politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour should be second favourite in Thanet South not a 10-
Comments
-
Farage4ever has always worked for me and I see no reason to changePlato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook0 -
Wonder what the odds are on the Lib Dems to come sixth (or lower) in Thanet South.?
FWIW I think Will Scobie is a good candidate but a trifle young for Thanet's taste. Can see him using this as a practise run for 2020.0 -
Whoever designed that infographic should be shot! It doesn't go in any sensible order (i.e. left to right then top to bottom)antifrank said:Some good observations in this article about the dynamics of a hung Parliament:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/camerons-praetorian-guard-plan-to-save-him-from-post-election-unseating
"Strategists believe that the Tories need to win 310 seats – four more than last time – to have a chance of running a minority government. This is 16 seats short of the 326 seats to secure an overall parliamentary majority.
One strategist said: “If we have a similar number of MPs to now – under 310 – then it is difficult to run a minority government. If you are on 320 you can do it. The amber region is 310-320. It would be a challenge to run a minority government in that area. But it would be possible.”
The strategists also believe the party needs to ensure that the number of Tory MPs outnumbers the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MPs."
That looks a little pessimistic from a Conservative viewpoint, but at this stage they won't want to be considering stretching to the limit.0 -
I think that's correct. 315+ is the sweet spot as with the DUP (who basically want to deal with the Tories) they'd have 324 votes when they needed them and could outvote the rest.antifrank said:Some good observations in this article about the dynamics of a hung Parliament:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/camerons-praetorian-guard-plan-to-save-him-from-post-election-unseating
"Strategists believe that the Tories need to win 310 seats – four more than last time – to have a chance of running a minority government. This is 16 seats short of the 326 seats to secure an overall parliamentary majority.
One strategist said: “If we have a similar number of MPs to now – under 310 – then it is difficult to run a minority government. If you are on 320 you can do it. The amber region is 310-320. It would be a challenge to run a minority government in that area. But it would be possible.”
The strategists also believe the party needs to ensure that the number of Tory MPs outnumbers the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MPs."
That looks a little pessimistic from a Conservative viewpoint, but at this stage they won't want to be considering stretching to the limit.
At 310 seats it's trickier but DUP + UKIP should allow them to get things like the EU referendum through because Lab+Green+SNP+SDLP+LD would not have the votes to defeat them. Better for passing more right-wing budgets too.
Between 300 and 310 seats they have to deal with the Lib Dems in some guise too.
Between 295 and 300 seats they're in government in some guise but a highly unstable one.0 -
Not as good as their "How to be a good entrepreneur" one. You couldn't get a good mark unless you are basically a low down thieving back-stabbing cheating individual.JonnyJimmy said:That bbc political centre quiz is crap.
"To what extent do you agree or disagree that government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off?"
I agree strongly that there should be taxes and a welfare system, so can't disagree with it which means I have to start off "left of centre".
Who on the right doesn't agree strongly that we should have taxes? Are there really people out there who think no redistribution of income should take place at all?0 -
Not necessarily, because all three parties would have to consider the possibility of an imminent second election, and it might be tricky to stitch things up to avoid a full leadership contest.Pulpstar said:The role of the Lib Dem rump is fascinating. Does Con 285 seats, Labour 275, Lib Dem 25 see all three leaders out as a sort of reverse Goldilocks zone ?
0 -
UKIP will not help the Conservatives. They have no interest in doing so, any more than the SNP have any interest in helping Labour.Casino_Royale said:
I think that's correct. 315+ is the sweet spot as with the DUP (who basically want to deal with the Tories) they'd have 324 votes when they needed them and could outvote the rest.antifrank said:Some good observations in this article about the dynamics of a hung Parliament:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/camerons-praetorian-guard-plan-to-save-him-from-post-election-unseating
"Strategists believe that the Tories need to win 310 seats – four more than last time – to have a chance of running a minority government. This is 16 seats short of the 326 seats to secure an overall parliamentary majority.
One strategist said: “If we have a similar number of MPs to now – under 310 – then it is difficult to run a minority government. If you are on 320 you can do it. The amber region is 310-320. It would be a challenge to run a minority government in that area. But it would be possible.”
The strategists also believe the party needs to ensure that the number of Tory MPs outnumbers the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MPs."
That looks a little pessimistic from a Conservative viewpoint, but at this stage they won't want to be considering stretching to the limit.
At 310 seats it's trickier but DUP + UKIP should allow them to get things like the EU referendum through because Lab+Green+SNP+SDLP+LD would not have the votes to defeat them. Better for passing more right-wing budgets too.
Between 300 and 310 seats they have to deal with the Lib Dems in some guise too.
Between 295 and 300 seats they're in government in some guise but a highly unstable one.
The Conservatives would be better relying on the Lib Dems, who will be in no hurry for another general election after May.0 -
I see dockside 'workers' are in for a pounding from Sunday.logical_song said:
Yes, we're on our second one:Roger said:
"Ukip faces crisis after two parliamentary candidates suspended and one resigns"
That sounds like a below average day for UKIP
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-rows-see-fareham-parliamentary-candidate-suspended-and-then-quit-1-6543949
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/5-000-american-sailors-head-for-portsmouth-1-66448580 -
'workers'.. how very progressive!TheWatcher said:
I see dockside 'workers' are in for a pounding from Sunday.logical_song said:
Yes, we're on our second one:Roger said:
"Ukip faces crisis after two parliamentary candidates suspended and one resigns"
That sounds like a below average day for UKIP
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-rows-see-fareham-parliamentary-candidate-suspended-and-then-quit-1-6543949
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/5-000-american-sailors-head-for-portsmouth-1-66448580 -
‘The fact the carrier is visiting with thousands of sailors on board means a welcome boost to our local economy as they eat here, drink here and visit our attractions.’
"Attractions"0 -
I'm hoping the parliament is very well hung indeed, more betting opportunities I reckon.Richard_Nabavi said:
Not necessarily, because all three parties would have to consider the possibility of an imminent second election, and it might be tricky to stitch things up to avoid a full leadership contest.Pulpstar said:The role of the Lib Dem rump is fascinating. Does Con 285 seats, Labour 275, Lib Dem 25 see all three leaders out as a sort of reverse Goldilocks zone ?
