive for people with much less wealth than her to travel for equally valid reasons. Air travel for the elite only, a staple of green politics
How wealthy is Caroline Lucas? Genuine question, I have no clue.
She earns an MP salary and has access to 'expenses'. Shes much wealthier than the average Joe
So you don't know either?
I don't know her net wealth, I know she is much income wealthier than the average person on the basis of her having much more income than the average person
So you made a comment predicated on something you don't know, and now you're shifting the goalposts to save your argument.
Ok, cheers, that panned out exactly as I expected.
Did it? I'm happy my point stands without having access to Lucas' bank balance, her earnings place her in a category well above the average and if she spaffs it all up the wall on pictures of trees that were felled before their time and scented candles it changes nothing of her hypocrisy. I'll take the socratic method from ancient Greeks, not net trolls
I find the argument that nobody is allowed to campaign to change a system if they themselves take advantage of that system to be bogus. Sure, take fewer flights, drive a smaller car, use public transport or offset as an individual - that is your choice. However the system is as it is and small individual actions such as Greta's in crossing the ocean in a sailing boat are praiseworthy but only governments and big business can make decisions which will have a real effect. You seem to be saying that if someone takes a flight their arguments can be ignored - even if the arguments are valid.
The main lesson from Greta’s crossing was how utterly impractical any alternative to flying is if you want to be physically there. She really should have Skyped.
I agree with that.
There are huge numbers of conferences that can be replaced by Zoom or Skype.
But what would our business executives have to do all day if they didn't travel to meetings? Have you really thought through the unemployment problems your madcap idea would cause?
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
Hard to know what Plato thought about anything. His dialogues put words in the mouth of Socrates, but we don't know much about how closely they aligned with Socrates' views, versus Plato's own. There is a school of thought that says the early dialogues were Socratic and the later ones Platonic, but even putting them in order is a matter of considerable debate.
We do know Pythagoras would have been a Blairite, though. Everything was about triangulation for him..
Wrong Plato. This one was (initially) a cat that a female poster knew. She named it Plato and used the name for her own handle on PB. She had a bit of a cat thing.....
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
In complete contrast to current the current herd.
There are a few posters here now who are so prolific and tribal that you have to wonder why they are doing it. It's certainly not for the betting, nor the debate, since they never engage in any meaningful way.
It's tempting to speculate that they too are rewarded in cash or kind, although it may be they just find gratification in what they perceive as furthering the interests of The Tribe.
There are huge numbers of conferences that can be replaced by Zoom or Skype.
And, the UN should be taking a lead. Otherwise nothing will change.
I do agree, but some can only take place face to face. I recall going through the reserving numbers of our US operation and needing to see the shifty look of the US managers at close quarters to confirm the suspicions I had looking at the bare numbers. No video link could have given me that.
Here's the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW (Electoral LeaderBoard Of the Week) for the week ending 10th November. Seven polls with fieldwork end-dates 4th to 10th November: Deltapoll, Panelbase, ICM, Opinium and 3 YGs.
CON 39.00% (+1.12) LAB 27.86% (+1.53) LD 15.86% (-0.14) BXP 8.71% (-1.67) SNP 3.86% (+0.23) GRN 3.29% (+0.04) PC 0.71% (-0.04) Oth 0.71% (-0.54)
CON lead 11.14% (-0.11)
Changes vs. last Sunday
Take-home: BXP getting squeezed, LDs a tiny bit. Lab and Con both up.
Labour and Tories each have a shit start to their campaigns. And the LibDems go down.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
Hard to know what Plato thought about anything. His dialogues put words in the mouth of Socrates, but we don't know much about how closely they aligned with Socrates' views, versus Plato's own. There is a school of thought that says the early dialogues were Socratic and the later ones Platonic, but even putting them in order is a matter of considerable debate.
We do know Pythagoras would have been a Blairite, though. Everything was about triangulation for him..
Wrong Plato. This one was (initially) a cat that a female poster knew. She named it Plato and used the name for her own handle on PB. She had a bit of a cat thing.....
Yes, I twigged just a little too late. Thanks for the heads up though
Well, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask how often Lucas is flying? And whether those flights are really necessary?
Lucas is one of the most judgemental figures in modern politics, so I am not impressed with her response ("let's not sit in judgment on each other")
Clearly, it is hypocritical when touring rock stars take a heavily Green stance. Or Lewis Hamilton.
Their entire lifestyle (which after all is nothing very vital) is based around taking lots of international flights for themselves and their entourage.
Basically, you can't advocate vegetarianism if you are a prominent cannibal.
Indeed. It all depends.
Flying every now and again to visit her son in America? - Surely OK to a reasonable person.
Zipping around on planes willy nilly, several times a year, conferences, holidays, taking her PPL at Biggin Hill? - Rank hypocrisy.
Wonder which it is?
We can fairy safely say she won't be flying over Brighton towing a banner saying vote for my lot.
Lots of people dislike Johnson (I'm not his biggest fan) but if he does win, lets give him a chance. The country needs to stop stressing about things that haven't happened yet because that is the main cause of the division we have. Same with Brexit, let's see what actually happens.
If it is as bad as some are saying then it is inevitable that a party that has a policy of renewing closer ties with Europe will be elected.
