Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Undefined discussion subject.

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited July 4 in General
«1345

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 9,171
    edited July 4
    Wot? I've sneaked another one!?!
  • eekeek Posts: 5,494
    It seems people are slower to notice a new thread than Corbyn is with his "filing"
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,733
    edited July 4
    Third like the Tories
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,528
    You will trigger the Jezziah....
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 3,356
    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    And they were wrong, as per the Burns report.

    "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."

    So Burns can't reach views about cruelty, but fortunately you can:
    TOPPING said:

    It's not cruel, Big G.

    By the way, when finding that quote, did you happen to read the next few paragraphs? The ones which end:

    "we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing."

    ?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 3,677
    Nigelb said:

    You will trigger the Jezziah....

    I wonder whether he is losing his faith in his false prophet yet? he is the Corbyn version of HYUFD, total devotion to his hero. Quite touching really
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,743
    What's Pete Townshend got to do with it?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,733

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    And they were wrong, as per the Burns report.

    "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."

    So Burns can't reach views about cruelty, but fortunately you can:
    TOPPING said:

    It's not cruel, Big G.

    By the way, when finding that quote, did you happen to read the next few paragraphs? The ones which end:

    "we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing."

    ?
    As others have said, it is instinctively evident and highly likely that being chased about the countryside by a pack of hungry hounds is unlikely to be good for an animal’s welfare. Proving it scientifically is obviously difficult, but the report’s conclusion doesn’t provide any evidence for the assertion that hunting is not cruel.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,588

    Nigelb said:

    You will trigger the Jezziah....

    I wonder whether he is losing his faith in his false prophet yet? he is the Corbyn version of HYUFD, total devotion to his hero. Quite touching really
    Rival messiahs.

    The rest of us might prefer evidence-based policies, aka what works.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,415
    This was in response to Liz Truss's crap about sugar tax and the poor.





    The whole Boris camp just don't want to operate in a world of facts and reality. It is all about posing nonsense as populist and ignoring the truth.

    How many poor mums want their kids to be overweight? They are just as likely to be glad the government is doing something as any other parent.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,415
    Excellent cartoon.

    Although perhaps the in tray should be overflowing as well, as stuff comes in everyday from the anti-semite wing of what used to be the Labour party.

    Here's today's example:

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 1,561

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,964
    Mr. Animal (FPT), no, I don't do marches.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,060
    Marf is savage
  • MrsBMrsB Posts: 571
    Scott_P said:
    any Brexit plan that includes "this will force the EU to" should be filed with all the other delusions in the bin.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786

    FPT:

    TOPPING said:

    And they were wrong, as per the Burns report.

    "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."

    So Burns can't reach views about cruelty, but fortunately you can:
    TOPPING said:

    It's not cruel, Big G.

    By the way, when finding that quote, did you happen to read the next few paragraphs? The ones which end:

    "we came to the view that the experience of being closely pursued, caught and killed by hounds seriously compromised the welfare of the fox and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing."

    ?
    haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.

    And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,262
    edited July 4
    I don't really know or care why labour is polling so badly but I think it's a good thing apart from the fact that they were my GE anti-separatist vote.

    RE:William Hill closing 700 shops

    Makes me think of Mikes book and his advice for making a bet.

    Step 1 - Go to a bookies
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,877
    FPT for viewcode
    viewcode said:

    Scott_P said:
    If the EU wants to see the back of MEPs like Widdecombe there's a very simple solution. Renegotiate the WDA in the time available so it can pass Parliament.
    Why do you think the EU want to see the back of her? As I've frequently pointed out. The European Parliament had had far worse, as you would expect from an institution that had actual fascists and communists in it. It's only people who get their news from right-wing Anglosphere sources who think this is a big deal...oh. Oh, I see. Ah. Ok. (is briefly sad).
    Just in case there was any misunderstanding of my views causing you to be briefly sad, I was rhetorically joking. I don't think the EU actually views MEPs like Widdecombe as anything more the eccentric oddities and I certainly don't think they will renegotiate the WDA to get rid of her.

    They might do so to avoid no deal, but that is the only circumstance in which they would and at this point it may be too late even for that.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,959

    Nigelb said:

    You will trigger the Jezziah....