0 -
@GoodallGiles: #Ukip has now suspended 18 councillors, 14 candidates, 2 MEPs, 1 national secretary, 1 youth sec, 1 Scottish chair & an entire local branch''
above tweet now 24hrs old - I guess it needs a major update.
0 -
Also “We are in danger of saying: vote for your bank manager,” one senior Tory said of the campaign, which is being run by the Australian pollster and strategist Lynton Crosby. “We have never inspired passion, just a little bit of fear and respect. Is that enough for us to win? I don’t know.”
Fair point. In 2010GE there were a number of exciting Conservative reforms in the manifesto that I was voting for: on welfare, education, health, immigration, social security, tax, civil liberties and infrastructure.
Where's the blue beef this time? I've clocked an EU referendum, a few hundred more free schools, a 40p tax cut.. And that's about it.0 -
Hopefully something in the manifesto.Casino_Royale said:Also “We are in danger of saying: vote for your bank manager,” one senior Tory said of the campaign, which is being run by the Australian pollster and strategist Lynton Crosby. “We have never inspired passion, just a little bit of fear and respect. Is that enough for us to win? I don’t know.”
Fair point. In 2010GE there were a number of exciting Conservative reforms in the manifesto that I was voting for: on welfare, education, health, immigration, social security, tax, civil liberties and infrastructure.
Where's the blue beef this time? I've clocked an EU referendum, a few hundred more free schools, a 40p tax cut.. And that's about it.0 -
I disagree. Farage has already been taking about it. They won't vote down an EU referendum. And they won't vote down Conservative budgets, as long as they are consulted. Farage, Carswell and Reckless are all on the political right.antifrank said:
UKIP will not help the Conservatives. They have no interest in doing so, any more than the SNP have any interest in helping Labour.Casino_Royale said:
I think that's correct. 315+ is the sweet spot as with the DUP (who basically want to deal with the Tories) they'd have 324 votes when they needed them and could outvote the rest.antifrank said:Some good observations in this article about the dynamics of a hung Parliament:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/camerons-praetorian-guard-plan-to-save-him-from-post-election-unseating
"Strategists believe that the Tories need to win 310 seats – four more than last time – to have a chance of running a minority government. This is 16 seats short of the 326 seats to secure an overall parliamentary majority.
One strategist said: “If we have a similar number of MPs to now – under 310 – then it is difficult to run a minority government. If you are on 320 you can do it. The amber region is 310-320. It would be a challenge to run a minority government in that area. But it would be possible.”
The strategists also believe the party needs to ensure that the number of Tory MPs outnumbers the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MPs."
That looks a little pessimistic from a Conservative viewpoint, but at this stage they won't want to be considering stretching to the limit.
At 310 seats it's trickier but DUP + UKIP should allow them to get things like the EU referendum through because Lab+Green+SNP+SDLP+LD would not have the votes to defeat them. Better for passing more right-wing budgets too.
Between 300 and 310 seats they have to deal with the Lib Dems in some guise too.
Between 295 and 300 seats they're in government in some guise but a highly unstable one.
The Conservatives would be better relying on the Lib Dems, who will be in no hurry for another general election after May.
They might play havoc with other bills but will be less hostile than, say, the Greens or SDLP.0 -
Lib Dem Scottish pre-election conference (bizarrely not a single day affair as it was even for Labour) has attracted a massive 63 delegates.
Gonna take lots of hard work from those 5.7 activists per constituency they hold.0 -
I'd agree with that. The Greens will vote against the Conservatives on a vote of confidence on purely ideological grounds and the SDLP will be almost as likely to do so. By contrast, UKIP will be persuadable based on what's on the table, as will the Unionists.Casino_Royale said:
I disagree. Farage has already been taking about it. They won't vote down an EU referendum. And they won't vote down Conservative budgets, as long as they are consulted. Farage, Carswell and Reckless are all on the political right.antifrank said:
UKIP will not help the Conservatives. They have no interest in doing so, any more than the SNP have any interest in helping Labour.Casino_Royale said:
I think that's correct. 315+ is the sweet spot as with the DUP (who basically want to deal with the Tories) they'd have 324 votes when they needed them and could outvote the rest.antifrank said:Some good observations in this article about the dynamics of a hung Parliament:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/camerons-praetorian-guard-plan-to-save-him-from-post-election-unseating
"Strategists believe that the Tories need to win 310 seats – four more than last time – to have a chance of running a minority government. This is 16 seats short of the 326 seats to secure an overall parliamentary majority.
One strategist said: “If we have a similar number of MPs to now – under 310 – then it is difficult to run a minority government. If you are on 320 you can do it. The amber region is 310-320. It would be a challenge to run a minority government in that area. But it would be possible.”
The strategists also believe the party needs to ensure that the number of Tory MPs outnumbers the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MPs."
That looks a little pessimistic from a Conservative viewpoint, but at this stage they won't want to be considering stretching to the limit.
At 310 seats it's trickier but DUP + UKIP should allow them to get things like the EU referendum through because Lab+Green+SNP+SDLP+LD would not have the votes to defeat them. Better for passing more right-wing budgets too.
Between 300 and 310 seats they have to deal with the Lib Dems in some guise too.
Between 295 and 300 seats they're in government in some guise but a highly unstable one.
The Conservatives would be better relying on the Lib Dems, who will be in no hurry for another general election after May.
They might play havoc with other bills but will be less hostile than, say, the Greens or SDLP.0 -
The phone hacking story was always a nothing story ... until the Milly Dowler story came out. And I'd always assumed that all the newspapers would be doing it. Publicity-hungry celebs never attract sympathy, but once the Sun switched, NI became a target.
What happened to the petition to have Steve Coogan replace Clarkson? It attracted 15,000 signatures in about a week and then died on its feet. That's about 2,000 a day, nearly as many as Bad Jezza attracted every two minutes. It's the lefty viewpoint - they know best even when no one agrees with them.
