Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BJohnson – the politician who keeps getting overstated in the

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BJohnson – the politician who keeps getting overstated in the polls

Back in 2001 the fledgling YouGov polling company first came to our attention with its survey of CON members ahead of the leadership ballot. There was never any doubt that IDS would beat the pro EU Ken Clarke but this new polling company uniquely then using the internet scored a spectacular success by getting the result within one percent.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    edited August 2019
    First - unlike the UK after Brexit
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    First, like BoZo in the polls...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It is a striking trend.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    FPT:
    Nigelb said:

    It was never tested in court.
    I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.

    I rather like the idea of prorouging becoming more and more overused. The idea of the Tory reaction to Corbyn pulling a huge prorougue on the basis of precendent would be hilarious

    Especially if the Tories went to all the trouble of establishing that it was totally legal for a PM to prorougue for as long as he/she desired.

    Setting up Corbyn to rule by dictat.. :D:D:D
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Not first... Like John and Gina next week! :D
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    How very dare you. Boris, our visionary strong man leading the nation back to glory. Putting those weak days behind us, when a decadent elite Parliament debated difficult problems for months. The people’s saviour from these traitors and saboteur!
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    FPT


  • For the Tories this is really is worrying when they are polling in the early 30s.
  • Did you hear about the new Star Wars "anthology" movie starring Boris?

    Pro-Rogue One :lol:
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    I rather like the idea of prorouging becoming more and more overused. The idea of the Tory reaction to Corbyn pulling a huge prorougue on the basis of precendent would be hilarious

    Especially if the Tories went to all the trouble of establishing that it was totally legal for a PM to prorougue for as long as he/she desired.

    Setting up Corbyn to rule by dictat.. :D:D:D

    Yes, it is in the long term interests of the country (and whatever is left of the Conservative and Unionist Party) that the short term interests of BoZo and Brexit Death Cult are thwarted.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Did you hear about the new Star Wars "anthology" movie starring Boris?

    Pro-Rogue One :lol:

    Do or Die. Everybody died...
  • FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    It was never tested in court.
    I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.

    I rather like the idea of prorouging becoming more and more overused. The idea of the Tory reaction to Corbyn pulling a huge prorougue on the basis of precendent would be hilarious

    Especially if the Tories went to all the trouble of establishing that it was totally legal for a PM to prorougue for as long as he/she desired.

    Setting up Corbyn to rule by dictat.. :D:D:D
    If Corbyn gets in a five year proroguation would suit me.

    During proroguation laws don't get changed.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    FPT
    kle4 said:

    Tabman said:

    Foxy said:

    Just a little reminder of the NYT map of No Deal Brexit impact:


    So - to answer my own question - and one which noone seems to ask any No Dealer on any interview I've ever heard - No Deal is far worse for us than for anyone else.

    So how is threatening No Deal some sort of marvelous negotiating ploy for Britain?
    The idea is even though it may be worse for us surely they will want to avoid what is still a negative outcome for them. Which rather ignores that this is a political calculation and as the same ploy proves of us, people are willing to choose an option which may cause some harm, rather than pay the political price to avoid it.
    It's not just a political price though, given the benefits that the SM (and its integrity) gives the EU. They're not going to compromise it even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Unlike all his other elections, (ex Uxbridge constituency) Johnson won't personally be on the ballot paper this time round.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited August 2019

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    It was never tested in court.
    I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.

    I rather like the idea of prorouging becoming more and more overused. The idea of the Tory reaction to Corbyn pulling a huge prorougue on the basis of precendent would be hilarious

    Especially if the Tories went to all the trouble of establishing that it was totally legal for a PM to prorougue for as long as he/she desired.

    Setting up Corbyn to rule by dictat.. :D:D:D
    I would assume one of the implications will be that Parlaiment quite soon brings in legislation setting out how long and in what circumstances Parliament can be prorogued for.

    I found it amazing that there is literally nothing in law about this already... If anything the 2005 Contingencies Act gave even more powers beyond the royal perogative to the PM/government to close down Westminster if they want.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Pulpstar said:

    Unlike all his other elections, (ex Uxbridge constituency) Johnson won't personally be on the ballot paper this time round.