    I wonder whether he is losing his faith in his false prophet yet? he is the Corbyn version of HYUFD, total devotion to his hero. Quite touching really
    Just as you show total devotion to Jean-Claude Juncker.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,306
    edited July 4

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
    Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.


    Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 35,324
    edited July 4

    Excellent cartoon.

    Although perhaps the in tray should be overflowing as well, as stuff comes in everyday from the anti-semite wing of what used to be the Labour party.

    Here's today's example:

    /twitter.com/adamlangleben/status/1146543463862800384

    Sent against the background of the lynching in portland of the photo journalist by the leftist mob. All the throwing milkshakes is fun has resulted in a guy getting a brain injury.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,877
    FPT also viewcode
    viewcode said:

    "Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.

    It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.

    The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.

    Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."

    I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.

    I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.
    There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etc

    However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.

    If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,990
    Scott_P said:
    I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,105

    What's Pete Townshend got to do with it?

    What's Tina Turna got to do with it?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786

    Scott_P said:
    I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.
    Or indeed not worry about several things and only worry about certain things. What a shame for rats and mice, for example, that there aren't a bunch of people in red coats chasing after them.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 35,324
    In this day and age why would anybody go to a betting shop to place a bet when i can do it from home without having to worry about cash etc
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 2,520
    HYUFD said:

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
    Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.


    Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
    He’s not standing in twickenham he’s staying where he is with the blessing of the previous lib dem ppc
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,959
    Nigelb said:

    You will trigger the Jezziah....

    Within the last week we have had Corbyn with a historic low of 75% dissatisfaction for a Labour leader with Ipsos-Mori and Labour with a historic low of 18% support and fourth place in GE opinion polling with YouGov. The same two companies which most accurately reported the Labour vote share in the recent Euro elections.

    He must be taking a siesta to cope with the mental contortions of trying to explain all that away.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,096

    FPT also viewcode

    viewcode said:

    "Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.

    It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.

    The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.

    Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."

    I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.

    I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.
    There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etc

    However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.

    If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.
    It's all for effect though isn't it? Problem gambling isn't being addressed by pushing machine players online where they can play for up to 500x a spin. pay via credit card and there is no human interaction.
    It's clearly unfair on bricks and mortar business, regardless of any rights or wrongs.
    As a disclaimer I've worked for an independent bookmakers for many years and broadly welcomed the stake reduction (albeit considering it slightly draconian).
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,105
    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.
    Or indeed not worry about several things and only worry about certain things. What a shame for rats and mice, for example, that there aren't a bunch of people in red coats chasing after them.
    No, they are wearing white coats.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123

    In this day and age why would anybody go to a betting shop to place a bet when i can do it from home without having to worry about cash etc

    The famously publicity shy Paddy Power take more stakes in shop than they do online.

    Many is the times I've dashed to the Paddy Power shop in Piccadilly Gardens to place a larger bet than the 37p I was allowed online.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,877
    midwinter said:

    FPT also viewcode

    viewcode said:

    "Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.

    It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.

    The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.

    Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."

    I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.

    I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.
    There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etc

    However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.

    If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.
    It's all for effect though isn't it? Problem gambling isn't being addressed by pushing machine players online where they can play for up to 500x a spin. pay via credit card and there is no human interaction.
    It's clearly unfair on bricks and mortar business, regardless of any rights or wrongs.
    As a disclaimer I've worked for an independent bookmakers for many years and broadly welcomed the stake reduction (albeit considering it slightly draconian).
    Two wrongs don't make a right and there is no magic fix for every problem, but that doesn't mean there can't be solutions that help some.

    I know people who are problem gamblers who can't get a credit card as their credit file is shot to pieces, who work getting paid cash and then take their cash straight to the bookies. This might help them.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786
    midwinter said:

    FPT also viewcode

    viewcode said:

    "Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.

    It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.

    The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.

    Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."

    I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.

    I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.
    There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etc

    However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.

    If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.
    It's all for effect though isn't it? Problem gambling isn't being addressed by pushing machine players online where they can play for up to 500x a spin. pay via credit card and there is no human interaction.
    It's clearly unfair on bricks and mortar business, regardless of any rights or wrongs.
    As a disclaimer I've worked for an independent bookmakers for many years and broadly welcomed the stake reduction (albeit considering it slightly draconian).
    @isam is very good on this topic.

    I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.