Oh, and I scored 11 in the survey down thread, just to the left of centre (and yes, I know it was b*llocks).0 -
I was in Hong Kong once when the US Navy paid a big visit. Wanchai was swarming with sailors, but they were mostly very well behaved and thoroughly respectful. They were not great drinkers. I'd imagine our lot would destroy them if it came to a match-up.Pulpstar said:‘The fact the carrier is visiting with thousands of sailors on board means a welcome boost to our local economy as they eat here, drink here and visit our attractions.’
"Attractions"
0 -
Why would you mess around with an unreliable rabble who want to destroy you when you can have a party supporting you that has already proved essentially reliable for the last five years?david_herdson said:
I'd agree with that. The Greens will vote against the Conservatives on a vote of confidence on purely ideological grounds and the SDLP will be almost as likely to do so. By contrast, UKIP will be persuadable based on what's on the table, as will the Unionists.Casino_Royale said:
I disagree. Farage has already been taking about it. They won't vote down an EU referendum. And they won't vote down Conservative budgets, as long as they are consulted. Farage, Carswell and Reckless are all on the political right.antifrank said:
UKIP will not help the Conservatives. They have no interest in doing so, any more than the SNP have any interest in helping Labour.Casino_Royale said:
I think that's correct. 315+ is the sweet spot as with the DUP (who basically want to deal with the Tories) they'd have 324 votes when they needed them and could outvote the rest.antifrank said:Some good observations in this article about the dynamics of a hung Parliament:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/camerons-praetorian-guard-plan-to-save-him-from-post-election-unseating
"Strategists believe that the Tories need to win 310 seats – four more than last time – to have a chance of running a minority government. This is 16 seats short of the 326 seats to secure an overall parliamentary majority.
One strategist said: “If we have a similar number of MPs to now – under 310 – then it is difficult to run a minority government. If you are on 320 you can do it. The amber region is 310-320. It would be a challenge to run a minority government in that area. But it would be possible.”
The strategists also believe the party needs to ensure that the number of Tory MPs outnumbers the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MPs."
That looks a little pessimistic from a Conservative viewpoint, but at this stage they won't want to be considering stretching to the limit.
At 310 seats it's trickier but DUP + UKIP should allow them to get things like the EU referendum through because Lab+Green+SNP+SDLP+LD would not have the votes to defeat them. Better for passing more right-wing budgets too.
Between 300 and 310 seats they have to deal with the Lib Dems in some guise too.
Between 295 and 300 seats they're in government in some guise but a highly unstable one.
The Conservatives would be better relying on the Lib Dems, who will be in no hurry for another general election after May.
They might play havoc with other bills but will be less hostile than, say, the Greens or SDLP.0 -
A fair number of those will be attending local maternity units towards the end of the year.Pulpstar said:‘The fact the carrier is visiting with thousands of sailors on board means a welcome boost to our local economy as they eat here, drink here and visit our attractions.’
"Attractions"0 -
Anagram
"Tony Blair ' s autobiography A Journey" = Our Years in A Top Job by a lying author.0 -
The unit of currency on the dockside is the pound....Pulpstar said:‘The fact the carrier is visiting with thousands of sailors on board means a welcome boost to our local economy as they eat here, drink here and visit our attractions.’
"Attractions"
0 -
Not sure if Farron will want to follow Clegg's example. Doubt LD-Con coalition MKII will be nearly as stable as the first one, I get the feeling it won't nearly be as much yes Sir, No Sir 3 bags full Sir
And yet it might be CON best option if they have a decent night :O0 -
On the plus side, it's enough to stand a candidate in every constituency with a taxi-load left over.Dair said:Lib Dem Scottish pre-election conference (bizarrely not a single day affair as it was even for Labour) has attracted a massive 63 delegates.
Gonna take lots of hard work from those 5.7 activists per constituency they hold.0 -
"UKIP has now suspended 18 councillors, 14 candidates, 2 MEPs, 1 national secretary, 1 youth sec, 1 Scottish chair & an entire local branch''
I say well done to Ukip. As a NOTA, I'd say that's about par for a party their size. When will labour, the Tories and LDs clear out some of the "gypsies tramps and thieves" they're infested with.
Bah, I'm in a grumpy mood today. Must be that bloody solar eclipse reducing the Ed M take from my solar panels.0 -
The lib dems are not interested in government. Enough of them probably would be happy to be treated like dog dirt by the Labour party though.Pulpstar said:Not sure if Farron will want to follow Clegg's example. Doubt LD-Con coalition MKII will be nearly as stable as the first one, I get the feeling it won't nearly be as much yes Sir, No Sir 3 bags full Sir
And yet it might be CON best option if they have a decent night :O0 -
That would be a tartan rainbow of chaos. That's the kind of figures when you start thinking grand coalitionPulpstar said:
The role of the Lib Dem rump is fascinating. Does Con 285 seats, Labour 275, Lib Dem 25 see all three leaders out as a sort of reverse Goldilocks zone ?antifrank said:Some good observations in this article about the dynamics of a hung Parliament:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/camerons-praetorian-guard-plan-to-save-him-from-post-election-unseating
"Strategists believe that the Tories need to win 310 seats – four more than last time – to have a chance of running a minority government. This is 16 seats short of the 326 seats to secure an overall parliamentary majority.
One strategist said: “If we have a similar number of MPs to now – under 310 – then it is difficult to run a minority government. If you are on 320 you can do it. The amber region is 310-320. It would be a challenge to run a minority government in that area. But it would be possible.”
The strategists also believe the party needs to ensure that the number of Tory MPs outnumbers the combined total of Labour and Lib Dem MPs."
That looks a little pessimistic from a Conservative viewpoint, but at this stage they won't want to be considering stretching to the limit.0 -
What I find strange is how the slightest issue with say a UKIP councillor or PPC and it makes national news. Whilst the other parties fly under the radar. There was a Lib Dem in London who committed a racially motivated assault. This did not make national news, however, you can be certain if it was a UKIP councillor it would be on the front page of all the newspapers.
http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/11067497.Worcester_Park_councillor_convicted_for_racially_aggravated_assault_in_train_station_pub/ /
0 -
They did not want to get into trouble with the NCIS.SouthamObserver said:
I was in Hong Kong once when the US Navy paid a big visit. Wanchai was swarming with sailors, but they were mostly very well behaved and thoroughly respectful. They were not great drinkers. I'd imagine our lot would destroy them if it came to a match-up.Pulpstar said:‘The fact the carrier is visiting with thousands of sailors on board means a welcome boost to our local economy as they eat here, drink here and visit our attractions.’