    Spoilsport
  • Tabman said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Tabman said:

    Foxy said:

    Just a little reminder of the NYT map of No Deal Brexit impact:


    So - to answer my own question - and one which noone seems to ask any No Dealer on any interview I've ever heard - No Deal is far worse for us than for anyone else.

    So how is threatening No Deal some sort of marvelous negotiating ploy for Britain?
    The idea is even though it may be worse for us surely they will want to avoid what is still a negative outcome for them. Which rather ignores that this is a political calculation and as the same ploy proves of us, people are willing to choose an option which may cause some harm, rather than pay the political price to avoid it.
    It's not just a political price though, given the benefits that the SM (and its integrity) gives the EU. They're not going to compromise it even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
    A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Jonathan said:

    How very dare you. Boris, our visionary strong man leading the nation back to glory. Putting those weak days behind us, when a decadent elite Parliament debated difficult problems for months. The people’s saviour from these traitors and saboteur!

    I thought younger voters just loved the idea of a strong man ?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/younger-voters-want-strongman-leader-new-study-claims-vp28t6mns
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    edited August 2019

    Tabman said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Tabman said:

    Foxy said:

    Just a little reminder of the NYT map of No Deal Brexit impact:


    So - to answer my own question - and one which noone seems to ask any No Dealer on any interview I've ever heard - No Deal is far worse for us than for anyone else.

    So how is threatening No Deal some sort of marvelous negotiating ploy for Britain?
    The idea is even though it may be worse for us surely they will want to avoid what is still a negative outcome for them. Which rather ignores that this is a political calculation and as the same ploy proves of us, people are willing to choose an option which may cause some harm, rather than pay the political price to avoid it.
    It's not just a political price though, given the benefits that the SM (and its integrity) gives the EU. They're not going to compromise it even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
    A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
    And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.

    The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.

    That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    It was never tested in court.
    I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.

    I rather like the idea of prorouging becoming more and more overused. The idea of the Tory reaction to Corbyn pulling a huge prorougue on the basis of precendent would be hilarious

    Especially if the Tories went to all the trouble of establishing that it was totally legal for a PM to prorougue for as long as he/she desired.

    Setting up Corbyn to rule by dictat.. :D:D:D
    I would assume one of the implications will be that Parlaiment quite soon brings in legislation setting out how long and in what circumstances Parliament can be prorogued for.

    I found it amazing that there is literally nothing in law about this already... If anything the 2005 Contigencies Act gave even more powers beyond the royal perogative to the PM/government to close down Westminster if they want.
    the FTPA just keeps having unseen consequences. The whole concept of a government limping on with no majority and rebel sections who cant quite put it out of its misery is daft.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477
    edited August 2019
    There’s something in that, but on the other hand polling a members only election is tricky, as is modelling a London election. A decent hunch might be that he’s not a man to secure too many second preferences, which is less relevant in a GE but I’m guessing we’re all pricing in a lot of tactical voting against him.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Pulpstar said:

    Unlike all his other elections, (ex Uxbridge constituency) Johnson won't personally be on the ballot paper this time round.

    And if the alternative is PM Corbyn...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    It is possible that Boris is the problem but there is another possibility which is that Boris's guru Lynton Crosby's negative campaigns are the problem (hide and batter the enemy).

    So that would take in Boris's mayoral and leadership campaigns but also GE2010 when Cameron converted a poll lead into a minority needing a coalition and also both referendums (which followed Crosby's style) and GE2017. It would even include GE2015 when the rise of the SNP hid a swing south of Hadrian's Wall to the Chaos with Ed Miliband Party.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:

    GIN1138 said:

    John Major's Proroguation was the longest since 1918 apparently?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/mar/19/conservatives.uk

    And he was rightly heavily criticised for it at the time.

    In sharp contrast to today, the circumstances at the time required no extraordinary remedy, as he was kicked out of office in the general election which followed shortly thereafter.
    But the point is that its clearly within the legal right of the PM to do this. No one at the time suggested John Major was acting illegally...
    It was never tested in court.
    I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.
    An outer limit sounds eminently reasonable - to have prorogued as proposed and as discussed in the leadership campaign [which is where all the anti-proroguation quotes come from] from the start of September until the start of November would have been unreasonable.

