At 20% both Trump and Biden are value in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Because she enjoys the income of a man whose job it is to keep TfL going, but she is also happy to fuck up TfL and all its passengersrcs1000 said:3 -
Slam her in jail for six months. That'll learn her0
-
Not if the election is as 'fortified' as it was last time.MrEd said:Afternoon. On topic, some cheery reading for all you regulars out there:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/trump-winning-2024-real-election-nightmare/620368/0 -
Mark Steel (at the very least) got there first;gealbhan said:
Has Sir Isaac Newton ever been outed? Shall we out him now, as a world first on PB - celebrate Robert’s new policy decision.rcs1000 said:
Surely there's a continuum here.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.Charles said:
Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".Charles said:
The NT went too far though.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.Casino_Royale said:
Nope, but I support it.tlg86 said:
They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.
The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.
That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.
I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
If John dies on Saturday, outing him on Sunday is at the very best poor manners.
If John died in 1823, then outing him is just - as you say - a part of history.
I mean, just look at any portrait of Sir Isaac and the gaydar spins does it not.
https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/the_mark_steel_lectures/episodes/1/2/0 -
DLR chaining by day, dinner parties with the luvvies by night.isam said:4 -
Is he really called Cole Sear? That's nominative determinism in action, isn't it?Sunil_Prasannan said:Selebian said:
In the spirit of PB pedantry, the little boy in Sixth Sense can tell the difference between living people and dead people. Even the surprise dead person, I think.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.Charles said:
Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".Charles said:
The NT went too far though.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.Casino_Royale said:
Nope, but I support it.tlg86 said:
They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.
The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.
That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.
I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
Perhaps you're thinking of Watson in the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock film? ("No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not")
Cole Sear: I see PB Tory people.
Malcolm Crowe: In your dreams?
[Cole shakes his head]
Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake?
[Cole nods]
Malcolm Crowe: PB Tories like, in thread headers? Below The Line?
Cole Sear: Hanging around on PB like regular PBers. They don't see each other. They only vote for what they want to vote for. They don't know they're PB Tories.
Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?
Cole Sear: All the time. They're everywhere!2 -
IIRC most historians agree that Newton remained celibate for his entire life, which does not necessarily make him gay, but suggests that he may have been, and to an extent that he preferred not to conclude a marriage of convenience to hide that ("buggery", as it was then called, was a capital offence until the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was enacted).gealbhan said:
Has Sir Isaac Newton ever been outed? Shall we out him now, as a world first on PB - celebrate Robert’s new policy decision.rcs1000 said:
Surely there's a continuum here.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.Charles said:
Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".Charles said:
The NT went too far though.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.Casino_Royale said:
Nope, but I support it.tlg86 said:
They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.
The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.
That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.
I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
If John dies on Saturday, outing him on Sunday is at the very best poor manners.
If John died in 1823, then outing him is just - as you say - a part of history.
I mean, just look at any portrait of Sir Isaac and the gaydar spins does it not.
But yes, I agree, once someone is dead then they become part of the historical record, and if evidence can be found by historians of a particular attribute of them or action they took that wasn't previously known, then there should be no objection to making that public.
Whether the NT has such evidence in the case @Charles cites is another matter though. If they have no strong evidence then they shouldn't say so. If the evidence available to historians for that person suggests that they may have been gay, then the NT should qualify their assertion as "possibly" or similar.1 -
It might happen because the chances of her case arriving in court before 2024 are currently rather slim.Taz said:
It won't happen. She will be released and allowed to carry on. Irrespective of the law and any court orders.Leon said:Slam her in jail for six months. That'll learn her
The party of law and order. What a shambles
1 -
It's certainly not as hypocritical as pretending to gives a gnat's arse about the future of your children while happily and repeatedly jetting between continents.rcs1000 said:1 -
Very true.eek said:
It might happen because the chances of her case arriving in court before 2024 are currently rather slim.Taz said:
It won't happen. She will be released and allowed to carry on. Irrespective of the law and any court orders.Leon said:Slam her in jail for six months. That'll learn her
The party of law and order. What a shambles
0 -
Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.0 -
Well, don't want to spoil it for anyoneOnlyLivingBoy said:
Ha ha very true, and great avoidance of spoilers too.Selebian said:
In the spirit of PB pedantry, the little boy in Sixth Sense can tell the difference between living people and dead people. Even the surprise dead person, I think.OnlyLivingBoy said:
I have said elsewhere on this thread that I don't agree with outing living people. Dead people become part of history and I think it is totally valid to discuss any aspect of their life as part of efforts to enquire into, and understand better, the past. More generally, if you can't see a distinction between living people and dead people then I'm not sure I can help you, except to say that you are the little boy in the Sixth Sense and I claim my £10.Charles said:
Would you find it inappropriate for a living gay man who was still in the closet to be outed against their will? How is it different in principle if they are dead?OnlyLivingBoy said:
Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.Casino_Royale said:
I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".Charles said:
The NT went too far though.OnlyLivingBoy said:
Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.Casino_Royale said:
Nope, but I support it.tlg86 said:
They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.