When I grew up in the 70s, I experienced real poverty. We didn't have food banks - we went hungry. The generation before had it even tougher after the war.
Most people experiencing 'poverty' today have Sky, mobiles, the latest trainers. When I was part of a one parent family in the 70s, I wore shoes with elastic bands and we didn't have a TV. When we did get one, you had to put 50p in it to watch it and when that ran out it switched itself off.
Yes, there are lots things that could be better now. But things are miles better now than they have been in even the fairly recent past, and even then I don't recall the whinging and whining that we have to put up with these days.
But we have to update our understanding of what poverty entails as time passes and society develops. If we didn't do that, someone in straitened circumstances in the 70s would have been deemed to have never had it so good compared to, say, Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim.
Likewise, today, a mobile telephonic device with internet access - "smartphone" - is quite rightly considered an essential tool of modern life. If you are 15 and cannot afford one, it is likely to lead to exclusion and isolation. This is child poverty - where the poverty is poverty not "poverty". The fact that smartphones did not exist in 1979 does not make them merely a "nice to have" in 2019.
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
All that shows is that you are (probably) over 50.
You can get a smartphone for under £100. Makes more economic sense than buying a phone and a laptop.
Ever tried working a spreadsheet on a smartphone?
You can get a cheap monitor and keyboard and use a phone as a replacement for a computer. I've seen the CTO of a finance company working in exactly that way in recent years, was fascinating to see it in action. Not what I would choose to do, but it worked for him.
I prefer not to carry a monitor and keyboard around. Your solution only works if you work in one place.
Complete nonsense about smartphones. I use a phone for calls and text and a laptop for other things - and that is common practice amongst people I know. I am entirely with you that the poverty threshold evolves, but not such that a smartphone is an essential.
My example was about a 15 year old in the context of what is 'child poverty'. Try telling them that a smartphone is not essential and I predict a robust response.
I don't own a smartphone and never have, so I don't accept that a smartphone is an essential. (I've got a laptop which is about 6 years old which is adequate).
I totally agree - just about everyone I know who has one, especially the under 35 year olds, is a total slave to their mobile to the detriment of acceptable social manners towards everyone else who might be present. I take mine with me when away from home for emergency use, e.g calling for roadside assistance, notifying loved ones of unforeseen delays, etc and for keeping up to date with the footy scores and a few other sporting events and that's about all. I don't LIVE on my mobile like so many appear to do so.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
In complete contrast to current the current herd.
There are a few posters here now who are so prolific and tribal that you have to wonder why they are doing it. It's certainly not for the betting, nor the debate, since they never engage in any meaningful way.
It's tempting to speculate that they too are rewarded in cash or kind, although it may just be they just find gratification in what they perceive as furthering the interests of The Tribe.
It's why paid astroturfing is dumb in politics, since enthusiastic amateurs are perfectly willing to support the messaging for free.
But personally I'm here to seek smug self satisfaction.
Kwasi fulfils a similar role for the tories as The Constant Gardiner does for Labour. Everybody, even those on their own side, think they are a useless twat and are therefore expendable cannon fodder to be sent out to be pegged by Sophy R's strap on.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
Hard to know what Plato thought about anything. His dialogues put words in the mouth of Socrates, but we don't know much about how closely they aligned with Socrates' views, versus Plato's own. There is a school of thought that says the early dialogues were Socratic and the later ones Platonic, but even putting them in order is a matter of considerable debate.
We do know Pythagoras would have been a Blairite, though. Everything was about triangulation for him..
Wrong Plato. This one was (initially) a cat that a female poster knew. She named it Plato and used the name for her own handle on PB. She had a bit of a cat thing.....
Yes, I twigged just a little too late. Thanks for the heads up though
Lol! Easy mistake to make.
We also used to have a Socrates but he hasn't posted for while.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
I believe she had voted SDP, LibDem and for Blair in earlier elections.
I rather upset her once by suggesting she had voted on the basis of which party leader she would chose as a husband.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
In complete contrast to current the current herd.
There are a few posters here now who are so prolific and tribal that you have to wonder why they are doing it. It's certainly not for the betting, nor the debate, since they never engage in any meaningful way.
It's tempting to speculate that they too are rewarded in cash or kind, although it may just be they just find gratification in what they perceive as furthering the interests of The Tribe.
It's why paid astroturfing is dumb in politics, since enthusiastic amateurs are perfectly willing to support the messaging for free.
But personally I'm here to seek smug self satisfaction.
For me it is just the entertainment value. The trench warfare in here makes any other purpose a bit pointless.
I do hope that the bettors (betters?) make money from their flutters.
True. And this has been well-noted by Scots, who are about to punish both the Labour and the Conservative & Unionist parties.
Neither will get anywhere near the post of FM until and unless they make a sharp turn:
- Labour would need to veer back towards genuine, caring social democracy, lead by pleasant, likeable personalities;
- the Conservative & Unionists have an even bigger task, uncoupling from the mendacious gang in London, dropping the loony flag-waving act, and rolling their sleeves up and coming up with some thought-through, popular policies on eg. housing, transport and infrastructure.