    But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,004

    In this day and age why would anybody go to a betting shop to place a bet when i can do it from home without having to worry about cash etc

    The famously publicity shy Paddy Power take more stakes in shop than they do online.

    Many is the times I've dashed to the Paddy Power shop in Piccadilly Gardens to place a larger bet than the 37p I was allowed online.
    From their perspective, this isn't a particularly compelling argument for keeping them open.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,306
    nichomar said:

    HYUFD said:

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
    Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.


    Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
    He’s not standing in twickenham he’s staying where he is with the blessing of the previous lib dem ppc
    Not certain about that, Twickenham was an option and no PPC has been selected there yet.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/chuka-umunna-tipped-to-run-as-candidate-in-sir-vince-cables-twickenham-seat-after-switch-to-lib-dems-a4167536.html

    Though of course Lambeth containing Streatham did vote LD in the European Parliament elections if he stays where he is
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786
    eristdoof said:

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_P said:
    I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.
    Or indeed not worry about several things and only worry about certain things. What a shame for rats and mice, for example, that there aren't a bunch of people in red coats chasing after them.
    No, they are wearing white coats.
    ha good point!
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,262

    FPT also viewcode

    viewcode said:

    "Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.

    It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.

    The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.

    Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."

    I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.

    I need to take this opportunity to disagree with you vehemently. I have noted before a distressing coterie of people on PB who disdain gambling and wish it done as far away from them as possible. Like it or lump it, gambling is legal in the UK and as John Stuart Mill once noted, anything that is legal is legal to discuss and note the advantages thereof. Betting shops provide employment and site occupancy that our high streets can ill-afford to lose, and the increasing tendency of governments to ban things to appeal to the prejudices of the electorate is worrying.
    There is nothing wrong with gambling in the sense that we mean it on this site. Predicting an outcome (whether in sport or politics) or even more generally playing games etc

    However that is not how FOBT betting worked. FOBT gambling had no elements of skill like in predicting politics or sports and were an entirely nefarious and dangerous addiction. They are right to be banned.

    If betting shops can survive from actual bets then good for them. If however they're really FOBT shops masquerading as betting shops then I have no sympathy.
    FOBT are a tax on the stupid. Bad but not nearly as bad as regressive taxes on the poor like the sugar tax, beer/tobacoo, licence fee.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 23,877
    TOPPING said:

    @isam is very good on this topic.

    I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.

    But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.

    That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.

    With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 1,105


    I never pay much attention to the "Why do you worry about X when you should be worrying about Y?" line. One can worry about several things without feeling any special need to sequence them.

    It does depend what X and Y is though. I'm in favour of the UK becoming a republic, but I also think there are so many thing higher up the "to-do" list.
    I'm not going to spend more than a few minutes discussing it in a bar, and I certainly do not think it should be a major policy of one of the main UK parties in the near future.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,528
    edited July 4

    Mr. Animal (FPT), no, I don't do marches.

    Don't know whether you'd seen this, MD, but it ought to give you food for though in predicting the next few races:
    https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2019-austrian-grand-prix-race-report

    Looks as though Red Bull might have to take another engine soon, Verstappen having caned it in pursuit of victory - but that tactic is exactly what I've though they should have done since the start of the season.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,495
    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,004
    HYUFD said:

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
    Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.


    Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
    Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,060
    OT Reporters finally getting around to asking Kamala Harris whether she actually supports the thing she was going after Biden for not supporting way back when, apparently it's a no.

    https://apnews.com/586b1e81cb684654b0cf689b9074c1cb
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    edited July 4

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    No sympathy for him.

    When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”

    This is your shit show Liam, own it.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,494
    edited July 4

    HYUFD said:

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
    Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.


    Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
    Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
    It's possible (probably highly probably) that the Lib Dems will be the only none SNP scottish MPs in the next election..
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 3,356
    TOPPING said:


    haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.

    Okay, I thought my quote would be short enough that you'd be able to read all of it, but let me try again:

    "and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing"
    TOPPING said:

    And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.

    Now we've descended into total nonsense. Do you really not understand the difference between "I don't know whether or not X is cruel" vs "X is simultaneously not cruel and not not cruel"?

  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,096

    TOPPING said:

    @isam is very good on this topic.

    I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.

    But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.

    That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.