A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.
The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.
That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.
Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.
I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.
What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.
Perhaps you're thinking of Watson in the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock film? ("No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not")
There's also the great Groucho Marx line where he checks a corpse's pulse against his watch and says "either this man is dead or my watch has stopped". You never know - I frequently make my wife despair due to having seen pretty much no Disney film during my childhood.* So we'll be watching one of the live action remakes and she makes a comment on some difference and I'm just saying 'eh?'. You know I hadn't realised Aladdin was the kid, not the genie? I assumed the lamp belonged to the genie. Aladdin's lamp, right? Caused some confusion/horror when I asked about that early on in the Will Smith version.
*I don't know why this is; my parents have no pathological Disney aversion. We just, for some reason watched the Hanna-Barbera or Warner Bros cartoons rather than Disney and we didn't watch that many films or go to the cinema really.1 -
FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same characterBlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times0 -
Stop being horrible. Don't you realise how soothing it is to be able to dismiss all climate change protesters as evil hypocrites?FeersumEnjineeya said:
It's certainly not as hypocritical as pretending to gives a gnat's arse about the future of your children while happily and repeatedly jetting between continents.rcs1000 said:0 -
What do the films Titanic and The Sixth Sense have in common?
Icy dead people.2 -
John Hamm in his episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, in the last seasonBlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
Genius0 -
That's the most common answer, I think, and a good shout.isam said:
FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same characterBlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
But funnier than Lammy?0 -
After the learned discussion about virtuoso comedy turns in Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and Dad's Army, I enjoyed the nomination "Edwin Poots as DUP leader".isam said:
FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same characterBlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times4 -
It was a fantastic cameo by Rik Mayall, about half a dozen great one liners in 3-4 mins, if that, as well as headbutting Lord Percy!BlancheLivermore said:
That's the most common answer, I think, and a good shout.isam said:
FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same characterBlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
But funnier than Lammy?
Lammy a funny suggestion too
0 -
-
A few post Farage UKIP leaders could fit the bill tooChris said:
After the learned discussion about virtuoso comedy turns in Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and Dad's Army, I enjoyed the nomination "Edwin Poots as DUP leader".isam said:
FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same characterBlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times
Wade Boggs in Cheers was good0 -
I thought it was ironic hearing Tories denouncing them for blocking the Blackwall Tunnel Approach Road the other day, given that Boris Johnson's decision as mayor to cancel the planned Thames crossing east of Blackwall has caused far more traffic jams in SE London (basically, gridlock everywhere whenever someone so much as farts in the Blackwall Tunnel) than these protestors could ever hope to.Chris said:
Stop being horrible. Don't you realise how soothing it is to be able to dismiss all climate change protesters as evil hypocrites?FeersumEnjineeya said:
It's certainly not as hypocritical as pretending to gives a gnat's arse about the future of your children while happily and repeatedly jetting between continents.rcs1000 said:2 -
Soft spot for Ace Rimmer in Red Dwarf, but again, may have cropped up more than once.isam said:
A few post Farage UKIP leaders could fit the bill tooChris said:
After the learned discussion about virtuoso comedy turns in Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and Dad's Army, I enjoyed the nomination "Edwin Poots as DUP leader".isam said:
FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same characterBlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times
Wade Boggs in Cheers was good0 -
Thanks.MrEd said:Afternoon. On topic, some cheery reading for all you regulars out there:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/trump-winning-2024-real-election-nightmare/620368/
Gives the impression that those who are most worried about Trump 2024 are focused on him stealing a win rather than a proper win. I don't know they are discounting that so much, given how close it was last time and Biden becoming weaker as time goes on.0 -
Aren't our housing prices supposed to have collapsed by a quarter by now?DavidL said:
And, it should hardly need saying, since their forecast of lost growth was built upon lost employment when in fact employment increased by over 1m, that alleged loss of GDP is also crap.DavidL said:
But if you look at this chart you will see that there is no change at all in the rate of increase of employment from the date of the referendum until March 2020 when Covid struck: https://www.statista.com/statistics/281992/employment-rate-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=In the three months to April 2021, the,a relatively fast pace, peaking in early 2020.FeersumEnjineeya said:
We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularityGardenwalker said:
Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.noneoftheabove said:
Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.kjh said:
I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.CarlottaVance said:Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.
His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".
The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20
Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.
They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
The contention that unemployment would go up by 520k was the exact opposite of the truth: instead employment went up by rather more than that (nearly twice) in the 2 year forecast period. As forecasts go it is at the bottom end of crap.