Both tasks look daunting, and I just cannot see the necessary strong, principled future leader in either party. This is fantastic news for the SLDs in the medium term. Once they ditch the hopeless Swinson and Rennie, they have a golden opportunity to give Unionism the decent, respectable leadership it so desperately needs.
Labour will only have a chance of bouncing back in Scotland after independence IMO.
Same with the Tories.
Unionism seems to be driving certain Scottish social democrats and conservatives quite literally bonkers. Only the process of Scotland becoming a normal country is likely to regain the loonies their sanity.
If the Union survives another decade - a big if - the SLDs will take over the leadership of Unionism for the remainder of the period.
If the Union is dissolved, I expect a powerful bounce for both Labour and Tories. The SNP are not going to have much fun after the initial post-independence GE. And I for one certainly won’t be hanging about to help them.
No ANC style future for the SNP then?
Fuck no. SNP is gone post Independence.
Yepp. The SNP are toast within 5 years of independence. I’ll not only leave the party, I will campaign hard against any former colleagues who put the party name on a ballot paper.
The SNP was created for, and exists for, a purpose. Once that goal is achieved it is utterly redundant.
I think they'll go longer than that, 10 years, but a lot rests on what the leader does after independence.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
In complete contrast to current the current herd.
There are a few posters here now who are so prolific and tribal that you have to wonder why they are doing it. It's certainly not for the betting, nor the debate, since they never engage in any meaningful way.
It's tempting to speculate that they too are rewarded in cash or kind, although it may be they just find gratification in what they perceive as furthering the interests of The Tribe.
You have to wonder, don't you?
But who would pay anyone to post here? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm eager to know. (If you don't like my principles, I have others.)
Kwasi fulfils a similar role for the tories as The Constant Gardiner does for Labour. Everybody, even those on their own side, think they are a useless twat and are therefore expendable cannon fodder to be sent out to be pegged by Sophy R's strap on.
It has not been a good year for PB posters: there have been multiple illnesses, one stabbing and a few deaths of spouses and parents. I think the only cheerful things have been my new job, one poster starting a legal degree and @Casino_Royale 's new baby. I'll try to do a births, deaths and marriages article for year end.
I prefer not to carry a monitor and keyboard around. Your solution only works if you work in one place.
Yeah, I'll personally stick with my laptop. But he worked out of two offices and his home, so it was a case of only needing to carry his phone and using monitors and keyboards that stayed put. I can see a future for Google Glass-like hardware, a lightweight and portable display that doesn't end up looking tiny like a phone screen does. Not sure how to overcome the need to carry a keyboard, though.
Of the lot, I would rather be on Elisha McCallion in Foyle. Eastwood is a vote for REMAIN or DEAL and I can't see many unionists in Foyle going that way. Hanna in Belfast South was value earlier in the week, not now.
With or without Brexit, Scotland will be independent shortly. The political divergence is now too huge and too sustained. Pro Union Scots should vote SLD on the remote chance that defeating Brexit keeps the Union on life support a bit longer.
Yes, one would have thought INDSCOT is coming quite soon now. Dragged out of the EU on Hard Brexit terms by a right wing Tory government headed by a vacuous Eton poshboy. Surely a slam dunk. If this does NOT lead to independence I would have to begin to suspect that the Scots are all mouth and no whatevers about the matter.
Now you're trying to actually goad them into it? Utterly deranged remainia.
Ive had a thought, which I'm posting for reflection, not as something I have evidence for. A return of the 'shy tory' syndrome.,... these vox pops of salt of the earthers going Boris 'one time only' etc. Could this be a wider phenomenon with working class red rosetters planning to vote Tory in the secrecy of the booth but wont openly admit that, even to pollsters? In other words, the mood music versus the polling. Are we missing a tidal wave? Similarly for Lab to Lib Dem switchers although I'm led to believe this is less of an unforgivable act
Possibly, but I'd point out that we're not missing it: we keep downplaying the fact that all the pollsters say Con are ahead by a large way.
Ive had a thought, which I'm posting for reflection, not as something I have evidence for. A return of the 'shy tory' syndrome.,... these vox pops of salt of the earthers going Boris 'one time only' etc. Could this be a wider phenomenon with working class red rosetters planning to vote Tory in the secrecy of the booth but wont openly admit that, even to pollsters? In other words, the mood music versus the polling. Are we missing a tidal wave? Similarly for Lab to Lib Dem switchers although I'm led to believe this is less of an unforgivable act
It's possible, but past experience is rather the other way - people mutter that for two pins they'd vote differently, and then they don't. A bit like most MPs, come to that.
I think that Labour has pretty much won the "who's the second party nationally?" argument with the LibDems, but not much progress on eating into the Tory lead so far, so IMO it'll come down to the debates and tactical voting - everything else is minor.
Kwasi fulfils a similar role for the tories as The Constant Gardiner does for Labour. Everybody, even those on their own side, think they are a useless twat and are therefore expendable cannon fodder to be sent out to be pegged by Sophy R's strap on.
Doesn't RCS know him and rate him highly ?
There is kudos in being the thankless soul who goes out and defends the indefensible. In other countries, like Japan and France, they have a special cabinet role for this and it is a prestigious / good-signal appointment, like if DPM were also chief cabinet spokesman.
But who would pay anyone to post here? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm eager to know. (If you don't like my principles, I have others.)