    To prorogue for 4 scheduled sitting days is bog standard. And to prorogue for a few scheduled sitting days and a recess that is due already has precedence too, one of the longer recent proroguations was because it straddled the Whitsun recess so no reason not to straddle the annual Conference recess.
    There is every reason if the Commons would have voted not to take the recess.
    Absurd whatabouterism.

    The Commons has taken the reference every year and the Commons has just taken a six week vacation so I see no reason to believe that it wouldn't have been taken.

    Had the Commons cancelled their summer jollies and said Brexit is too important we need to sort this out first then you might have had a point.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    ab195 said:

    There’s something in that, but on the other hand polling a members only election is tricky, as is modelling a London election. A decent hunch might be that he’s not a man to secure too many second preferences, which is less relevant in a GE but I’m guessing we’re all pricing in a lot of tactical voting against him.

    Pulpstar seems to have succinctly identified the flaw in the thread header
  • ab195 said:

    There’s something in that, but on the other hand polling a members only election is tricky, as is modelling a London election. A decent hunch might be that he’s not a man to secure too many second preferences, which is less relevant in a GE but I’m guessing we’re all pricing in a lot of tactical voting against him.

    Second preferences in FPTP is known as tactical voting.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited August 2019
    I've not seen so many hostile thread headers about a PM since Broon The Doom was in power.

    Takes me back to the "smiling Daves" and "grumpy Gords"

    How innocent we all were then! :D
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Unlike all his other elections, (ex Uxbridge constituency) Johnson won't personally be on the ballot paper this time round.

    Spoilsport
    Yes he will. The PM has to stand as a candidate in their own constituency.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    isam said:

    FPT


    Isn't thinking that an undarkened Gina Miller looks like she should have a bone through her nose the most gratuitous racist insult?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    FPT
    It was a bit tongue in cheek , I know there are a few poor lawyers , but not that many.
    malcolmg said:

    » show previous quotes
    G there are two lots who never lose Bookies and Lawyers, you can guarantee you will never see a poor Bookie or Lawyer in your life.

    With the possible exception of lawyers who do legal aid.

    The government has decreed since Thatcher's time 'private good, public bad' and has aimed to eliminate anything the public sector does to help the lives of the poor and downtrodden (like helping pay a poor person's legal expenses if their employer or landlord shafts them). So to provide further tax cuts for those with yachts, the lawyers who provided this public service were themselves shafted.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Er... M'lud, this Parliamentary session is virtually the longest on record and we want to present our exciting new legislation for the NHS and police to the Commons and to the British People in a Queens Speech in the same way thats happened hundreds and hundreds of times during the glorious reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.


    Honestly these people are just wasting everyone's time (and their own money) with this bullshit.
    It could be nonsense and still legal

    It feels to me like MPs want the courts to let them off the hook and not face up to certain actions. If it is illegal then great, we need to know that, but whether it is or not their are actions they can take and should take.

    Pulpstar said:


    The PM, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary voted against it. Indeed it was the PM and Foreign Secretary who sabotaged it - without bothering to even read the final text - and made it unpalatable to the country.

    Forget the actions of others - are people not capable of reading the actual text and deciding for themselves. MPs in particular ?
    That's what I did.

    One of my biggest shocks in my whole life of being politically aware was just how few MPs seemed to have actually done this.
    It was largely impenetrable legalese for the 3/4 of it I read, I dont think i gained a great deal from doing so.

    That said MPs should be better at parsing legalese and as decision makers should feel an obligation to read it themselves and not just rely on summaries.

  • So why did he vote for the Brady amendment?

    These Leavers will never be satisfied.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Scott_P said:
    Although it doesn't suit me in this case, I'm suspicious of what seems to have happened here - I think YouGov have merged the middle option "only partly trust" with one extreme "don't trust at all" to produce the reported result. That's ALWAYS bad practice, since lots of people given a choice of 3 will plump for the middle one by instinct. I suspect the real result was something like 34% full trust, 20% partly trust, 34% don't trust, 12% don't know.

    But I've not seen the choices of answers or the full breakdown, so this is just a tentative comment.
  • Tabman said:

    A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.

    And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.

    The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.

    That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.