    With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.
    I agree with you both, as I said I don't disagree with the reduction.
    It does seem however that pols are adopting an out of sight, out of mind attitude to internet casino play, which can be equally damaging (a mini casino in your front room).
    Restricting customers online wouldn't be hard to do and would be both fair and solve the problem.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,304

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    Great exchange.

    More than that, it's downright foxy.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    Scott_P said:
    Jeremy Corbyn = Ole Gunnar Solskjær
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,306
    edited July 4
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
    Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.


    Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
    Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
    It's possible (probably highly probably) that the Lib Dems will be the only none SNP scottish MPs in the next election..
    I doubt it, Edinburgh South will be solid for Labour and personal vote for Murray even if other Labour seats fall and Dumfrieshire, Clydesdale and Tweedale and Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be pretty rock solid Tory as well as maybe Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine and Dumfries and Galloway even if other Tory seats fall.

    Only Orkney and Shetland is a rock solid LD Scotiish seat
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,959

    "Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.

    It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.

    The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.

    Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."

    I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.

    It is not even the case that jobs are going to be lost. The money wasted on FOBT addictions will be spent elsewhere and create jobs in the retail supply chain. Such is the speed that money can be thrown away on FOBTs that it would be hard pressed to find a less labour intensive way of spending the cash than repeatedly blowing £100 in seconds on an automated machine, so it's reasonable to conclude that jobs will be created by this.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    Andrew Lilico was taught by a Greek slave-teacher?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,306
    edited July 4

    HYUFD said:

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
    Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.


    Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
    Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
    That depends, many Tory Leave voters in the seat will vote Tory or Brexit Party this time rather than tactically vote for a diehard Remainer like Swinson again even if she is pro Union
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,597
    midwinter said:

    TOPPING said:

    @isam is very good on this topic.

    I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.

    But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.

    That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.

    With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.
    I agree with you both, as I said I don't disagree with the reduction.
    It does seem however that pols are adopting an out of sight, out of mind attitude to internet casino play, which can be equally damaging (a mini casino in your front room).
    Restricting customers online wouldn't be hard to do and would be both fair and solve the problem.
    There are already restrictions - if you don't have any available balance on your debit card you can't deposit.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,964
    Mr. B, cheers for that. Red Bull are pretty experienced and savvy, though. They'll arrange it to take engine penalties all at one place and get some new engines for more competitive tracks down the line.

    Mr. Eagles, he does have a point on slavery, though. You've got Barbary pirates, Arabian slavery, intra-African slavery, Greco-Roman slavery, Viking and Saxon slavery. Apparently Napoleon reintroduced it in France.

    And, to be fair, Greek slave-teachers were highly valued.

    And that's before we get to 'I can't believe it's not slavery' with indentured servants, serfdom, the Chinese and Irish labourers in the nascent USA etc.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,004
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
    Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.


    Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
    Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
    It's possible (probably highly probably) that the Lib Dems will be the only none SNP scottish MPs in the next election..
    The Tories are still pretty well placed in some seats, mostly the original SNP seats. Banff & Buchan was 61% Leave, and Moray was 50-50.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,096
    TGOHF said:

    midwinter said:

    TOPPING said:

    @isam is very good on this topic.

    I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.

    But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.

    That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.

    With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.
    I agree with you both, as I said I don't disagree with the reduction.
    It does seem however that pols are adopting an out of sight, out of mind attitude to internet casino play, which can be equally damaging (a mini casino in your front room).
    Restricting customers online wouldn't be hard to do and would be both fair and solve the problem.
    There are already restrictions - if you don't have any available balance on your debit card you can't deposit.
    Yes you can. You can use a credit card or deposit cash over the counter to use on the internet....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,631
    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123

    Mr. B, cheers for that. Red Bull are pretty experienced and savvy, though. They'll arrange it to take engine penalties all at one place and get some new engines for more competitive tracks down the line.

    Mr. Eagles, he does have a point on slavery, though. You've got Barbary pirates, Arabian slavery, intra-African slavery, Greco-Roman slavery, Viking and Saxon slavery. Apparently Napoleon reintroduced it in France.

    And, to be fair, Greek slave-teachers were highly valued.

    And that's before we get to 'I can't believe it's not slavery' with indentured servants, serfdom, the Chinese and Irish labourers in the nascent USA etc.

    I think you're missing the bigger picture here.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,375

    TOPPING said:

    @isam is very good on this topic.