But if this sort of nonsense makes @Gardenwalker feel superior who am I to argue?0 -
The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.6
-
I blame the vegans.OnlyLivingBoy said:
(basically, gridlock everywhere whenever someone so much as farts in the Blackwall Tunnel)3 -
Lord Flashheart in Blackadder 2. Technically the later Flashhearts are compltely different people.turbotubbs said:
Soft spot for Ace Rimmer in Red Dwarf, but again, may have cropped up more than once.isam said:
A few post Farage UKIP leaders could fit the bill tooChris said:
After the learned discussion about virtuoso comedy turns in Fawlty Towers, Blackadder and Dad's Army, I enjoyed the nomination "Edwin Poots as DUP leader".isam said:
FlashHeart in Blackadder II? Reappeared in "Goes Forth" but it was obv a descendant rather than the same characterBlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
Mrs Richards was fantastic - the first episode I saw, although I actually listened to it as my Dad had the LP, in pre video times
Wade Boggs in Cheers was good0 -
Do you support nutters disrupting London's public transport?Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
1 -
https://www.roads.org.uk/ringways/ringway1Chris said:
I blame the vegans.OnlyLivingBoy said:
(basically, gridlock everywhere whenever someone so much as farts in the Blackwall Tunnel)0 -
Delighted to see that my instinctive choice got mentioned...BlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
https://twitter.com/Mikeado/status/1448269438076260356
2 -
US The Consumer Price Index climbs to 5.4 percent0
-
Are you talking about Boris Johnson when he was Mayor? I am not sure it's a great idea to refer to people you disagree with as 'nutters'.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Do you support nutters disrupting London's public transport?Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
1 -
But the election was before Jan 6th and Trump's failure to accept the result.rottenborough said:
Thanks.MrEd said:Afternoon. On topic, some cheery reading for all you regulars out there:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/trump-winning-2024-real-election-nightmare/620368/
Gives the impression that those who are most worried about Trump 2024 are focused on him stealing a win rather than a proper win. I don't know they are discounting that so much, given how close it was last time and Biden becoming weaker as time goes on.
Also we have criminal cases ongoing. That must have some effect.0 -
The woman married to the TfL guy did chain herself to the DLR, you know.Jonathan said:
Are you talking about Boris Johnson when he was Mayor? I am not sure it's a great idea to refer to people you disagree with as 'nutters'.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Do you support nutters disrupting London's public transport?Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
0 -
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
1 -
Looks like Shatner spent more time on the ground waiting for Bezos et al. to open the hatch than he did in space
0 -
-
It's very, very clever and at the same time toxic. You have to appreciate the hypocrisy. The shrill call of "Outrage at Nudity", with extensive coverage of nudity for everyone to enjoy being outraged by.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
0 -
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.0 -
Was there last week. It’s pretty awesome!Roger said:0 -
Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.kjh said:
An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.Casino_Royale said:
I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
"The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.Gardenwalker said:It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.
I don’t think they did.
The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.
It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).
PB Tories are always trying to change history.
Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.
In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."
Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.
(I voted Remain)
I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.
Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
What is your reason for not wanting to do it?0 -
Brexit hitting hard haw hawrottenborough said:US The Consumer Price Index climbs to 5.4 percent
1 -
Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.Philip_Thompson said:
100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.Farooq said:
I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.Philip_Thompson said:
When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.Farooq said:
Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.Philip_Thompson said:
We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.FeersumEnjineeya said:
We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularityGardenwalker said:
Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.noneoftheabove said:
Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.kjh said:
I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.CarlottaVance said:Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.
His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".
The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20
Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.
They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.
Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.
By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.
Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?
Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
2 -
Dallas Light Rodeo?Farooq said:
Was he waiting for the DLR to turn up?Sunil_Prasannan said:Looks like Shatner spent more time on the ground waiting for Bezos et al. to open the hatch than he did in space
0 -
Does anyone have figures showing how far off each country is from pre-pandemic GDP, or how far it has exceeded it?0
-
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.0 -
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.1 -
Except PT’s economics are extremely primitive, besides.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.Philip_Thompson said:
100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.Farooq said:
I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.Philip_Thompson said:
When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.Farooq said:
Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.Philip_Thompson said:
We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.FeersumEnjineeya said:
We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularityGardenwalker said:
Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.noneoftheabove said:
Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.kjh said:
I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.CarlottaVance said:Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.
His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".
The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20
Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.
They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.
Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.
By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.
Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?
Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
Seamus Mallon famously called the Belfast Agreement, “Sunningdale for slow learners”.
Brexit is basically trade and labour economics for slow learners.
Eventually more credulous posters like @DavidL will wake up.