    At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:
    @Sam -- ask Boris what a good deal might actually look like. What does he want from Brussels? What is he asking for?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Unlike all his other elections, (ex Uxbridge constituency) Johnson won't personally be on the ballot paper this time round.

    Spoilsport
    Yes he will. The PM has to stand as a candidate in their own constituency.
    Oh if the thread header is specifically about the Uxbridge constituency, I take it back, sorry. I thought it was about the General Election as a whole and Boris’ previous over statement transferring to the Conservatives.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited August 2019
    GIN1138 said:

    I've not seen so many hostile thread headers about a PM since Broon The Doom was power.

    Takes me back to the "smiling Daves" and "grumpy Gords"

    How innocent we all were then! :D

    Mike was right then.

    Labour people were saying Brown was going to win Labour the next election and Mike said no way.

    Still astonishing one of Mike’s acquaintances bought Lab seats at circa 380 in the autumn of 2007.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Tabman said:

    Tabman said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    Tabman said:

    Foxy said:

    Just a little reminder of the NYT map of No Deal Brexit impact:


    So - to answer my own question - and one which noone seems to ask any No Dealer on any interview I've ever heard - No Deal is far worse for us than for anyone else.

    So how is threatening No Deal some sort of marvelous negotiating ploy for Britain?
    The idea is even though it may be worse for us surely they will want to avoid what is still a negative outcome for them. Which rather ignores that this is a political calculation and as the same ploy proves of us, people are willing to choose an option which may cause some harm, rather than pay the political price to avoid it.
    It's not just a political price though, given the benefits that the SM (and its integrity) gives the EU. They're not going to compromise it even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
    A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.
    And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.

    The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.

    That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
    We will be able to lower VAT on home energy supplies to 0%. Oh and don't forget that nationally totemic issue droit de suite.

    Precious few other issues. It is the very definition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    Tabman said:

    A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.

    And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.

    The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.

    That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.

    At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy.
    Let me repeat the question. What benefit *in addition to what we already have* will Brexit bring?

    All the examples you cite happened whilst we were in the EU.

    Other EU27 countries have no problem with sovereignty and democracy and being in the EU. What's different about them?
  • Scott_P said:
    A pause for one whole day!?

    OMG this changes everything! How could we have been so blind as to lead to a one day pause in production! I'm sorry everyone, oh so sorry. I was wrong, very wrong, I never realised we would lose an ENTIRE DAY of production. What can we do to prevent this!?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981

    FPT:

    Nigelb said:

    It was never tested in court.
    I find it very hard to believe that the courts would not set some outer limit on the length of time a PM can arrange for Parliament to be prorogued.

    I rather like the idea of prorouging becoming more and more overused. The idea of the Tory reaction to Corbyn pulling a huge prorougue on the basis of precendent would be hilarious

    Especially if the Tories went to all the trouble of establishing that it was totally legal for a PM to prorougue for as long as he/she desired.

    Setting up Corbyn to rule by dictat.. :D:D:D
    If Corbyn gets in a five year proroguation would suit me.

    During proroguation laws don't get changed.
    YOu can fiddle a lot with the ones you already have and Statutory Instruments can be changed at the stroke of a pen without reference to Parliament.

    We have Parliament for a reason. Shutting it down is not a good idea.
  • Tabman said:

    A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.

    And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.

    The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.

    That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.

    At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy.

    As far as I know we have had elections for quite a few years in the UK.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697

    GIN1138 said:

    I've not seen so many hostile thread headers about a PM since Broon The Doom was power.

    Takes me back to the "smiling Daves" and "grumpy Gords"

    How innocent we all were then! :D

    Mike was right then.

    Labour people were saying Brown was going to win Labour the next election and Mike said no way.

    Still astonishing one of Mike’s acquaintances bought Lab seats at circa 380 in the summer of 2007.
    Mike's had his wins and his losses... Haven't we all. :D
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited August 2019

    Scott_P said:
    A pause for one whole day!?

    OMG this changes everything! How could we have been so blind as to lead to a one day pause in production! I'm sorry everyone, oh so sorry. I was wrong, very wrong, I never realised we would lose an ENTIRE DAY of production. What can we do to prevent this!?
    REVOKE ARTICLE 50 IMMEDIATELY
  • Its the Overton Window in action.