    I have seen people in betting shops throw chairs through the front of the machines and at the counter and generally it can be a pretty desperate atmosphere in a shop when, usually, a series of people who can't afford it spunk their money away one after the other in a matter of an hour or so.

    But as with you, and @viewcode, I am troubled by the banning but on balance, and contrary to my free market principles I think that it is probably right in the end.

    That's how I'm thinking. A lot of these machines are playing the sort of game and stakes that should rightfully belong in a casino not a high street and casinos have much higher security and regulations they must follow.

    With FOBT we ended up with a totally insecure and unregulated mini casino on every high street. With problematic consequences.
    The social damage these FOBT machines can do is considerable. If you look at it from a societal perspective, the impact on mental health, family breakdown, violence etc...

    It's something like 1.7bn/year going from people who largely can't afford it to these companies.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786
    edited July 4

    TOPPING said:


    haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.

    Okay, I thought my quote would be short enough that you'd be able to read all of it, but let me try again:

    "and probably falls short of the standards we would expect for humane killing"
    TOPPING said:

    And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.

    Now we've descended into total nonsense. Do you really not understand the difference between "I don't know whether or not X is cruel" vs "X is simultaneously not cruel and not not cruel"?

    "Probably", eh! Is that like Heineken?

    Thing is, and I'm guessing here, had the Report examined other methods of control (shooting, snaring, trapping) they would probably (!) have come to the same conclusion. Foxes, and rats and mice and moles and mink are pests and can be controlled. You take your pick of which method (for example there was a BBC documentary on Sealyhams ratting the other day - how sweet those cute little dogs are).

    Foxhunting is not cruel. Because if it was, the Burns Report would have said it was. The Report failed to do that.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,262

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    No sympathy for him.

    When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”

    This is your shit show Liam, own it.
    I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.

    For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.

    With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
  • eekeek Posts: 5,494

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,964
    Mr. Eagles, possibly.

    The race/slavery debate can be a bit nutty, though. I remember watching a debate (Stephen Fry was against the motion that... PC had gone mad, or suchlike) and the chap on the other side was of the view that it was wrong he was seen as a 'black man' rather than an individual, but then indicated he wanted white people to pay more tax.

    It was about 2 hours long, whole thing was on Youtube.
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,262

    "Bookmaker William Hill has announced that it is consulting on plans to close about 700 betting shops.

    It said a large number of redundancies was anticipated, with 4,500 employees at risk of losing their jobs.

    The firm added that the move followed the government's decision in April to reduce the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals to £2.

    Since then, the company added, it had seen "a significant fall" in gaming machine revenues."

    I am of course sorry for those losing their jobs, but a major scourge on Britain's high streets is clearly being reduced.

    It is not even the case that jobs are going to be lost. The money wasted on FOBT addictions will be spent elsewhere and create jobs in the retail supply chain. Such is the speed that money can be thrown away on FOBTs that it would be hard pressed to find a less labour intensive way of spending the cash than repeatedly blowing £100 in seconds on an automated machine, so it's reasonable to conclude that jobs will be created by this.
    I'm being flippant here - but our productivity is going to down too right ?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786
    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,306
    edited July 4

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    No sympathy for him.

    When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”

    This is your shit show Liam, own it.
    I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.

    For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.

    With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
    Yes, the SNP are still polling less than they did in 2015 even with Brexit looming.

    Curtice has shown 51% of Scottish Remainers now back Yes but 64% of Scottish Leavers would still vote No making it about 50% 50% overall.

    It has made more of a difference in Northern Ireland especially if there is a hard border with the Republic of Ireland but there of course the executive is suspended and the DUP are still the largest party
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    Yup.

    He’s the only one of the two that could revoke Article 50.

    He will not want to be known as the PM who destroyed the economy through no deal.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786
    I can see a dip in the water table and reservoirs as the Conservative membership cleanses itself after voting for the next PM, whoever they vote for, frankly. What a crap choice.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,949

    HYUFD said:

    On-topic:

    If you pump these figures into Baxter, you get this for Islington North:

    Lab 38%
    LD 30%
    Grn 11%
    Bxp 10%
    Con 9%
    oth 2%

    If you then factor in some tactical voting by Corbyn-hating Tories and Bxp supporters, and some goodwill tactical voting by Green and Oth supporters, is a LIB DEM GAIN not becoming a possibility in this seat?