PT however will be reiterating the same arguments until the heat death of the universe.1 -
also identical to the Guardian/Daily mirror/ Sun.....PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.0 -
To be honest, I go to a variety of websites to see what's happening. Occasionally the Mail will have a story that's not been reported elsewhere. For example, they reported that FIFA are expected to postpone the Club World Cup:PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10070323/FIFA-set-POSTPONE-years-Club-World-Cup-2022.html1 -
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.Philip_Thompson said:
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.0 -
Quite - most journalism whatever the host is a pile of crap - you need to sift them all for the occasional gems - still searching for any re Covid.tlg86 said:
To be honest, I go to a variety of websites to see what's happening. Occasionally the Mail will have a story that's not been reported elsewhere. For example, they reported that FIFA are expected to postpone the Club World Cup:PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10070323/FIFA-set-POSTPONE-years-Club-World-Cup-2022.html1 -
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.kinabalu said:
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.Philip_Thompson said:
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.2 -
Cheers. I thought that might be the case.Casino_Royale said:
Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.kjh said:
An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.Casino_Royale said:
I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
"The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.Gardenwalker said:It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.
I don’t think they did.
The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.
It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).
PB Tories are always trying to change history.
Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.
In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."
Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.
(I voted Remain)
I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.
Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
What is your reason for not wanting to do it?
Isn't what one thinks of ones 'self' in 'self governance' subjective. Historically it is GB or UK or England but could equally be Surrey or the EU. As you know I don't have these strong attachments and find them odd, but understand that many do feel strongly about them. I don't feel anymore attachment to a Yorkshireman than Frenchman.0 -
Have you ever read the Guardian Felix or relying on your intuition?felix said:
also identical to the Guardian/Daily mirror/ Sun.....PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.0 -
Is that the "PC Support" guy in The Office? If so, yes, hilarious.tlg86 said:
Delighted to see that my instinctive choice got mentioned...BlancheLivermore said:Just reading through replies to this tweet
@Madz_Grant
Who is the best single-episode character in TV history? I reckon Mrs Richards from Fawlty Towers has a serious claim to the title but interested to hear what others think
https://twitter.com/Madz_Grant/status/1448267743178993671
My favourite is definitely
Denis Hatcher
@albion2016
Replying to
@Madz_Grant
David Lammy on Mastermind.
https://twitter.com/Mikeado/status/14482694380762603561 -
So you claim and yet you and the Yorkshireman are part of the same body politic, engaged with relatively the same media, debating relatively the same policies and relatively the same parties engaged in that.kjh said:
Cheers. I thought that might be the case.Casino_Royale said:
Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.kjh said:
An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.Casino_Royale said:
I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
"The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.Gardenwalker said:It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.
I don’t think they did.
The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.
It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).
PB Tories are always trying to change history.
Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.
In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."
Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.
(I voted Remain)
I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.
Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
What is your reason for not wanting to do it?
Isn't what one thinks of ones 'self' in 'self governance' subjective. Historically it is GB or UK or England but could equally be Surrey or the EU. As you know I don't have these strong attachments and find them odd, but understand that many do feel strongly about them. I don't feel anymore attachment to a Yorkshireman than Frenchman.
That's not the case with you and the Frenchman - despite the veneer of respectability the EU have tried to do by sticking a European "party" stamp against the real parties names.0 -
I generally read the full range although the Nice-Matin continues to pass me by.Roger said:
Have you ever read the Guardian Felix or relying on your intuition?felix said:
also identical to the Guardian/Daily mirror/ Sun.....PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.0 -
All papers are biased.
But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:
1. FT
2. Times
3. Guardian / “i”
4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
5. Telegraph
6. Express
0 -
I agree. I'm not at all a "Guardian reader" in the sense most commonly understood, but its website is a very good source of factual reporting and well written commentary. Its built in left-bias I can discount where necessary.kinabalu said:
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.Philip_Thompson said:
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.1 -
The order is entirely subjective of course based on your own belief system.Gardenwalker said:All papers are biased.
But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:
1. FT
2. Times
3. Guardian / “i”
4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
5. Telegraph
6. Express0 -
Sure, and I posted it to encourage others to agree or disagree.felix said:
The order is entirely subjective of course based on your own belief system.Gardenwalker said:All papers are biased.
But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:
1. FT
2. Times
3. Guardian / “i”
4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
5. Telegraph
6. Express
Judging by your posts I’d presume you draw largely from the Express etc.0 -
So you claim and yet in the past five years my predictions that were ridiculed at the time have time and again come to pass as being accurate (and where I'm wrong I hold my hand up) whereas on your side of the face predictions have been time and again wrong but people don't admit they were wrong.Gardenwalker said:
Except PT’s economics are extremely primitive, besides.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.Philip_Thompson said:
100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.Farooq said:
I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.Philip_Thompson said:
When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.Farooq said:
Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.Philip_Thompson said:
We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.FeersumEnjineeya said:
We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularityGardenwalker said:
Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.noneoftheabove said:
Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.kjh said:
I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.CarlottaVance said:Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.
His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".
The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20
Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.
They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.
Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.
By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.
Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?
Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
Seamus Mallon famously called the Belfast Agreement, “Sunningdale for slow learners”.
Brexit is basically trade and labour economics for slow learners.
Eventually more credulous posters like @DavidL will wake up.