The tory pary/GRU would be wasting their fucking money as I don't think anybody here has ever changed their mind on anything as result of something they read.
You do see certain persistent themes getting pushed using almost identical language by some posters but it's like the business case for prostitution in Hartlepool: no point paying for it because there are too many enthusiastic amateurs giving it away for free.
True. And this has been well-noted by Scots, who are about to punish both the Labour and the Conservative & Unionist parties.
Neither will get anywhere near the post of FM until and unless they make a sharp turn:
- Labour would need to veer back towards genuine, caring social democracy, lead by pleasant, likeable personalities;
- the Conservative & Unionists have an even bigger task, uncoupling from the mendacious gang in London, dropping the loony flag-waving act, and rolling their sleeves up and coming up with some thought-through, popular policies on eg. housing, transport and infrastructure.
Both tasks look daunting, and I just cannot see the necessary strong, principled future leader in either party. This is fantastic news for the SLDs in the medium term. Once they ditch the hopeless Swinson and Rennie, they have a golden opportunity to give Unionism the decent, respectable leadership it so desperately needs.
Labour will only have a chance of bouncing back in Scotland after independence IMO.
Same with the Tories.
Unionism seems to be driving certain Scottish social democrats and conservatives quite literally bonkers. Only the process of Scotland becoming a normal country is likely to regain the loonies their sanity.
If the Union survives another decade - a big if - the SLDs will take over the leadership of Unionism for the remainder of the period.
If the Union is dissolved, I expect a powerful bounce for both Labour and Tories. The SNP are not going to have much fun after the initial post-independence GE. And I for one certainly won’t be hanging about to help them.
No ANC style future for the SNP then?
Fuck no. SNP is gone post Independence.
Yepp. The SNP are toast within 5 years of independence. I’ll not only leave the party, I will campaign hard against any former colleagues who put the party name on a ballot paper.
The SNP was created for, and exists for, a purpose. Once that goal is achieved it is utterly redundant.
I think they'll go longer than that, 10 years, but a lot rests on what the leader does after independence.
They'll keep going as long as the Scottish labour party continues to be a basket case. They've taken the moderate centre left position and as long as they don't give it up they'll be around. they won't remain at this high water mark for too long but for the forseeable Labour don't appear to be doing anything to change th situation.
But who would pay anyone to post here? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm eager to know. (If you don't like my principles, I have others.)
The tory pary/GRU would be wasting their fucking money as I don't think anybody here has ever changed their mind on anything as result of something they read.
Except they have, and that no one ever changes their mind (rather than simply most) is one of those things people just assume.
Local intelligence: the Tories will have to have a total meltdown not to take North Norfolk off the Lib Dems. Their vote here is based on the merits of the retiring incumbent, it is (I believe) the oldest constituency in the land, it's strongly Leave and the Tories have picked a local candidate.
Apparently you can get 7/2 on the Conservatives with William Hill. I'm (almost) tempted to sign up for an account just to stick a few hundred quid on at those odds. It looks very much like free money.
As far as I’m aware, no other Prime Minister has tried to suspend democracy to force through a policy that no one voted for that would have caused short term chaos and profound and long lasting effects. Boris Johnson is by some distance the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had.
We've had PM's who, variously, engaged in insider trading, flagellated young girls, raped maidservants, and started disastrous wars.
As far as I’m aware, none of them sought to dismantle the fabric of the country’s democracy, let alone without a personal mandate or a majority in Parliament.
If you really consider sending parliament on its holibobs for an extra four days to be an act of greater magnitude than the Iraq war, I really don't know what to say.
That is not what was done. So you are, as usual, idiotically wrong.
You can couch the prorogation in whatever florid terms you like. The comparison with Iraq still borders on the insane. 500,000 dead say hi.
Prorogation is literally suspending the country’s democracy. Literally literally. Not florid, not a metaphor, literally. Normally it is used as a technical mechanism. On this occasion it was used in a failed attempt to transform the country’s politics by undemocratic means.
Ultimately, you either have some form of respect for the constitution or you do not. No one advocating a vote for the Conservatives in this election has any respect for the constitution.
Oh, get over yourself. That's as vacuous as saying noone advocating a vote for the Lib Dems has any respect for democracy, or noone advoxating a vote for Labour has any respect for human decency. Moreover, constitutional-dicking-about this year has hardly been the preserve of the Conservatives. People vote, amd asvocate votes, for any one of a number of reasons. I'm voting Conservative because the alternative to a Conservative majority is Jeremy Corbyn as PM. And for fans of liberal constitutional democracy, that looks like the worst possible outcome.
Only the Conservatives have assaulted the constitution this year. This is how democracy ends: large numbers of people see something as more important than protecting it.
Kwasi fulfils a similar role for the tories as The Constant Gardiner does for Labour. Everybody, even those on their own side, think they are a useless twat and are therefore expendable cannon fodder to be sent out to be pegged by Sophy R's strap on.
Doesn't RCS know him and rate him highly ?
There is kudos in being the thankless soul who goes out and defends the indefensible. .
Michael Fallon used to be a key pick for that role, as I recall. The thing is, you only get kudos for it if you are good at it. But for some reason parties pick people who can be pretty bad at it and yet keep sending them.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
Because he was facing a Speaker who was prepared to do the same?