    Shadsy has Lab 1/10 and LD 6/1 in Islington North.


    So both Corbyn and Boris could lose their seats! That would be a turn-up!
    And then think of the fun if the Lib Dems gain 100 seats but Jo Swinson loses hers.
    Swinson is more likely to lose her seat to the SNP than Corbyn is to lose his seat to the LDs or Boris lose his seat to Labour on current polls, even if the LDs make gains in England and Wales they are unlikely to do much more than tread water in Scotland.


    Of course Swinson losing her seat but the LDs making gains overall (including Streatham) would be ideal for Chuka if he stands in Streatham or Twickenham as is likely
    Swinson, as newly elected LD leader in a strongly No constituency, is not going to be losing her seat to the SNP.
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 2,520
    kinabalu said:

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    Great exchange.

    More than that, it's downright foxy.
    Marcus Fysh isn’t the sharpest chisel in the box.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 35,324

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
    Whats wrong with the traditional cock and balls drawing?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,766
    edited July 4
    rkrkrk said:


    The social damage these FOBT machines can do is considerable. If you look at it from a societal perspective, the impact on mental health, family breakdown, violence etc...

    It's something like 1.7bn/year going from people who largely can't afford it to these companies.


    I tends towards the free market side of things normally, but have to agree. These are basically casinos, which historically are pretty tightly regulated.

    Perhaps William Hill could go back to being a bookmaker? My account was limited to 50p or something years ago, for the sheer impudence of betting a single value price.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,949

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    No sympathy for him.

    When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”

    This is your shit show Liam, own it.
    I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.

    For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.

    With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
    Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.
    Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,306

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
    Do 2, it could be mistakenly counted as a Boris vote
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
    Whats wrong with the traditional cock and balls drawing?
    Might be considered a clear preference for Boris.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
    It is exquisite. Hunt might actually have enough integrity to carry out his no deal threat but we know that instinctively he doesn't want no deal. Boris probably does want no deal (at least is prepared to do it more than Hunt) but probably won't have the cajones to go through with it.

    Where's Aesop when we need him?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,631

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
    5) voting my book.... Remind us of the odds you got on Hunt? (Though I'd be wanting better than that right now...)
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,262
    malcolmg said:

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    No sympathy for him.

    When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”

    This is your shit show Liam, own it.
    I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.

    For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.

    With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
    Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.
    Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.
    I think you're exaggerating and ramping Yes
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,304
    TOPPING said:

    haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.

    And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.

    Unless we are re-engineering the language, being chewed to death by a pack of hounds is a cruel way to go. It is cruel. A better defence would be that other feasible killing methods are also cruel. I wouldn't know. I live in Hampstead.

    But given that fox hunting is accepted these days to be 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible' (Churchill or Wilde, no doubt), it is safe to say it is never coming back. So I would drop it if I were you. You are expending a chunk of your blog political capital in the flaying of a dead horse (to continue the animal mistreatment theme). Much better to save this for the far more important matter of promoting the Withdrawal Agreement. It's just you and me now on that noble cause.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,306
    edited July 4
    malcolmg said:

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    No sympathy for him.

    When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”

    This is your shit show Liam, own it.
    I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.

    For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.

    With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
    Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.
    Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.
    Most people born outside Scotland living in Scotland are English.

    Then again diehard SNP backer Sir Sean Connery lives in the Bahamas while Yes backer Sir Andy Murray lives in Surrey and fellow Yes supporter Alan Cumming lives in New York.

    In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones voted Yes but No still won 51% to 49% thanks to undecideds breaking their way despite trailing in most final polls
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,597
    malcolmg said:

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    No sympathy for him.

    When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”

    This is your shit show Liam, own it.
    I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.

    For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.

    With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
    Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.
    Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.
    There wont be another Sindy ref for 20 years.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
    5) voting my book.... Remind us of the odds you got on Hunt? (Though I'd be wanting better than that right now...)
    I tipped him at 100/1 and 66/1. My legendary modesty etc

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/04/jeremy-hunt-is-clearly-on-manoeuvres-and-hes-also-1001-to-be-next-tory-leader/

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/26/my-1001-tip-for-next-pm-is-setting-his-sights-on-number-10/

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,959
    Scott_P said:
    No, 4th place still qualifies for the Champions League. But they are in danger of losing the tactical voting boost necessary to qualify for the knockout stage.