"Attractions"
0 -
Because Farron is not Clegg.antifrank said:
Why would you mess around with an unreliable rabble who want to destroy you when you can have a party supporting you that has already proved essentially reliable for the last five years?david_herdson said:
I'd agree with that. The Greens will vote against the Conservatives on a vote of confidence on purely ideological grounds and the SDLP will be almost as likely to do so. By contrast, UKIP will be persuadable based on what's on the table, as will the Unionists.Casino_Royale said:
I disagree. Farage has already been taking about it. They won't vote down an EU referendum. And they won't vote down Conservative budgets, as long as they are consulted. Farage, Carswell and Reckless are all on the political right.antifrank said:
UKIP will not help the Conservatives. They have no interest in doing so, any more than the SNP have any interest in helping Labour.Casino_Royale said:I think that's correct. 315+ is the sweet spot as with the DUP (who basically want to deal with the Tories) they'd have 324 votes when they needed them and could outvote the rest.
At 310 seats it's trickier but DUP + UKIP should allow them to get things like the EU referendum through because Lab+Green+SNP+SDLP+LD would not have the votes to defeat them. Better for passing more right-wing budgets too.
Between 300 and 310 seats they have to deal with the Lib Dems in some guise too.
Between 295 and 300 seats they're in government in some guise but a highly unstable one.
The Conservatives would be better relying on the Lib Dems, who will be in no hurry for another general election after May.
They might play havoc with other bills but will be less hostile than, say, the Greens or SDLP.
Put another way, if a Lib Dem deal is available, it'd be the sensible option but I don't think it will be on the table. They can't afford to go into government with the Conservatives again - they'd have less representation in government and would suffer even further at the polls, perhaps establishing them permanently as the fifth party (or worse?), or effectively, little more than a collection of individuals standing under one label. And as alluded to earlier, I don't think the inclination will be there even if the electoral disincentive were not sufficient to put them off.0 -
-
Does the '14' include Jonathan Stanley, yesterday or Stephen Howd 1 hour ago. Is there a chance of it becoming the '45'?SimonStClare said:@GoodallGiles: #Ukip has now suspended 18 councillors, 14 candidates, 2 MEPs, 1 national secretary, 1 youth sec, 1 Scottish chair & an entire local branch''
above tweet now 24hrs old - I guess it needs a major update.
0 -
I don't think the Lib Dems have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines completely. They aspire to be a party of government. If the only way the numbers stack up is with the Conservatives forming a government, the Lib Dems cannot afford for it to be said with justice by the Conservatives that they were obliged to scrabble around for support from UKIP because the Lib Dems turned their back on them. The nature of that support would be much more contingent next time around if it happened, I agree.david_herdson said:
Because Farron is not Clegg.
Put another way, if a Lib Dem deal is available, it'd be the sensible option but I don't think it will be on the table. They can't afford to go into government with the Conservatives again - they'd have less representation in government and would suffer even further at the polls, perhaps establishing them permanently as the fifth party (or worse?), or effectively, little more than a collection of individuals standing under one label. And as alluded to earlier, I don't think the inclination will be there even if the electoral disincentive were not sufficient to put them off.
The Conservatives would form a minority government if they don't get to 326 seats (in my view), so the only question is whether they have some form of understanding with one party or another or go it alone and dare other parties to gang up on them issue by issue. Even in this more contingent form, the Lib Dems look more reliable workmates than UKIP - and probably have more numbers as well.0 -
I thought that it was a brilliant poster, exactly the right amount of fearmongering. But I'm never a good judge of these things.MikeSmithson said:0 -
When I knew the Portsmouth area a little a few years back, someone in the dockyard said the problem was not the big set-piece events such as this, but when the smaller vessels routinely docked. There was much less control of those.SouthamObserver said:
I was in Hong Kong once when the US Navy paid a big visit. Wanchai was swarming with sailors, but they were mostly very well behaved and thoroughly respectful. They were not great drinkers. I'd imagine our lot would destroy them if it came to a match-up.Pulpstar said:‘The fact the carrier is visiting with thousands of sailors on board means a welcome boost to our local economy as they eat here, drink here and visit our attractions.’
"Attractions"0 -
Nasty tib and fib. Looks like it needs internal fixation. Yep, cut to the bone it is.MikeSmithson said:
Though who would cut the NHS more or do another re-organisation is moot...0 -
The Atkinson affair must surely have sad repercussions for the restaurant involved. Happy to stitch up a 'sponsor' but then realised it might involve the taxpayer.Flightpath said:
Does the '14' include Jonathan Stanley, yesterday or Stephen Howd 1 hour ago. Is there a chance of it becoming the '45'?SimonStClare said:@GoodallGiles: #Ukip has now suspended 18 councillors, 14 candidates, 2 MEPs, 1 national secretary, 1 youth sec, 1 Scottish chair & an entire local branch''
above tweet now 24hrs old - I guess it needs a major update.0 -
It's certainly a nasty fib. But then lying is what Labour does when it thinks it's losing.foxinsoxuk said:
Nasty tib and fib. Looks like it needs internal fixation. Yep, cut to the bone it is.MikeSmithson said:
Though who would cut the NHS more or do another re-organisation is moot...0 -
Pedant as I proudly am, the main thing which struck me was that the words and the picture don't match. There's no cutting of the flesh to the bone, and the bone seems to be broken.antifrank said:
I thought that it was a brilliant poster, exactly the right amount of fearmongering. But I'm never a good judge of these things.MikeSmithson said:
I'm surprised to be honest that they didn't go for a grinning George Osborne wielding a hacksaw on some hapless pensioner's leg.0 -
OT Is anyone else mesmerised by airships? I've had a book on the Hindenburg disaster when I was 10 and just watched an epically good TV prog about it on Movie4Men channel. I had no idea that it was just 70ft shorter than the Titanic.