PT however will be reiterating the same arguments until the heat death of the universe.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
The arrogance in your post is breathtakingGardenwalker said:
Except PT’s economics are extremely primitive, besides.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.Philip_Thompson said:
100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.Farooq said:
I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.Philip_Thompson said:
When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.Farooq said:
Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.Philip_Thompson said:
We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.FeersumEnjineeya said:
We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularityGardenwalker said:
Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.noneoftheabove said:
Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.kjh said:
I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.CarlottaVance said:Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.
His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".
The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20
Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.
They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.
Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.
By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.
Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?
Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
Seamus Mallon famously called the Belfast Agreement, “Sunningdale for slow learners”.
Brexit is basically trade and labour economics for slow learners.
Eventually more credulous posters like @DavidL will wake up.
PT however will be reiterating the same arguments until the heat death of the universe.
1 -
Well we only have your word that your predictions are 10,000% accurate. Personally I can’t be arsed trying to remember every one of your 10,000 posts.Philip_Thompson said:
So you claim and yet in the past five years my predictions that were ridiculed at the time have time and again come to pass as being accurate (and where I'm wrong I hold my hand up) whereas on your side of the face predictions have been time and again wrong but people don't admit they were wrong.Gardenwalker said:
Except PT’s economics are extremely primitive, besides.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Alternatively, you could just call them out as the timewasting pedants they are and move on. There, I've done it for you.Philip_Thompson said:
100,000% isn't mad its the numbers but that's why I substituted "effectively infinite" in place of that.Farooq said:
I think I preferred "infinite" to "100,000%" which is clearly mad.Philip_Thompson said:
When economists say full employment they for good reason don't mean 100% of people employed. I've always considered 5% to be "full employment" and we've been at full employment or higher for many years now.Farooq said:
Unemployment is currently higher than it was 2 years ago.Philip_Thompson said:
We're at full employment because the open door meant the market there was an effectively infinite supply of labour, dropping the market clearing rate for wages to the floor, meaning that there'd always be a shortage of minimum wage labour.FeersumEnjineeya said:
We already had full employment prior to Brexit. That's why closing the door to foreign drivers, care staff, and food pickers and packers wasn't such a great idea and is likely to cause economic damage to the UK.Philip_Thompson said:
We had years of Remainers saying that Britain would face economic chaos of mass unemployment and that Europe would bind us to their sphere of influence as they were so big and we were so small.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The fact is that those who support the EU failed to win the argument and have ever since acted like grumpy old men and continue their angst and have so far been unable to beat Boris so resort to name calling as everything else seems to have no effect on his popularityGardenwalker said:
Brexit is a nasty bout of dyspepsia, fashioned into an economic and geopolitical policy.noneoftheabove said:
Brexit was significantly driven by Grumpy Old Man syndrome, being perpetually angry about x, y and z, and things not being as good as they used to be. None of those things are changing, or ever will, so many Brexiteers will always be moaning about something or other, or just modernity.kjh said:
I disagree with that. I think it helps him if he can get the message over that the evil EU is still messing with us.CarlottaVance said:Johnson has nothing to gain by Brexit becoming an issue and everything to lose.
His Brexit majority is built on the fact he was best placed to "Get Brexit done".
The less done it looks, the more shaky that majority looks.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1448230833622589440?s=20
Normally when one wins the losers are unhappy and the winners happy, but leavers seem more animated than remainers currently. It's as if they lost.
Now we have full unemployment and the UK is carving its own path and the same people are complaining about the full employment and the "disruption" to "alliances" with Europe.
They might be less grumpy if they could just admit they were wrong.
Importing new "drivers, care staff, pickers and packers" etc would fill the vacancies at that moment but then new vacancies would appear as those new people would need their own drivers, food etc so the labour shortage was never filled.
Which is why there's no economic damage to closing the door. What closing the door will do is sever the link between vacancies and infinite labour meaning that wages have to rise off the floor in order to see vacancies get filled.
What does an "infinite" supply of labour mean. Taken literally it's obviously false, so you clearly mean something different.
I said effectively infinite. When there's hundreds of millions of people who can come here to fill vacancies who are living on wages below our minimum wage, then that's an almost infinite pool of potential staff to fill your vacancies when vacancies are not in the millions. It's not literally infinite but given the pool of potential labour at minimum wage increased to about 100,000% or more of our amount of vacancies its effectively infinite.
The EU's population is about 6x ours, give or take, and a great number of people have no interest in moving to another country. So words like "infinite" and ratios like "100,000%" look like yet more rhetoric than anything soberly quantified.
By your definition, we've had "full employment" since... oh, before the referendum, which I think is the point someone else was making.
Comparing the UK's population with the EU's population isn't comparing like-for-like since the EU's population isn't the same as ours. If you're looking to fill a vacancy for national minimum wage then anyone employed with a wage higher than NMW will not be especially interested in that job. All you're going to attract is people who are either out of work or who will find a sideways change refreshing. So for the UK denominator you need to look at the number of people on minimum wage or below as your potential labour pool.