Clearly untrue. The Speaker has the backing of a majority of MPs for his actions as was shown by theirs.
Ive had a thought, which I'm posting for reflection, not as something I have evidence for. A return of the 'shy tory' syndrome.,... these vox pops of salt of the earthers going Boris 'one time only' etc. Could this be a wider phenomenon with working class red rosetters planning to vote Tory in the secrecy of the booth but wont openly admit that, even to pollsters? In other words, the mood music versus the polling. Are we missing a tidal wave? Similarly for Lab to Lib Dem switchers although I'm led to believe this is less of an unforgivable act
Hmmm....possible for the Labour to Tory vote although i am unconvinced.
With regards to Labour to Lib Dem, only in tactical voting places, we are just as in 2017 seeing the 3rd parties being squeezed. I expect this election to be close and end in a hung parliament
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
That was how she ended up. But she started out having barking mad ideas of her own. She was quite entertaining at one time.
IIRC she worked in PR and had enjoyed quite a varied career although she was mostly "resting" and clearly not in good health during her time posting on PB.com. I think it's only fair and proper to credit her with having a brain ... let's not forget that she was voted POTY on this site a few years back and you don't receive such an accolade without being pretty smart and entertaining as PtP himself must know, having come so very close to a similar honour.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
In complete contrast to current the current herd.
There are a few posters here now who are so prolific and tribal that you have to wonder why they are doing it. It's certainly not for the betting, nor the debate, since they never engage in any meaningful way.
It's tempting to speculate that they too are rewarded in cash or kind, although it may be they just find gratification in what they perceive as furthering the interests of The Tribe.
You have to wonder, don't you?
But who would pay anyone to post here? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm eager to know. (If you don't like my principles, I have others.)
The evidence is circumstantial so you have to be careful about making assumptions. It wouldn't cost much for a well-funded Party though, and you can be sure some organisers have thought of it.
On most forums it would clearly be a waste of time and money but on a more thoughtful one like this that has a fair bit of street cred it might be thought to pay dividends.
Who knows? I wouldn't bother myself and I studiously avoid the more Tribal posters for fear of encouraging them, but somebody clearly thinks it's worthwhile.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
Because he was facing a Speaker who was prepared to do the same?
Clearly untrue. The Speaker has the backing of a majority of MPs for his actions as was shown by theirs.
That sentence seems like a hostage to fortune for Boris, or Corbyn, to do something constitutionally outrageous because a majority of MPs back their actions. They would always be able to do that, sovereignty and all that, but things of constitutional importance might give them pause on flippantly changing them on the basis of a majority alone.
With or without Brexit, Scotland will be independent shortly. The political divergence is now too huge and too sustained. Pro Union Scots should vote SLD on the remote chance that defeating Brexit keeps the Union on life support a bit longer.
Yes, one would have thought INDSCOT is coming quite soon now. Dragged out of the EU on Hard Brexit terms by a right wing Tory government headed by a vacuous Eton poshboy. Surely a slam dunk. If this does NOT lead to independence I would have to begin to suspect that the Scots are all mouth and no whatevers about the matter.
Now you're trying to actually goad them into it? Utterly deranged remainia.
There are other contenders, but that’s perhaps the silliest post of the morning.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
In complete contrast to current the current herd.
There are a few posters here now who are so prolific and tribal that you have to wonder why they are doing it. It's certainly not for the betting, nor the debate, since they never engage in any meaningful way.
It's tempting to speculate that they too are rewarded in cash or kind, although it may be they just find gratification in what they perceive as furthering the interests of The Tribe.
You have to wonder, don't you?
But who would pay anyone to post here? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm eager to know. (If you don't like my principles, I have others.)
The evidence is circumstantial so you have to be careful about making assumptions. It wouldn't cost much for a well-funded Party though, and you can be sure some organisers have thought of it.
On most forums it would clearly be a waste of time and money but on a more thoughtful one like this that has a fair bit of street cred it might be thought to pay dividends.
Who knows? I wouldn't bother myself and I studiously avoid the more Tribal posters for fear of encouraging them, but somebody clearly thinks it's worthwhile.
I could see the value in using PB as a testing ground for ideas and policies.
Local intelligence: the Tories will have to have a total meltdown not to take North Norfolk off the Lib Dems. Their vote here is based on the merits of the retiring incumbent, it is (I believe) the oldest constituency in the land, it's strongly Leave and the Tories have picked a local candidate.
Apparently you can get 7/2 on the Conservatives with William Hill. I'm (almost) tempted to sign up for an account just to stick a few hundred quid on at those odds. It looks very much like free money.
How much do you think incumbency is worth? a few percentage points? And with the Lib Dem vote rising nationwide, and the Conservative vote falling, and the Brexit Party standing, it doesn't feel like a Con gain to me. No local knowledge here for me, though, so happy to defer if you know of canvass returns telling a different story.
Kwasi fulfils a similar role for the tories as The Constant Gardiner does for Labour. Everybody, even those on their own side, think they are a useless twat and are therefore expendable cannon fodder to be sent out to be pegged by Sophy R's strap on.
Doesn't RCS know him and rate him highly ?