WOW. Just WOW.
I loved the use of zeppelins in Fringe.0 -
It was going into government that was a luxury for the Lib Dems. There's an enormous market to play to by sitting and griping on the side-lines. They can probably deliver more as well by forcing the government to deal vote-by-vote.antifrank said:
I don't think the Lib Dems have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines completely. They aspire to be a party of government. If the only way the numbers stack up is with the Conservatives forming a government, the Lib Dems cannot afford for it to be said with justice by the Conservatives that they were obliged to scrabble around for support from UKIP because the Lib Dems turned their back on them. The nature of that support would be much more contingent next time around if it happened, I agree.david_herdson said:
Because Farron is not Clegg.
Put another way, if a Lib Dem deal is available, it'd be the sensible option but I don't think it will be on the table. They can't afford to go into government with the Conservatives again - they'd have less representation in government and would suffer even further at the polls, perhaps establishing them permanently as the fifth party (or worse?), or effectively, little more than a collection of individuals standing under one label. And as alluded to earlier, I don't think the inclination will be there even if the electoral disincentive were not sufficient to put them off.
The Conservatives would form a minority government if they don't get to 326 seats (in my view), so the only question is whether they have some form of understanding with one party or another or go it alone and dare other parties to gang up on them issue by issue. Even in this more contingent form, the Lib Dems look more reliable workmates than UKIP - and probably have more numbers as well.0 -
She sets a great example of the advantage of grammar schools. Kind of ironic?FrancisUrquhart said:
Let me guess..privately / selectively educated, Oxbridge, white middle class...TGOHF said:Somebody I've never heard of is the new Guardian editor.
Time for a Guardian article about under-representation of certain groups of people in the media...
0 -
If anything, it shows that the NHS is broken and needs fixing. How has the right medicine is another matter (and obviously, it can't be another top down re-organisation of the NHS)Richard_Nabavi said:
Pedant as I proudly am, the main thing which struck me was that the words and the picture don't match. There's no cutting of the flesh to the bone, and the bone seems to be broken.antifrank said:
I thought that it was a brilliant poster, exactly the right amount of fearmongering. But I'm never a good judge of these things.MikeSmithson said:
I'm surprised to be honest that they didn't go for a grinning George Osborne wielding a hacksaw on some hapless pensioner's leg.0 -
The Conservatives have been very slow off the mark. By now Labour would have had a dozen spoofs out there, with captions like:Richard_Nabavi said:
Pedant as I proudly am, the main thing which struck me was that the words and the picture don't match. There's no cutting of the flesh to the bone, and the bone seems to be broken.antifrank said:
I thought that it was a brilliant poster, exactly the right amount of fearmongering. But I'm never a good judge of these things.MikeSmithson said:
I'm surprised to be honest that they didn't go for a grinning George Osborne wielding a hacksaw on some hapless pensioner's leg.
"After the crash
Would you trust an incompetent surgeon?"
And so on.
0 -
I can see the advantage of attck adverts using the "extreme cuts" line, but this one on the NHS is a blatant lie. We shall see if the Conservatives rebuttal team are a) awake and b) wise.MikeSmithson said:0 -
Whilst entertaining, such spoofs can be counter-productive because they draw attention to the original poster.antifrank said:The Conservatives have been very slow off the mark. By now Labour would have had a dozen spoofs out there, with captions like:
"After the crash
Would you trust an incompetent surgeon?"
And so on.0 -
Gonna be a dirty campaign, full of fear and smear....Labour have already been caught sending out letter that are designed to look like they are from the NHS.MikeSmithson said:
I am sure the Tories don't pay Lynton Crosby to sit on his arse all day saying nice things.0 -
Perhaps I was a little too obscure. There is a displaced midshaft fracture of the tibia, and an associated fracture at the lower part of the fibula.Richard_Nabavi said:
Pedant as I proudly am, the main thing which struck me was that the words and the picture don't match. There's no cutting of the flesh to the bone, and the bone seems to be broken.antifrank said:
I thought that it was a brilliant poster, exactly the right amount of fearmongering. But I'm never a good judge of these things.MikeSmithson said:
I'm surprised to be honest that they didn't go for a grinning George Osborne wielding a hacksaw on some hapless pensioner's leg.
It looks fairly unstable so the CURE is to cut to the bone and to bolt it together in a bit of carpentry.
I don't think that Labour know their orthopedics very well!0 -
As others have pointed out it doesn't really make sense.TCPoliticalBetting said:
I can see the advantage of attck adverts using the "extreme cuts" line, but this one on the NHS is a blatant lie. We shall see if the Conservatives rebuttal team are a) awake and b) wise.MikeSmithson said:
"If you think this guy's going to be lame, wait till you see ed's premiership" would be a better caption.0 -
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
Great, so prettywelluncrackable is pretty well uncrackable although its not much better than totallyeffinguseless .
Confusingly justasgoodaswell isn't.0 -
Great, so prettywelluncrackable is pretty well uncrackable although its not much better than totallyeffinguseless .Flightpath said:
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
Confusingly justasgoodaswell isn't.
Relevant xkcd comic:
https://xkcd.com/936/
I use a password manager to store mine, so a random one for each site I visit, typically at the maximum length allowed by the registration form.0 -
I got 25. Not losing my touch yet.TGOHF said:
I got 20. Must be going soft..Smarmeron said:Election 2015: How close are you to the political centre?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31973051
My score = 5
Your answers place you on the left of the political centre in comparison with the overall population in 2014.
Though the questions were rigged to move me further to the right than I should be.
Bloody biased BBC again!0 -
No German GP in 2015. Only 19 races. Shock horror. Nurburgring cannot afford it.0
-
Relevant xkcd comic:RobD said:
Great, so prettywelluncrackable is pretty well uncrackable although its not much better than totallyeffinguseless .Flightpath said:
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
Confusingly justasgoodaswell isn't.
https://xkcd.com/936/
I use a password manager to store mine, so a random one for each site I visit, typically at the maximum length allowed by the registration form.
apasswordmanagertostoremine definitely works.0 -
Cut0
-
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
And there was me thinking entropy had something to do with it.