    I am still convinced, like the Brady Amendment, a revised deal will be sufficient.
  • Tabman said:

    A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.

    And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.

    The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.

    That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.

    At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy.

    As far as I know we have had elections for quite a few years in the UK.

    Indeed, including elections to the European Parliament to change EU laws that we are subject to yes?
  • Scott_P said:
    Why post such a non story. Are you that desperate

    We need sensible debate not nonsense like this
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Scott_P said:
    @Sam -- ask Boris what a good deal might actually look like. What does he want from Brussels? What is he asking for?
    Good question. So far we've had (I'm sure) at least 20 answers about what our relationship will be with the EU as a whole and about as many specifically related to N Ireland.

    And it was the Kippers, Leavers and Bastards idea in the first place.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Scott_P said:
    @Sam -- ask Boris what a good deal might actually look like. What does he want from Brussels? What is he asking for?
    I'll answer (Not for @Sam, he'll have his own ideas)

    One area Johnson can compromise on is Freedom of movement. A public information campaign to make it clear that blockading the dinghies attempting to cross the Channel is completely congruent with freedom of movement for our European friends and neighbours should work well.
    We can even implement it back as we always could have done whilst in the EU as freedom of movement of LABOUR. It's a question plenty of leave voters answered on the paper rather than the one they thought they were answering.

    I accept those who voted leave so as to not be undercut by European workers won't be that happy with this change but you can't please everyone.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited August 2019

    Scott_P said:
    Why post such a non story. Are you that desperate

    We need sensible debate not nonsense like this
    Maybe Scott saw the headline and thought Toyota was pulling the plug permanantly? ;)
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477

    ab195 said:

    There’s something in that, but on the other hand polling a members only election is tricky, as is modelling a London election. A decent hunch might be that he’s not a man to secure too many second preferences, which is less relevant in a GE but I’m guessing we’re all pricing in a lot of tactical voting against him.

    Second preferences in FPTP is known as tactical voting.
    Like I said, in my post. We’ve all priced that in. The problem for remain based tactical voting of course, is Corbyn.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    GIN1138 said:

    I've not seen so many hostile thread headers about a PM since Broon The Doom was in power.

    Takes me back to the "smiling Daves" and "grumpy Gords"

    How innocent we all were then! :D

    As a fan of Grumpy Gord I have to say OGH was ultimately vindicated on that one, the voters failed to appreciate his wonderfulness.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Scott_P said:
    A pause for one whole day!?

    OMG this changes everything! How could we have been so blind as to lead to a one day pause in production! I'm sorry everyone, oh so sorry. I was wrong, very wrong, I never realised we would lose an ENTIRE DAY of production. What can we do to prevent this!?
    Go to the courts to see if it is legal for Toyota to prorogue for a day?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981

    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?

    How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.

    But apparently not :open_mouth:
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477

    So why did he vote for the Brady amendment?

    These Leavers will never be satisfied.
    He seems to be suggesting he’s against the idea of any sort of transition period, not this withdrawal agreement. He and others should be questioned and tested on that basis by the media. It’s a man position to take.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    edited August 2019
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    ab195 said:


    Like I said, in my post. We’ve all priced that in. The problem for remain based tactical voting of course, is Corbyn.

    Maybe just me but as a Corbyn-hostile Remainiac I have to say I'm finally coming around. Boris is looking genuinely dangerous - imagine if Trump was clever - and Corbyn basically fine in comparison. Once the hurdle is lowered to any functioning human who will mostly follow the constitution, Corbyn probably clears it.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    FPT:
    F1: ha. My Albon tip was eight-hundredths off being green.

    Humbug.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Maybe just me but as a Corbyn-hostile Remainiac I have to say I'm finally coming around. Boris is looking genuinely dangerous - imagine if Trump was clever - and Corbyn basically fine in comparison. Once the hurdle is lowered to any functioning human who will mostly follow the constitution, Corbyn probably clears it.

    Corbyn is potentially a dangerous lunatic.