There is kudos in being the thankless soul who goes out and defends the indefensible. .
Michael Fallon used to be a key pick for that role, as I recall. The thing is, you only get kudos for it if you are good at it. But for some reason parties pick people who can be pretty bad at it and yet keep sending them.
Broadcasters have also become a lot more aggressive in the Internet era as media competition for eyeballs is a lot more intense. It can't just be politics now, it needs to be politics plus drama. So getting Brexit done will be bad for broadcasters (Who thrive on drama) and good for the press (Who need novelty).
Agree with most of the predictions above but I think the UUP could take North Down, they got 50% of the vote in 2005 when Hermon was last a UUP candidate.
I also think the Alliance will take Belfast South from the DUP though as you say the SDLP also have a chance having held the seat until 2017.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
Because he was facing a Speaker who was prepared to do the same?
Clearly untrue. The Speaker has the backing of a majority of MPs for his actions as was shown by theirs.
That sentence seems like a hostage to fortune for Boris, or Corbyn, to do something constitutionally outrageous because a majority of MPs back their actions. They would always be able to do that, sovereignty and all that, but things of constitutional importance might give them pause on flippantly changing them on the basis of a majority alone.
The Speaker’s role is to speak for the Commons. John Bercow did that. We now have the ridiculous position where Leavers, having supposedly campaigned for parliamentary sovereignty, now angrily support the government’s supposed right to steamroller the Commons because it is inconvenient for them.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The best approach is to ignore the promises and predictions and judge the parties on what they have done. Do you want more of current administration, the most chaotic in living memory, one not afraid to act unlawfully to force its will?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed by Corbyn not turning up to the Remembrance Day event last night.
So he doesn’t care. Fine. Turn up, be bored for 2 hours, clap where appropriate and honour the sacrifice made by soldiers of so many countries in the fight for freedom and democracy.
Says more about him and his unsuitability to lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
Because he was facing a Speaker who was prepared to do the same?
Clearly untrue. The Speaker has the backing of a majority of MPs for his actions as was shown by theirs.
That sentence seems like a hostage to fortune for Boris, or Corbyn, to do something constitutionally outrageous because a majority of MPs back their actions. They would always be able to do that, sovereignty and all that, but things of constitutional importance might give them pause on flippantly changing them on the basis of a majority alone.
That’s a fair point. It’s also fair to point out that Johnson’s actions were judged unlawful; the Speaker, while riding the odd coach and horses through convention, acted lawfully.
Labour’s report of Tory spending plans is fake news. Tory report of labour’s spending plans is fake news. And such campaigning is awfully close to remains project fear that bombed so spectacularly,
This is one of the worst elections of my lifetime for fake news and ridiculous press coverage.
It's very depressing.
The bwill?
The racist liar who waves the Union Jack will always beat the racist liar who doesn’t.
I’m unimpressed bom and democracy.
Says more o lead our Country
But acting unlawfully is fine with you.
Grow up
It’s a fair question Big G. Every Conservative cheerleader has to explain exactly why they’re so relaxed about the Prime Minister’s assault on the country’s constitution.
Because he was facing a Speaker who was prepared to do the same?
Clearly untrue. The Speaker has the backing of a majority of MPs for his actions as was shown by theirs.
That se alone.
The Speaker’s role is to speak for the Commons. John Bercow did that. We now have the ridiculous position where Leavers, having supposedly campaigned for parliamentary sovereignty, now angrily support the government’s supposed right to steamroller the Commons because it is inconvenient for them.
That's separate to the point I was making, which is irrespective of Bercow being right or wrong. A majority of MPs will back actions of Boris or Corbyn to do things which, previously, might have been considered important constitutional conventions. If the Commons chooses to let itself be steamrolled it isn't being steamrolled. When the government wins a vote the Commons doesn't lose, the Commons wins whichever way a vote goes.
Now, the prorogation stuff was outrageous precisely because it was trying to bypass the Commons and avoid votes, so that is definitiely different, but your generic point about a majority of MPs backing Bercow's actions, and seemingly that that meant it could not have been an assault on the constitution by definition, would seem to me to apply to a great many potential assaults on the constitution by a future government, which we would thenhave no defence of it being an attack on what was an improtant convention.
All this doom and gloom! I'm actually hopeful for the future. Sure, the next few years will be utter shite, but every year will bring a new crop of young voters, all energised by the likes of Thunberg and XR. They will vote differently to us, and we will see a big change. Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems are all old hat, out of touch and singing the same old tunes. Their days are numbered. They either evolve or die, and I don't see much evidence of evolution in them at the minute.
TBH I'd say Labour is representing that generation, Labours problem ultimately is with those over 45 or more specifically over 60. I'm not saying this should happen but if you take away the over 60's Labour would get an easy majority. It is not the young coming through that is their problem but the older voters. It is a promising sign for Labours future but the boomer generation has a large say still.
You have to appeal to the electorate that is. Not the electorate that you want.
More broadly, I'm not convinced by the "it'll all be different once the old farts die off" narrative. It assumes that people's opinions and priorities become set in stone by the age of 25 and will never change as they themselves get older.