Is it also the case that the earth is shaped like a banana?0 -
apasswordmanagertostoremine definitely works.Flightpath said:
Relevant xkcd comic:RobD said:
Great, so prettywelluncrackable is pretty well uncrackable although its not much better than totallyeffinguseless .Flightpath said:
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
Confusingly justasgoodaswell isn't.
https://xkcd.com/936/
I use a password manager to store mine, so a random one for each site I visit, typically at the maximum length allowed by the registration form.
Yep!0 -
Exactly!
Relevant xkcd comic:RobD said:
Great, so prettywelluncrackable is pretty well uncrackable although its not much better than totallyeffinguseless .Flightpath said:
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
Confusingly justasgoodaswell isn't.
https://xkcd.com/936/
I use a password manager to store mine, so a random one for each site I visit, typically at the maximum length allowed by the registration form.
0 -
apasswordmanagertostoremine definitely works.Flightpath said:
Relevant xkcd comic:RobD said:
Great, so prettywelluncrackable is pretty well uncrackable although its not much better than totallyeffinguseless .Flightpath said:
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
Confusingly justasgoodaswell isn't.
https://xkcd.com/936/
I use a password manager to store mine, so a random one for each site I visit, typically at the maximum length allowed by the registration form.
Don't mock password managers, they're awesome.
Best thing is you only need one simple password for the lot. Because I'm so awful at remembering passwords, I just use "password" and I'm done. Simples!0 -
Plato said:
Exactly!
Relevant xkcd comic:RobD said:
Great, so prettywelluncrackable is pretty well uncrackable although its not much better than totallyeffinguseless .Flightpath said:
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
Confusingly justasgoodaswell isn't.
https://xkcd.com/936/
I use a password manager to store mine, so a random one for each site I visit, typically at the maximum length allowed by the registration form.
Except PB, where it is PBTory4Life.
0 -
I once had a client who chose as his password 'forgot', on the basis that it was self-reminding if he couldn't remember it.0
-
Yes, me for a start. Redistribution is not "fair" to those who have earned something themselves.JonnyJimmy said:That bbc political centre quiz is crap.
"To what extent do you agree or disagree that government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off?"
I agree strongly that there should be taxes and a welfare system, so can't disagree with it which means I have to start off "left of centre".
Who on the right doesn't agree strongly that we should have taxes? Are there really people out there who think no redistribution of income should take place at all?
Why should it be stolen to be given to someone who has not earned it?0 -
Don't mock password managers, they're awesome.Pong said:
apasswordmanagertostoremine definitely works.Flightpath said:
Relevant xkcd comic:RobD said:
Great, so prettywelluncrackable is pretty well uncrackable although its not much better than totallyeffinguseless .Flightpath said:
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
Confusingly justasgoodaswell isn't.
https://xkcd.com/936/
I use a password manager to store mine, so a random one for each site I visit, typically at the maximum length allowed by the registration form.
Best thing is you only need one simple password for the lot. Because I'm so awful at remembering passwords, I just use "password" and I'm done. Simples!
Also means if one big company gets hacked (say eBay), you only have to change one password, and not worry about your email being associated with a password you use for every other site in existence.0 -
OT How did it take my new kitty 6 months to discover watching the TV was facsinating? She only spotted it last week and how transfixed. She's pretty smart, but hid INSIDE my duvet cover during the eclipse.0
-
I used to use bollox for a similar reason.Richard_Nabavi said:I once had a client who chose as his password 'forgot', on the basis that it was self-reminding if he couldn't remember it.
0 -
Absolutely, in tying to be too clever the point of the message is lost.RobD said:
If anything, it shows that the NHS is broken and needs fixing. How has the right medicine is another matter (and obviously, it can't be another top down re-organisation of the NHS)Richard_Nabavi said:
Pedant as I proudly am, the main thing which struck me was that the words and the picture don't match. There's no cutting of the flesh to the bone, and the bone seems to be broken.antifrank said:
I thought that it was a brilliant poster, exactly the right amount of fearmongering. But I'm never a good judge of these things.MikeSmithson said:
I'm surprised to be honest that they didn't go for a grinning George Osborne wielding a hacksaw on some hapless pensioner's leg.
Incidentally, it also doesn't work because the one area the current govt are not criticised for is NHS spending. Ads have to resonate or have at least a slight basis in the popular conscious.
Presumably the basic lefty activist view is a holier than thou expectation that sensible people think the NHS should have unlimited funds. Even the most pro NHS, left leaning friends of mine don't agree. I imagine the same sort of person is baffled at how few people read the Guardian....
0 -
You are assuming that what the rich person has earned is 'fair'. Any politico-economic system left to itself will tend towards cartel or monopoly and serve the interests of its producers and particularly its managers, rather than its customers.GeoffM said:
Yes, me for a start. Redistribution is not "fair" to those who have earned something themselves.JonnyJimmy said:That bbc political centre quiz is crap.
"To what extent do you agree or disagree that government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off?"
I agree strongly that there should be taxes and a welfare system, so can't disagree with it which means I have to start off "left of centre".
Who on the right doesn't agree strongly that we should have taxes? Are there really people out there who think no redistribution of income should take place at all?
Why should it be stolen to be given to someone who has not earned it?0 -
Obviously, I meant to say "who has the right medicine". Swear I'm getting worse at spelling these days!Mortimer said:
Absolutely, in tying to be too clever the point of the message is lost.RobD said:
If anything, it shows that the NHS is broken and needs fixing. How has the right medicine is another matter (and obviously, it can't be another top down re-organisation of the NHS)Richard_Nabavi said:
Pedant as I proudly am, the main thing which struck me was that the words and the picture don't match. There's no cutting of the flesh to the bone, and the bone seems to be broken.antifrank said:
I thought that it was a brilliant poster, exactly the right amount of fearmongering. But I'm never a good judge of these things.MikeSmithson said:
I'm surprised to be honest that they didn't go for a grinning George Osborne wielding a hacksaw on some hapless pensioner's leg.