    BoZo is definitely a dangerous lunatic.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Scott_P said:
    If what Gordon Brown means is that our EU friends will make it clear that an extension is likely to be granted if we request one, then I am sure that he is right.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    If Brown is correct are we still within the EU even if we stop paying any money toward it ?
  • Scott_P said:
    That's not the same thing at all as the EU changing the deadline, the deadline would still exist but they'd be saying we can extend if we want to - except we've already said we don't.
  • Scott_P said:
    The EU has already proved extraordinarily flexible considering we left the club and not the other way round. This extension would however make it even more difficult to portray them as being difficult, although I expect the Borisograph will have a good try.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    I almost wish this was Farage so it would get more publicity! What a shocker 🤣
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?

    How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.

    But apparently not :open_mouth:
    From that list, only Major and Brown were voted out in a GE.
  • The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?

    How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.

    But apparently not :open_mouth:
    What are you talking about?

    For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.

    For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
    The fstop-iso-shutter triangle has always been there - it's not something that's come along with digital and the white balance/tint/general temperature as found from the camera in Raw if unchanged I'd argue is... unedited.

    According to your definition there has never, ever been an unedited photo. Right back to “View from the Window at Le Gras.” every one has had an exposure time and focal length
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,861

    Tabman said:

    A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.

    And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.

    The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.

    That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.

    At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy.

    As far as I know we have had elections for quite a few years in the UK.

    Indeed, including elections to the European Parliament to change EU laws that we are subject to yes?
    you are allowed to vote for your local council and, shock horror, they can also pass bye-laws to which you are subject to.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
    The photographer who took the Sun picture said he hadn’t darkened it, the Times admitted they lightened theirs. Predictably people on here who only see what they want to see mistakenly criticised the Sun, with the result that they were left pointing at an undarkened picture of Gina Miller and saying she looked like an aborigine.

  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477

    ab195 said:


    Like I said, in my post. We’ve all priced that in. The problem for remain based tactical voting of course, is Corbyn.

    Maybe just me but as a Corbyn-hostile Remainiac I have to say I'm finally coming around. Boris is looking genuinely dangerous - imagine if Trump was clever - and Corbyn basically fine in comparison. Once the hurdle is lowered to any functioning human who will mostly follow the constitution, Corbyn probably clears it.
    I guess a lot depends on the question being asked. Can’t see Corbyn offering “rejoin”. That does make me think though - his strongest GE performance might actually be pre-Brexit (potentially even better than during a disruptive one). It must be a calculation his team is thinking about or Boris shifts and goes for a “will of the people” election.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    So why did he vote for the Brady amendment?

    These Leavers will never be satisfied.
    This is about positioning Boris as a moderate.
  • eristdoof said:

    Tabman said:

    A bit like how given the benefits that democracy (and sovereignty) give the UK we shouldn't compromise even if there is a limited amount of short term pain.

    And what exactly are those increased democratic (and sovereign) benefits? Please reference your answer to any supposed deficits now.

    The EU27 recognise that memberhsip of the SM provides economic benefits that mean that the departure of a member (who will incur far greater economic damage than the EU by its departure) will not drive them to compromise its integrity.

    That is completely the reverse to the UK, who is guaranteeing economic damage for some spurious notional soverignty benefit, that no-one on the leave side has outlined in any detail.
    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    Brexit is a specific example of this. Blair and Brown got elected pledging a referendum before accepting the EU Constitution - France and Netherlands voted down the Constitution and so they renamed it the Lisbon Treaty and it got rushed through without any pesky referendums with Blair and Brown reneging on their electoral promise as they knew they would lose a vote. At the next election Brown got turfed out and subsequently electoral pressure led to the EU referendum and the referendum resulted in a Leave vote. Democracy in action, Blair and Brown forcing through a dud against their manifesto and knowing it would be voted down had they honoured their manifesto resulted in this.

    At the next election if you're not happy with anything this government is doing, including Brexit even, you can seek to elect a new government with a new promise to change course yet again. That is the benefit of democracy.

    As far as I know we have had elections for quite a few years in the UK.

    Indeed, including elections to the European Parliament to change EU laws that we are subject to yes?
    you are allowed to vote for your local council and, shock horror, they can also pass bye-laws to which you are subject to.
    Yes indeed that's democracy.