The main generational challenge to the Right isn't the inevitable match of tens of millions of Greta Thunberg clones. It's the failure to enable home ownership. Get the houses built, enough of them and in the right locations to make them affordable for the young, and you solve the problem.
If anything brings about the Revolution, it will be a combination of inertia and Nimbyism.
The Conservatives have pretty much guaranteed another 1997 for themselves through the way they have handled Brexit. They have alienated generations. The only question is when.
The only election that matters for now is on Dec 12th. Imagine how things would have turned out if John Major had lost in 92. We might have been spared Blair.
Great comparison. The Clown winning now is just going to reap a far greater storm in the future. Tories ought to pray for a modest beating now to escape a vegetative state in the foreseeable.
Had Kinnock won in 1992 it would have been an economic disaster for the country, if Corbyn wins it would have been an even bigger economic disaster.
I would rather have 13 years in opposition against PM Blair or Umunna than even just 5 years in opposition against PM Kinnock or Corbyn
That’s a fair point. It’s also fair to point out that Johnson’s actions were judged unlawful; the Speaker, while riding the odd coach and horses through convention, acted lawfully.
Oh, while I don't like Bercow in many ways I would agree with that, I was more thinking of the implication of that statement that it could not possibly be an assault if the Commons backed it. While parliament can always change the constitution, a majority of MPs could very well seek to do something which would be an assault on it, as it presently stands. But the suggestion seemed to be we would not be able to claim that if it happened.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
In complete contrast to current the current herd.
There are a few posters here now who are so prolific and tribal that you have to wonder why they are doing it. It's certainly not for the betting, nor the debate, since they never engage in any meaningful way.
It's tempting to speculate that they too are rewarded in cash or kind, although it may just be they just find gratification in what they perceive as furthering the interests of The Tribe.
It's why paid astroturfing is dumb in politics, since enthusiastic amateurs are perfectly willing to support the messaging for free.
But personally I'm here to seek smug self satisfaction.
I don't think anybody here is a paid shill, it's just that people have hobbyhorses and here they get to ride them. Additionally, some posters are extraordinarily wealthy and don't need payment. I think there is a preponderance of former or current party members or activists, far more than the general public. Although I'm fairly sure me and @Sunil_Prasannan post here as part of the eternal journey towards the final battle between Star Wars and Star Trek fans...
Local intelligence: the Tories will have to have a total meltdown not to take North Norfolk off the Lib Dems. Their vote here is based on the merits of the retiring incumbent, it is (I believe) the oldest constituency in the land, it's strongly Leave and the Tories have picked a local candidate.
Apparently you can get 7/2 on the Conservatives with William Hill. I'm (almost) tempted to sign up for an account just to stick a few hundred quid on at those odds. It looks very much like free money.
How much do you think incumbency is worth? a few percentage points? And with the Lib Dem vote rising nationwide, and the Conservative vote falling, and the Brexit Party standing, it doesn't feel like a Con gain to me. No local knowledge here for me, though, so happy to defer if you know of canvass returns telling a different story.
The squeeze on BXP in the polls looks about right. It's relatively marginal. It'll either help the Conservatives a little by taking never-Tory voters from Labour or it'll make no difference at all. Certainly not in this part of the world.
Incumbency can be very important, especially for the Libs - that goes back decades. The Clement Freud example immediately springs to mind. Lamb's majority was only 3,500 - his replacement will doubtless fight hard (they're currently in command of the district council,) but this is a Parliamentary election, in a seat that's old and strongly in favour of Brexit. The Conservatives should win with room to spare.
I wonder what Plato would have thought of PM Johnson?
On the evidence of her posts on this Site, Plato didn't have any thoughts of her own. She confined herself largely to reposting right-wing propaganda, presumably for payment in cash or kind.
In complete contrast to current the current herd.
There are a few posters here now who are so prolific and tribal that you have to wonder why they are doing it. It's certainly not for the betting, nor the debate, since they never engage in any meaningful way.
It's tempting to speculate that they too are rewarded in cash or kind, although it may be they just find gratification in what they perceive as furthering the interests of The Tribe.
You have to wonder, don't you?
But who would pay anyone to post here? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm eager to know. (If you don't like my principles, I have others.)
The evidence is circumstantial so you have to be careful about making assumptions. It wouldn't cost much for a well-funded Party though, and you can be sure some organisers have thought of it.
On most forums it would clearly be a waste of time and money but on a more thoughtful one like this that has a fair bit of street cred it might be thought to pay dividends.
Who knows? I wouldn't bother myself and I studiously avoid the more Tribal posters for fear of encouraging them, but somebody clearly thinks it's worthwhile.
I could see the value in using PB as a testing ground for ideas and policies.
Indeed. the parties post here to identify the most stupid, mendacious and vindictive policies...
Comments
https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/1193450658193641472
Even setting aside his Brexitism and Trump fawning, she was always a sucker for a bit of posh (however phony).
Just doing the pedantic thing.....
https://www.ft.com/content/96ddbc8a-0152-11ea-a530-16c6c29e70ca
For me, it's about Brexit. I want it stopped, so I'm going for the party with the strongest message about that. There are other things I'm concerned about: electoral reform, sensible economic policies (i.e. not socialism and not bloodletting austerity), the environment, and basic standards of not having loads of bigots hiding in the woodwork. Right now, the stars are all aligned for the Lib Dems for me, but of course I don't expect Brexiters would want to follow me towards a remain party.