    The Europa League is when you cease to be prompted for in the VI question.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 4,304
    nichomar said:

    Marcus Fysh isn’t the sharpest chisel in the box.

    No. He is well named.

    I had one as a pet once. All it did was swim round and round and round in its bowl. Always in the same direction too. Never occurred to it to introduce a bit of variety and change direction.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
    It is exquisite. Hunt might actually have enough integrity to carry out his no deal threat but we know that instinctively he doesn't want no deal. Boris probably does want no deal (at least is prepared to do it more than Hunt) but probably won't have the cajones to go through with it.

    Where's Aesop when we need him?
    We need the wisdom of Solomon.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 12,756

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    Where's the fire? Why not wait two weeks? Something might turn up.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,631
    edited July 4

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
    Whats wrong with the traditional cock and balls drawing?
    Might be considered a clear preference for Boris.
    Whereas Hunt's rhyming slang would suggest you'd draw a.....
  • JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,262
    HYUFD said:

    malcolmg said:

    At the start of this process who'd have thought Liam Fox would emerge as the only remaining sane Brexiteer?

    No sympathy for him.

    When David Cameron and others said in 2016 that Brexit might lead to No Deal, Scottish independence, a hard border in Ireland, and maybe even Irish unity, Fox said those were “hysterical prophecies of doom.”

    This is your shit show Liam, own it.
    I think the Brexit/Scottish independence link is overplayed.

    For whatever reason SNP poll consistently 40pc and this wasn't going to change simply cus of a lost referendum.

    With a separatist majority in Holyrood, indyref2 was always going to be on the cards whatever the Brexit vote.
    Though it does tip the scales and will almost certainly mean all EU residents likely to vote YES rather than NO this time.
    Last vote was won by people born outside Scotland voting No.
    Most people born outside Scotland living in Scotland are English.

    Then again diehard SNP backer Sir Sean Connery lives in the Bahamas while Yes backer Sir Andy Murray lives in Surrey and fellow Yes supporter Alan Cumming lives in New York.

    In Quebec in 1995 most Francophones voted Yes but No still won 51% to 49% thanks to undecideds breaking their way despite trailing in most final polls
    They could always try and gerrymander it even worse than last time and try and discount English votes. After all the English the only ones legally discriminated against in Scotland already with the shameful Student Fees scheme
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 77,123

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    Where's the fire? Why not wait two weeks? Something might turn up.
    I’m on holiday later on this month.

    I’ll be out of the country when the result is announced.

    Fortunately nothing major happens when the editorial team take (foreign) holidays
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786
    edited July 4
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.

    And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.

    Unless we are re-engineering the language, being chewed to death by a pack of hounds is a cruel way to go. It is cruel. A better defence would be that other feasible killing methods are also cruel. I wouldn't know. I live in Hampstead.

    But given that fox hunting is accepted these days to be 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible' (Churchill or Wilde, no doubt), it is safe to say it is never coming back. So I would drop it if I were you. You are expending a chunk of your blog political capital in the flaying of a dead horse (to continue the animal mistreatment theme). Much better to save this for the far more important matter of promoting the Withdrawal Agreement. It's just you and me now on that noble cause.
    I have plenty of energy and blog political capital for all kinds of topics.

    As for your point about the chewing to death that is undoubtedly the compromise of the fox's welfare. But the thing is we are talking about a fox here, not your Auntie Nellie (with all best wishes to her). A fox is first a wild animal, and is also a pest and, hugely sadly, although perhaps with less publicity, many kinds of wild animal pests are killed in all sorts of ways that you might deem cruel if applied to Auntie N. Foxes are chased, and as a wild animal that is not an unordinary experience, and then killed (or "ripped apart" if you prefer). Just like mice are by your cat.

    The Burns Report as you might imagine, given it was a report into foxhunting, spent some considerable time investigating all of this and could not conclude that the death, by other animals of this animal was cruel. Hence, no, it is not cruel.

    Any other questions?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 894
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.

    And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.

    Unless we are re-engineering the language, being chewed to death by a pack of hounds is a cruel way to go. It is cruel. A better defence would be that other feasible killing methods are also cruel. I wouldn't know. I live in Hampstead.