    If I was still subject to bye-laws my local council was placing but stripped of my right to vote, as we would be under the backstop, then I would object to that. Wouldn't you?

    If my local council was abolished and a neighbouring council was given authority to pass bye-laws on a council level for what was my council instead but I couldn't vote for it and it was elected by the neighbouring council's voters I'd object to that too. Wouldn't you?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
    The Sun picture was pretty well as she appeared on TV the other day. I don't THINK TV pics of individuals can be manipulated in the same way as photos, at least not when there are several other people in the same picture. Think in those circs. one would have to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
  • Jonathan said:

    So why did he vote for the Brady amendment?

    These Leavers will never be satisfied.
    This is about positioning Boris as a moderate.
    Yes. He's moving the Overton Window.

    'Look at Boris, all he's demanding is a very reasonable moderate change to the "antidemocratic backstop" not all these other problems, no reason the EU shouldn't give it to him.'

    If the EU does, Parliament ratifies it, job done.

    If the EU doesn't, the EU was unreasonable in meeting our moderate demands, we move on, job done.
  • Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
    The Sun picture was pretty well as she appeared on TV the other day. I don't THINK TV pics of individuals can be manipulated in the same way as photos, at least not when there are several other people in the same picture. Think in those circs. one would have to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
    It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.

    The only reason people fell for the uproar is because then Gina Miller was unknown so people didn't know better and because it was "The S*n" and they have a dreadful reputation to live down to so it seemed believable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Jonathan said:

    So why did he vote for the Brady amendment?

    These Leavers will never be satisfied.
    This is about positioning Boris as a moderate.
    It half works, as next to Baker he is, even as he is not moderate on Brexit at all.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981

    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?

    How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.

    But apparently not :open_mouth:
    What are you talking about?

    For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.

    For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
    Well then, since we voted out govts we did not like whilst still in the EU, there is no gain from Brexit in that respect.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    Is it possible to recall an MP for being a colossal knob?

    https://twitter.com/DavidTCDavies/status/1167343239822790656
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
    The Sun picture was pretty well as she appeared on TV the other day. I don't THINK TV pics of individuals can be manipulated in the same way as photos, at least not when there are several other people in the same picture. Think in those circs. one would have to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
    It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.

    The only reason people fell for the uproar is because then Gina Miller was unknown so people didn't know better and because it was "The S*n" and they have a dreadful reputation to live down to so it seemed believable.
    Think cricket in poor light on TV. Plenty of scope for whole image enhancement.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    ab195 said:


    I guess a lot depends on the question being asked. Can’t see Corbyn offering “rejoin”. That does make me think though - his strongest GE performance might actually be pre-Brexit (potentially even better than during a disruptive one). It must be a calculation his team is thinking about or Boris shifts and goes for a “will of the people” election.

    Oh, you're talking about after brexit already happened? That's a whole new ballgame.
  • philiph said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
    The Sun picture was pretty well as she appeared on TV the other day. I don't THINK TV pics of individuals can be manipulated in the same way as photos, at least not when there are several other people in the same picture. Think in those circs. one would have to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
    It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.

    The only reason people fell for the uproar is because then Gina Miller was unknown so people didn't know better and because it was "The S*n" and they have a dreadful reputation to live down to so it seemed believable.
    Think cricket in poor light on TV. Plenty of scope for whole image enhancement.
    Indeed but OKC was [I think] asking about enchancing an individual not the whole image. It can be done, indeed you could change a video where an individual morphs into Christopher Walken if you so desired, but I don't think it would be done for TV news.
  • ab195ab195 Posts: 477

    Is it possible to recall an MP for being a colossal knob?

    https://twitter.com/DavidTCDavies/status/1167343239822790656

    If it was, would he have lasted his first six months?
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046

    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?

    How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.

    But apparently not :open_mouth:
    What are you talking about?

    For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.

    For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
    Oh ... the "backstop".

    This is something brought about because of two things that cannot happen at the same time, being 1) a hard border in Ireland (GFA) and 2) frictionless trade. Things not thought about by Brexiters.

    The other solution would have been a customs border in the Irish Sea but again, this was a red line brought about by May having an election and being beholden to the DUP to stay in office.