I just think the big two parties have let standards slip so badly that we have to punish them both simultaneously. We can't keep going on oscillating between tweedledum and tweedledee, because it's just not working. This country's in a fucking mess, and it's getting worse. Time to try something new.
* Interest rates for government are now negative so it's a good time for sensible investment
* Tories no longer care about the deficit and will restore most of the cuts
* Labour will borrow a lot more and actually improve stuff
* There's a query about whether you can wisely spend a lot in a hurry
Net impression: Labour will improve public services, Tories will stop making them worse. All the stuff about trillions is passing me by as obvious partisan guff, and if anything mildly confirming the above impression.
Similarly for Lab to Lib Dem switchers although I'm led to believe this is less of an unforgivable act
There are huge numbers of conferences that can be replaced by Zoom or Skype.
And, the UN should be taking a lead. Otherwise nothing will change.
We do know Pythagoras would have been a Blairite, though. Everything was about triangulation for him..
Advertising is everything I guess.
Flying every now and again to visit her son in America? - Surely OK to a reasonable person.
Zipping around on planes willy nilly, several times a year, conferences, holidays, taking her PPL at Biggin Hill? - Rank hypocrisy.
Wonder which it is?
It's tempting to speculate that they too are rewarded in cash or kind, although it may be they just find gratification in what they perceive as furthering the interests of The Tribe.
I agree with that.
There are huge numbers of conferences that can be replaced by Zoom or Skype.
And, the UN should be taking a lead. Otherwise nothing will change.
I do agree, but some can only take place face to face. I recall going through the reserving numbers of our US operation and needing to see the shifty look of the US managers at close quarters to confirm the suspicions I had looking at the bare numbers. No video link could have given me that.
To be fair I got on at much better odds than when I tipped against it.
But then, I doubt Farage will either.....
Alien Versus Predator: Whoever Wins, We Lose
But personally I'm here to seek smug self satisfaction.
We also used to have a Socrates but he hasn't posted for while.
Not too much hemlock, one hopes.
Once you've done that, we can pick this up.
I rather upset her once by suggesting she had voted on the basis of which party leader she would chose as a husband.
I do hope that the bettors (betters?) make money from their flutters.
But who would pay anyone to post here? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm eager to know. (If you don't like my principles, I have others.)
It has not been a good year for PB posters: there have been multiple illnesses, one stabbing and a few deaths of spouses and parents. I think the only cheerful things have been my new job, one poster starting a legal degree and @Casino_Royale 's new baby. I'll try to do a births, deaths and marriages article for year end.
I can see a future for Google Glass-like hardware, a lightweight and portable display that doesn't end up looking tiny like a phone screen does. Not sure how to overcome the need to carry a keyboard, though.
Laters!
I think that Labour has pretty much won the "who's the second party nationally?" argument with the LibDems, but not much progress on eating into the Tory lead so far, so IMO it'll come down to the debates and tactical voting - everything else is minor.
You do see certain persistent themes getting pushed using almost identical language by some posters but it's like the business case for prostitution in Hartlepool: no point paying for it because there are too many enthusiastic amateurs giving it away for free.
Apparently you can get 7/2 on the Conservatives with William Hill. I'm (almost) tempted to sign up for an account just to stick a few hundred quid on at those odds. It looks very much like free money.
With regards to Labour to Lib Dem, only in tactical voting places, we are just as in 2017 seeing the 3rd parties being squeezed. I expect this election to be close and end in a hung parliament
On most forums it would clearly be a waste of time and money but on a more thoughtful one like this that has a fair bit of street cred it might be thought to pay dividends.
Who knows? I wouldn't bother myself and I studiously avoid the more Tribal posters for fear of encouraging them, but somebody clearly thinks it's worthwhile.
Those opportunities are not there this time round.
Sad.
I also think the Alliance will take Belfast South from the DUP though as you say the SDLP also have a chance having held the seat until 2017.
It’s also fair to point out that Johnson’s actions were judged unlawful; the Speaker, while riding the odd coach and horses through convention, acted lawfully.
Now, the prorogation stuff was outrageous precisely because it was trying to bypass the Commons and avoid votes, so that is definitiely different, but your generic point about a majority of MPs backing Bercow's actions, and seemingly that that meant it could not have been an assault on the constitution by definition, would seem to me to apply to a great many potential assaults on the constitution by a future government, which we would thenhave no defence of it being an attack on what was an improtant convention.
"There'll be no trolley service because of strike action" will become the signature tune of Britain's nationalised railways.
I would rather have 13 years in opposition against PM Blair or Umunna than even just 5 years in opposition against PM Kinnock or Corbyn
...known as the Star Wars Star Trek Wars Trek[1]
I thank you.
[1] Yes, this joke is from "Futurama"
Incumbency can be very important, especially for the Libs - that goes back decades. The Clement Freud example immediately springs to mind. Lamb's majority was only 3,500 - his replacement will doubtless fight hard (they're currently in command of the district council,) but this is a Parliamentary election, in a seat that's old and strongly in favour of Brexit. The Conservatives should win with room to spare.
...and then they adopt them.