Incidentally, it also doesn't work because the one area the current govt are not criticised for is NHS spending. Ads have to resonate or have at least a slight basis in the popular conscious.
Presumably the basic lefty activist view is a holier than thou expectation that sensible people think the NHS should have unlimited funds. Even the most pro NHS, left leaning friends of mine don't agree. I imagine the same sort of person is baffled at how few people read the Guardian....0 -
Surely you can disagree with the premise that a welfare system is supposed to equalise incomes. Surely it is simply there to help people who, in most cases temporarily, fall on hard times.GeoffM said:
Yes, me for a start. Redistribution is not "fair" to those who have earned something themselves.JonnyJimmy said:That bbc political centre quiz is crap.
"To what extent do you agree or disagree that government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off?"
I agree strongly that there should be taxes and a welfare system, so can't disagree with it which means I have to start off "left of centre".
Who on the right doesn't agree strongly that we should have taxes? Are there really people out there who think no redistribution of income should take place at all?
Why should it be stolen to be given to someone who has not earned it?
0 -
That's all very Adam Smith of you - and yet you and he in turn assume guilt over innocence.david_herdson said:
You are assuming that what the rich person has earned is 'fair'. Any politico-economic system left to itself will tend towards cartel or monopoly and serve the interests of its producers and particularly its managers, rather than its customers.GeoffM said:
Yes, me for a start. Redistribution is not "fair" to those who have earned something themselves.JonnyJimmy said:That bbc political centre quiz is crap.
"To what extent do you agree or disagree that government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off?"
I agree strongly that there should be taxes and a welfare system, so can't disagree with it which means I have to start off "left of centre".
Who on the right doesn't agree strongly that we should have taxes? Are there really people out there who think no redistribution of income should take place at all?
Why should it be stolen to be given to someone who has not earned it?
Why do you deserve money that I have earned just because I am better at something than you are? Or me yours if the situation is reversed?0 -
The advert seems to be saying, we misled you last time but bear with us.FrancisUrquhart said:
Gonna be a dirty campaign, full of fear and smear....Labour have already been caught sending out letter that are designed to look like they are from the NHS.MikeSmithson said:
I am sure the Tories don't pay Lynton Crosby to sit on his arse all day saying nice things.
Alternatively it looks like Labour's NHS weapon has broken somebody's leg.
All the tories need to do is point to the relevant pages in the 2010 Labour manifesto (eg £20 billion of efficiency savings).0 -
Nobody ever explains why. Tory ministers would be in charge of Lib Dem policies. That's either a recipe for disaster, or for wholesale credit-taking by the Conservatives.david_herdson said:
It was going into government that was a luxury for the Lib Dems. There's an enormous market to play to by sitting and griping on the side-lines. They can probably deliver more as well by forcing the government to deal vote-by-vote.antifrank said:
I don't think the Lib Dems have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines completely. They aspire to be a party of government. If the only way the numbers stack up is with the Conservatives forming a government, the Lib Dems cannot afford for it to be said with justice by the Conservatives that they were obliged to scrabble around for support from UKIP because the Lib Dems turned their back on them. The nature of that support would be much more contingent next time around if it happened, I agree.david_herdson said:
Because Farron is not Clegg.
Put another way, if a Lib Dem deal is available, it'd be the sensible option but I don't think it will be on the table. They can't afford to go into government with the Conservatives again - they'd have less representation in government and would suffer even further at the polls, perhaps establishing them permanently as the fifth party (or worse?), or effectively, little more than a collection of individuals standing under one label. And as alluded to earlier, I don't think the inclination will be there even if the electoral disincentive were not sufficient to put them off.
The Conservatives would form a minority government if they don't get to 326 seats (in my view), so the only question is whether they have some form of understanding with one party or another or go it alone and dare other parties to gang up on them issue by issue. Even in this more contingent form, the Lib Dems look more reliable workmates than UKIP - and probably have more numbers as well.0 -
My password is
"SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs"
As I was told my password had to be a minimum of eight characters.0 -
Great clip on Ch4 News about UKIP. Shows the benefits of getting more truth from giving interviewees their head that constantly interrupting.0
-
Yes it *should* be "simply there to help people who, in most cases temporarily, fall on hard times."JohnLilburne said:
Surely you can disagree with the premise that a welfare system is supposed to equalise incomes. Surely it is simply there to help people who, in most cases temporarily, fall on hard times.GeoffM said:
Yes, me for a start. Redistribution is not "fair" to those who have earned something themselves.JonnyJimmy said:That bbc political centre quiz is crap.
"To what extent do you agree or disagree that government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off?"
I agree strongly that there should be taxes and a welfare system, so can't disagree with it which means I have to start off "left of centre".
Who on the right doesn't agree strongly that we should have taxes? Are there really people out there who think no redistribution of income should take place at all?
Why should it be stolen to be given to someone who has not earned it?
Redistribution as a goal for something called "fairness" is very different to a safety net for giving a leg up to the temporarily unfortunate0 -
Or the rather frightening fact that the shadow health secretary appears to think that inquiries into hospital failures are not worth it because of the reputational damage they cause to the institution concernedFlightpath said:
The advert seems to be saying, we misled you last time but bear with us.FrancisUrquhart said:
Gonna be a dirty campaign, full of fear and smear....Labour have already been caught sending out letter that are designed to look like they are from the NHS.MikeSmithson said:
I am sure the Tories don't pay Lynton Crosby to sit on his arse all day saying nice things.
Alternatively it looks like Labour's NHS weapon has broken somebody's leg.
All the tories need to do is point to the relevant pages in the 2010 Labour manifesto (eg £20 billion of efficiency savings).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873911/Outcry-Burnham-claims-Mid-Staffs-probe-mistake-Labour-accused-insulting-victims-saying-better-report-never-published.html0 -
Groan....TheScreamingEagles said:My password is
"SnowWhiteAndTheSevenDwarfs"
As I was told my password had to be a minimum of eight characters.