Same thing for the EU numerator. How many people are at the UK's NMW (plus benefits) or below?
Divide numerator by denominator. I estimate the answer is in the hundreds of thousands of percentage points.
It matters not a jot to me whether you used "effectively infinite" or some other term to describe an extremely large number in relative terms. It shouldn't detract from an understanding of the general point you were making, which was clear enough to me.
Seamus Mallon famously called the Belfast Agreement, “Sunningdale for slow learners”.
Brexit is basically trade and labour economics for slow learners.
Eventually more credulous posters like @DavidL will wake up.
PT however will be reiterating the same arguments until the heat death of the universe.0 -
It really isn't. It is not entirely subjective to say that the FT is more reliable than The Daily Express.felix said:
The order is entirely subjective of course based on your own belief system.Gardenwalker said:All papers are biased.
But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:
1. FT
2. Times
3. Guardian / “i”
4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
5. Telegraph
6. Express0 -
The three main pavilions and the plaza look pretty permanent, the country pavilions are all temporary and will come down next summer after the fair ends. The site was two square miles of pretty much desert, five years ago. There’s also a mall and several apartment blocks, which will form the basis of a new town. They spent billions on road and rail connections.Roger said:
It’s not every day that the World’s Fair turns up in your city, and Dubai has exceeded their own ridiculously high standards for architecture. They’ve had half a million visitors, a third of them overseas tourists, through the gates in the first ten days of the six month event.0 -
Despite Macron’s declaration almost two years ago that French virologists are the best in the world, France still hasn’t got a Covid vaccine to market, never mind a cure for 20 different cancers. Its non-reusable Ariane rocket launcher is obsolete. Its nuclear industry is struggling with vast cost overruns and delay to new projects. Start-ups? Not one French start-up in the past half century has made a global impact. There’s no French Google, Amazon, Facebook or Apple.
French global leadership in electronics? This is the nation that was 20 years late embracing the Internet, after giving a monopoly on consumer data communication to the nationalised post office and telephone company. Like a Bourbon in a black suit, Macron appears to have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. The unabashed étatisme of his vision suggests that not much will change, other than the deficit, currently at 120 per cent of GDP.....
So Macron can win, but Macronism is finished. As his latest desperate bout of self-aggrandisement shows, his ability to impose an agenda is at an end.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/macron-may-well-win-but-macronism-is-dead1 -
And like lost of your posts you'd be quite wrong. Heigh ho!Gardenwalker said:
Sure, and I posted it to encourage others to agree or disagree.felix said:
The order is entirely subjective of course based on your own belief system.Gardenwalker said:All papers are biased.
But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:
1. FT
2. Times
3. Guardian / “i”
4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
5. Telegraph
6. Express
Judging by your posts I’d presume you draw largely from the Express etc.1 -
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.felix said:
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.kinabalu said:
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.Philip_Thompson said:
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.1 -
When it comes to "Arthritis Miracle", "Artic Blasts" or "What Diana would think" the Express is in a league of its own.Gardenwalker said:All papers are biased.
But there’s a clear hierarchy of reliability.
No paper is 100% reliable, but some are more reliable than others. I’d say:
1. FT
2. Times
3. Guardian / “i”
4. Mail / Sun / Mirror
5. Telegraph
6. Express0 -
You believe what you like, him walking out after just a few days suggests different to me , he may have been ill and taken a while to recover but was never ever near or within a mile of dying.RobD said:
Well that's just wrong. He came out of intensive care after three days of treatment, and stayed in hospital for a further three days.malcolmg said:
well he was showing as fine , then said he needed some oxygen and was discharged a day or so later. I saw someone on maximum oxygen for 3 weeks , that is close to dying. An hour or two on low level oxygen is not near dying as far as I am concerned. @RobDRobD said:
Any evidence to back that up? All the reports suggest he was in a serious condition.malcolmg said:
LOL , he had a spoonful of oxygen and staff dancing around catering to his every whim. he was in and out in a few days and every one of them showed him smiling etc. Give us a break.Charles said:
That’s a little bit of an unfair way to describe his time in ICUNorthern_Al said:
Yes, of course Boris has never taken up the time of valuable resources, such as in the NHS, through publicity stunts, has he?Sandpit said:
More to the point, why was he using up the valuable resource of a lorry and instructor, at a time when there’s an urgent need for more driver training? Thankfully he just hit a light barrier, rather than anything more solid which might have taken the lorry out of service.squareroot2 said:We ought to have had a thread, just to even things up on Starmer being a prat, unable to reverse a lorry without crashing into something. It's a metaphor for his leadership innit??