    But given that fox hunting is accepted these days to be 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible' (Churchill or Wilde, no doubt), it is safe to say it is never coming back. So I would drop it if I were you. You are expending a chunk of your blog political capital in the flaying of a dead horse (to continue the animal mistreatment theme). Much better to save this for the far more important matter of promoting the Withdrawal Agreement. It's just you and me now on that noble cause.
    I have plenty of energy and blog political capital for all kinds of topics.

    As for your point about the chewing to death that is undoubtedly the compromise of the fox's welfare. But the thing is we are talking about a fox here, not your Auntie Nellie (with all best wishes to her). A fox is first a wild animal, and is also a pest and, hugely sadly, although perhaps with less publicity, many kinds of wild animal pests are killed in all sorts of ways that you might deem cruel if applied to Auntie N. Foxes are chased, and as a wild animal that is not an unordinary experience, and then killed (or "ripped apart" if you prefer). Just like mice are by your cat.

    The Burns Report as you might imagine, given it was a report into foxhunting, spent some considerable time investigating all of this and could not conclude that the death, by other animals of this animal was cruel. Hence, no, it is not cruel.

    Any other questions?
    I will believe people genuinely think fox hunting isn't cruel when they choose it as a method for euthenising their pets.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,306
    edited July 4
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    The ballot papers arrived this morning. Any other Conservative Party members voted yet?

    I shall be voting tonight.
    another vote for Boris then....
    @TSE must choose whether to cancel out Big G's vote or Mrs Big G's vote.
    I’m split between

    1) Voting for Hunt
    2) Writing a rude word or two next to Boris Johnson’s name
    3) Writing ‘Bring back Dave’
    4) ‘Writing’ Ken Clarke for Prime Minister’
    It is exquisite. Hunt might actually have enough integrity to carry out his no deal threat but we know that instinctively he doesn't want no deal. Boris probably does want no deal (at least is prepared to do it more than Hunt) but probably won't have the cajones to go through with it.

    Where's Aesop when we need him?
    Boris wants a Canada style FTA with the EU as I believe does Hunt (hence he tried to recruit former Canadian PM Harper to his negotiating team) whereas May did not. Both voted for the Withdrawal Agreement, Hunt 3 times and Boris once.

    However Boris is clear Leave Deal or No Deal by October 31st while Hunt has not committed absolutely to that though both want to try and remove the backstop (with a possibility Boris lets NI voters decide on the backstop by referendum if the EU will not renegotiate it and agree a technical solution to avoid a hard border straight away)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,786

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    haha yes it seriously compromises the welfare of the fox. No doubt abou that. Then again, foxes are pests and you can kill them in any number of ways legally, which also, sadly for Charlie, compromises his welfare.

    And yes I can reach a view - it is not cruel and it is not not cruel.

    Unless we are re-engineering the language, being chewed to death by a pack of hounds is a cruel way to go. It is cruel. A better defence would be that other feasible killing methods are also cruel. I wouldn't know. I live in Hampstead.

    But given that fox hunting is accepted these days to be 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible' (Churchill or Wilde, no doubt), it is safe to say it is never coming back. So I would drop it if I were you. You are expending a chunk of your blog political capital in the flaying of a dead horse (to continue the animal mistreatment theme). Much better to save this for the far more important matter of promoting the Withdrawal Agreement. It's just you and me now on that noble cause.
    I have plenty of energy and blog political capital for all kinds of topics.

    As for your point about the chewing to death that is undoubtedly the compromise of the fox's welfare. But the thing is we are talking about a fox here, not your Auntie Nellie (with all best wishes to her). A fox is first a wild animal, and is also a pest and, hugely sadly, although perhaps with less publicity, many kinds of wild animal pests are killed in all sorts of ways that you might deem cruel if applied to Auntie N. Foxes are chased, and as a wild animal that is not an unordinary experience, and then killed (or "ripped apart" if you prefer). Just like mice are by your cat.

    The Burns Report as you might imagine, given it was a report into foxhunting, spent some considerable time investigating all of this and could not conclude that the death, by other animals of this animal was cruel. Hence, no, it is not cruel.

    Any other questions?
    I will believe people genuinely think fox hunting isn't cruel when they choose it as a method for euthenising their pets.
    There is a difference between a domesticated animal and a wild animal.
This discussion has been closed.