0 -
I agree that no one 'deserves' money that someone else has earned. Of course prior to needing a benefit many have paid into an insurance system.GeoffM said:
That's all very Adam Smith of you - and yet you and he in turn assume guilt over innocence.david_herdson said:
You are assuming that what the rich person has earned is 'fair'. Any politico-economic system left to itself will tend towards cartel or monopoly and serve the interests of its producers and particularly its managers, rather than its customers.GeoffM said:
Yes, me for a start. Redistribution is not "fair" to those who have earned something themselves.JonnyJimmy said:That bbc political centre quiz is crap.
"To what extent do you agree or disagree that government should redistribute income from the better off to those who are less well off?"
I agree strongly that there should be taxes and a welfare system, so can't disagree with it which means I have to start off "left of centre".
Who on the right doesn't agree strongly that we should have taxes? Are there really people out there who think no redistribution of income should take place at all?
Why should it be stolen to be given to someone who has not earned it?
Why do you deserve money that I have earned just because I am better at something than you are? Or me yours if the situation is reversed?
However
It is in the immediate and long term interests of everyone to help the less advantaged (both the temporary and the long term. At its simplistic it preserves the cohesion of society which is to our advantage.
The operative word is 'deserves' ... it is not a question of deserving a benefit. It is a question of decency and respect. The respect cuts both ways because once the fairness is treated in its turn with a lack of respect and becomes a demand based on faux entitlement then it descends into cheap political opportunism.0 -
Brilliant poster though my two friends from the NHS disagree.FrancisUrquhart said:
Gonna be a dirty campaign, full of fear and smear....Labour have already been caught sending out letter that are designed to look like they are from the NHS.MikeSmithson said:
I am sure the Tories don't pay Lynton Crosby to sit on his arse all day saying nice things.0 -
TSE to the rescue?
"Cameron's 'praetorian guard' plan to save him from post-election unseating"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/camerons-praetorian-guard-plan-to-save-him-from-post-election-unseating0 -
Keep paying up, taxpayers - or we'll send the boys round....MikeSmithson said:0 -
Im actually very warm hearted that both left and right are rounding on the sociopathic views of GeoffM which really do present as a leftist satire on Conservative attitudes0
-
Don't break your leg in Wales. You might still be waiting for an ambulance...MikeSmithson said:0 -
Channel 4 next Thursday at 9pm have put in their schedules a show entitled
"The Leaders' interviews"0 -
What time is Nige on?TheScreamingEagles said:Channel 4 next Thursday at 9pm have put in their schedules a show entitled
"The Leaders' interviews"0 -
Damn, I am washing my hair then....TheScreamingEagles said:Channel 4 next Thursday at 9pm have put in their schedules a show entitled
"The Leaders' interviews"
90 mins (with adverts), not going to be very long interviews then.0 -
@StigAbell: "When I see a hedge fund, I feel respect" http://t.co/GvUahy1TSI0
-
jonnyjimmy - says ---- ''I agree strongly that there should be taxes and a welfare system, so can't disagree with it which means I have to start off "left of centre".''
Agreeing to taxes and a welfare system is not the preserve of the Left. But the concept of 'redistribution of wealth' is indeed a Left Wing catch all which in my view goes much further than welfare. Capitalism even from a selfish point of view will work best with a stable and happy and well educated and motivated society. At no time is it in anyones interest to generate undue inequalities. 'Fairness' as a concept revolves around opportunity.0 -
Bloody twitter not letting you expand the images:Scott_P said:@StigAbell: "When I see a hedge fund, I feel respect" http://t.co/GvUahy1TSI
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAkKprCUcAAcRTM.jpg:large0 -
Arrrhhh the mystery Martin Taylor....I guess at least he is a real person and actually very wealthy, not like the cleaners and drivers (of a multi-millionaire) who appeared to donate £100k's to Labour without even noticing it had gone from their bank accounts.Scott_P said:@StigAbell: "When I see a hedge fund, I feel respect" http://t.co/GvUahy1TSI
0 -
May 8thScott_P said:
What time is Nige on?TheScreamingEagles said:Channel 4 next Thursday at 9pm have put in their schedules a show entitled
"The Leaders' interviews"0 -
@nicholaswatt: Exc: @ed_miliband complained in person to @george_osborne about his 'two kitchens' jibe in budget, say Tories http://t.co/QbxF5cKL9S0
-
Looks like the result of an Ed Balls tackle.MarqueeMark said:
Keep paying up, taxpayers - or we'll send the boys round....MikeSmithson said:0 -
And to think, all caused by someone on twitter 'defending' Ed... hah.Scott_P said:@nicholaswatt: Exc: @ed_miliband complained in person to @george_osborne about his 'two kitchens' jibe in budget, say Tories http://t.co/QbxF5cKL9S
0 -
And there was me thinking entropy had something to do with it.Ishmael_X said:
The key factor in any password security is not caps/numbers/punctuation but LENGTH. Any password of 20 or more letters is pretty well uncrackable.weejonnie said:MarkHopkins said:Plato said:Millions still use easy-to-crack passwords such as ‘qwerty’ and ‘123456’, but many people are choosing to use more complex sets of characters for our online accounts.
However, a new study has found these seemingly random passwords may be more obvious to hack than you realise.
Researchers have shown that passwords such as ‘mnbvcxz’, ‘qaz2wsx’ and ‘adgjmptw’ can be cracked in seconds - and adding numbers to your codes does little to boost its strength
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3004470/Is-password-adgjmptw-Researcher-reveals-complex-log-details-easier-crack-thought.html#ixzz3UwrvBrPv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
What bothers me is those passwords should never have been leaked in the first place.
Any decent system never stores the password - so it cannot leak even if the software is hacked.
Is it also the case that the earth is shaped like a banana?
If you have 20 characters then possible combinations (lowercasetextonly) is 26^20 =2 X 10^28. If you have 10 characters (Text0) you have 62^10 = 8 X 10^17 - which is 2.5 X 10^11 times as likely to be cracked. Even adding 10 punctuation symbols increases it to 72^10 = 4 X 10^18 which is 5,000,000,000 times as easy to crack.
Basically passwords are designed so that people can easily forget them but computer algorithms can crack them quite quickly.0