Apr 7 - Coronavirus: Boris Johnson moved to intensive care as symptoms worsen
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52192604
Apr 9 - Coronavirus: Boris Johnson out of intensive care but remains in hospital
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-52238276
Apr 12 - Boris Johnson leaves hospital as he continues recovery from coronavirus
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/12/boris-johnson-leaves-hospital-as-he-continues-recovery-from-coronavirus0 -
I mean I've already demonstrated you were wrong. You were claiming he was in and out in a few moments, when the fact of the matter is it was far more serious than you suggest.malcolmg said:
You believe what you like, him walking out after just a few days suggests different to me , he may have been ill and taken a while to recover but was never ever near or within a mile of dying.RobD said:
Well that's just wrong. He came out of intensive care after three days of treatment, and stayed in hospital for a further three days.malcolmg said:
well he was showing as fine , then said he needed some oxygen and was discharged a day or so later. I saw someone on maximum oxygen for 3 weeks , that is close to dying. An hour or two on low level oxygen is not near dying as far as I am concerned. @RobDRobD said:
Any evidence to back that up? All the reports suggest he was in a serious condition.malcolmg said:
LOL , he had a spoonful of oxygen and staff dancing around catering to his every whim. he was in and out in a few days and every one of them showed him smiling etc. Give us a break.Charles said:
That’s a little bit of an unfair way to describe his time in ICUNorthern_Al said:
Yes, of course Boris has never taken up the time of valuable resources, such as in the NHS, through publicity stunts, has he?Sandpit said:
More to the point, why was he using up the valuable resource of a lorry and instructor, at a time when there’s an urgent need for more driver training? Thankfully he just hit a light barrier, rather than anything more solid which might have taken the lorry out of service.squareroot2 said:We ought to have had a thread, just to even things up on Starmer being a prat, unable to reverse a lorry without crashing into something. It's a metaphor for his leadership innit??
Apr 7 - Coronavirus: Boris Johnson moved to intensive care as symptoms worsen
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52192604
Apr 9 - Coronavirus: Boris Johnson out of intensive care but remains in hospital
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-52238276
Apr 12 - Boris Johnson leaves hospital as he continues recovery from coronavirus
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/12/boris-johnson-leaves-hospital-as-he-continues-recovery-from-coronavirus1 -
The Guardian is absolutely no better than the Mail. The Mail is often quicker on breaking stories.kinabalu said:
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.felix said:
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.kinabalu said:
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.Philip_Thompson said:
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
Both pander shamelessly to their readers' prejudices, and will trot out lies without breaking a sweat3 -
BREAKING: Leicester East MP Claudia Webbe has been found guilty of one count of harassment against a 59-year-old woman at Westminster Magistrates Court
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1448316116577705988?s=200 -
That is true, but that is not my fault. I can't do anything about that. But I don't have an allegiance to the Yorkshireman anymore than the Frenchman (and it wasn't an EU comment, so could equally be a Canadian). As discussed the other day I take people as I find them. Naturally there are characteristics of areas which I enjoy (the English pub for instance) but I don't think that we should be governed based upon that. After all, the regions of the UK have lots of differences, yet most people don't propose separate government for all these regions (I know some do).Philip_Thompson said:
So you claim and yet you and the Yorkshireman are part of the same body politic, engaged with relatively the same media, debating relatively the same policies and relatively the same parties engaged in that.kjh said:
Cheers. I thought that might be the case.Casino_Royale said:
Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.kjh said:
An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.Casino_Royale said:
I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
"The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.Gardenwalker said:It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.
I don’t think they did.
The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.
It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).
PB Tories are always trying to change history.
Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.
In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."
Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.
(I voted Remain)
I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.
Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
What is your reason for not wanting to do it?
Isn't what one thinks of ones 'self' in 'self governance' subjective. Historically it is GB or UK or England but could equally be Surrey or the EU. As you know I don't have these strong attachments and find them odd, but understand that many do feel strongly about them. I don't feel anymore attachment to a Yorkshireman than Frenchman.
That's not the case with you and the Frenchman - despite the veneer of respectability the EU have tried to do by sticking a European "party" stamp against the real parties names.
I believe in devolving power to the lowest level possible, but some things need to be at a higher level and I don't see what is so special about the UK as an entity.
I appreciate and respect CR thinks differently as do many others.2 -
It comes down to "how do I chuck the buggers out?"kjh said:
I don't see what is so special about the UK as an entity.Philip_Thompson said:
So you claim and yet you and the Yorkshireman are part of the same body politic, engaged with relatively the same media, debating relatively the same policies and relatively the same parties engaged in that.kjh said:
Cheers. I thought that might be the case.Casino_Royale said:
Because I believe self-governance is more important than economic efficiency.kjh said:
An interesting post. I agree with the first two paragraphs, although the first is utopia, but doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to it and the 2nd para is an attempt to do so.Casino_Royale said:
I see this as simple: global free movement, a global single market, and a global single currency would undoubtedly be a boon to UK economic growth, and I've even seen one or two articles penned in the Economist arguing as such, however, we do perfectly well without it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
"The Treasury's "cautious" economic forecasts of the two years following a vote to leave - which assumes a bilateral trade agreement with the EU would have been negotiated - predicts Gross Domestic Product would grow by 3.6% less than currently predicted.Gardenwalker said:It’s another PB Tory meme that Remainers predicted mass economic collapse.
I don’t think they did.
The Treasury predicted a slowdown in growth which as far as I can see has happened.
It’s true, there were expectations of a short-term recession but in the event we did not exercise A50 immediately, and the pound took the strain (making us a smidgeon poorer).
PB Tories are always trying to change history.
Or perhaps senility makes them act this way.
In such a scenario, it suggests sterling would fall by 12%, unemployment would rise by 520,000, average wages would fall by 2.8% and house prices would be hit by 10%."
Even if Brexit has constrained the UK economy, there has been no such shock.
(I voted Remain)
I see being a member of the EU (or not) as the same argument.
Yes, growth might be slightly lower for the UK across the broader European market due to increased border "frictions" but I see that as acceptable and a perfectly credible choice.
What is your reason for not wanting to do it?
Isn't what one thinks of ones 'self' in 'self governance' subjective. Historically it is GB or UK or England but could equally be Surrey or the EU. As you know I don't have these strong attachments and find them odd, but understand that many do feel strongly about them. I don't feel anymore attachment to a Yorkshireman than Frenchman.
That's not the case with you and the Frenchman - despite the veneer of respectability the EU have tried to do by sticking a European "party" stamp against the real parties names.
I know how to do that to the UK government.
How do I do it to the EU Commission and Ursula?1 -
I'll just repeat since you've now proved it beyond a reasonable doubt - to liken the Guardian to the cheapo tack of the Mail is yet more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.Leon said:
The Guardian is absolutely no better than the Mail. The Mail is often quicker on breaking stories.kinabalu said:
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.felix said:
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.kinabalu said:
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.Philip_Thompson said:
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
Both pander shamelessly to their readers' prejudices, and will trot out lies without breaking a sweat0 -
if the Guardian could do the old fashioned thing and clearly distinguish between matters of fact, matters of interpretation, matters of opinion and matters of bias, and keep news reporting to ferreting out facts, not following the crowd, and not printing press releases, while allowing free rein to opinion, interpretation and bias in the editorial/opinion pieces it would set a good trend.kinabalu said:
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.felix said:
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.kinabalu said:
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.Philip_Thompson said:
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
2 -
The terror amongst hard-core Remainers that some sort of compromise could be hammered out over Northern Ireland is palpable.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1448315927582412812?s=203 -
There should be points off for quoting Hodges.CarlottaVance said:The terror amongst hard-core Remainers that some sort of compromise could be hammered out over Northern Ireland is palpable.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1448315927582412812?s=20
He’s like a weird centrist? left wing? version of Ambrose Evans Pritchard from the Telegraph.1 -
Guardian has always been very tendentious but it’s got worse since the new editor, IMHO.algarkirk said:
if the Guardian could do the old fashioned thing and clearly distinguish between matters of fact, matters of interpretation, matters of opinion and matters of bias, and keep news reporting to ferreting out facts, not following the crowd, and not printing press releases, while allowing free rein to opinion, interpretation and bias in the editorial/opinion pieces it would set a good trend.kinabalu said:
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.felix said:
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.kinabalu said:
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.Philip_Thompson said:
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.0 -
Fine. I'm not saying it's the King James. But it shouldn't be equated with (eg) the Mail or the Sun as some sort of tit for tat, right vs left bickering point. This is false equivalence and habitual false equivalence leads to warped standards and devalued debate. Eg, Trump fascist coup = Dem wokery, same degree of bad, all of that type of nonsense. False equivalence is toxic and should ideally be called out each & every time but one doesn't have the bandwidth.algarkirk said:
if the Guardian could do the old fashioned thing and clearly distinguish between matters of fact, matters of interpretation, matters of opinion and matters of bias, and keep news reporting to ferreting out facts, not following the crowd, and not printing press releases, while allowing free rein to opinion, interpretation and bias in the editorial/opinion pieces it would set a good trend.kinabalu said:
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.felix said:
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.kinabalu said:
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.Philip_Thompson said:
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.PeterC said:
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.RH1992 said:
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.PeterC said:
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.Jonathan said:The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.1 -
He talks sense on occasion, more often than jests would suggest. But when he's off base he's way off base.Gardenwalker said:
There should be points off for quoting Hodges.CarlottaVance said:The terror amongst hard-core Remainers that some sort of compromise could be hammered out over Northern Ireland is palpable.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1448315927582412812?s=20
He’s like a weird centrist? left wing? version of Ambrose Evans Pritchard from the Telegraph.1
This discussion has been closed.