    The Backstop is the only viable solution to meet UK red lines.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
    The Sun picture was pretty well as she appeared on TV the other day. I don't THINK TV pics of individuals can be manipulated in the same way as photos, at least not when there are several other people in the same picture. Think in those circs. one would have to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
    It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.

    The only reason people fell for the uproar is because then Gina Miller was unknown so people didn't know better and because it was "The S*n" and they have a dreadful reputation to live down to so it seemed believable.
    Agree; must admit I was a little surprised when I saw her in the (TV) flesh as clearly other papers have done the same thing as the Times.

    Suspect that you are right, and it's technically possible to lighten a TV image, but can't see how one could do it in a live interview. I suppose if the producer instructed one camera to be focussed on her all the time, and all the others to keep her out of shot
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
    The fstop-iso-shutter triangle has always been there - it's not something that's come along with digital and the white balance/tint/general temperature as found from the camera in Raw if unchanged I'd argue is... unedited.

    According to your definition there has never, ever been an unedited photo. Right back to “View from the Window at Le Gras.” every one has had an exposure time and focal length
    the white balance/tint/general temperature as found from the camera in Raw

    That seems to be a misconception of what a RAW file is. To get any image from a RAW file requires some processing, and you certainly don't find any of those things from the file.

    Without getting into a debate about technical detail, it is entirely true that any reproduced image (whether printed or onscreen) involves a set of decisions on how it is presented, even if made inadvertently.

    My point wasn't any sort of criticism of either publication, simply a statement of fact.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    eristdoof said:

    The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?

    How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.

    But apparently not :open_mouth:
    From that list, only Major and Brown were voted out in a GE.
    Fair enough, but they all could have been voted out. EU membership did not stop that.

    An oft-quoted defense of Brexit is that we could vote out govts we do not like. It is baloney. We always have done so.
  • The benefits are that when our politicians f**k up and do something we're not happy with then we can vote them out and elect politicians who will change course.

    So - you are claiming that Mrs Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron are all still in office and kept there by the EU?

    How peculiar... I thought they did things we were not happy with and we voted them out.

    But apparently not :open_mouth:
    What are you talking about?

    For one thing we never voted out Thatcher, Blair or Cameron, or May for that matter.

    For another yes we did vote out Major and Brown and subsequent governments have reversed some of Major and Brown's laws [and some laws by earlier PMs we didn't even vote out]. That is democracy in action and that is why it is valuable and should not be thrown away by entering into a backstop where we are subject to another countries laws without any representatives to change those laws.
    Well then, since we voted out govts we did not like whilst still in the EU, there is no gain from Brexit in that respect.
    Re-read this particular chain of comments as you seem to have missed the context of this thread, I'm not talking about domestic legislation, I'm talking about the backstop post-Brexit.

    I've never denied we could elect MEPs while in the EU. We can't in the backstop though. Though as the UK alone we couldn't reverse EU laws unilaterally as part of the EU but that's a whole different conversation.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870

    Suspect that you are right, and it's technically possible to lighten a TV image, but can't see how one could do it in a live interview. I suppose if the producer instructed one camera to be focussed on her all the time, and all the others to keep her out of shot

    It's just a matter of computing resources. If you look into the whole "deepfakes" thing you'll see what video trickery is possible. Whether it's possible live (or within the usual delay that counts as "live") depends on how much CPU power you throw at it.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    There is no such thing as an unedited digital image.

    Not strictly true, though I doubt an uncropped raw has ever made it straight to a front page unedited in the age of digital imagery.
    It is strictly true, since setting for white balance, exposure etc are choices that have to be made, even in converting a RAW (or JPEG) file into either a printing or web display format without any attempt to significantly manipulate it.

    And, of course, even the recording of the image onto the camera involves choices.

    As you'll see from the previous thread, I posted a link to a picture of her alongside another individual, which gives at least some reference to how she might look in the flesh.
    Looked to me (FWIW) as though the Sun and Times made choices in opposite directions on how to edit the file. Not that one can infer any particular intent from those choices.
    The Sun picture was pretty well as she appeared on TV the other day. I don't THINK TV pics of individuals can be manipulated in the same way as photos, at least not when there are several other people in the same picture. Think in those circs. one would have to lighten/darken everything, but could be wrong.
    It can [I think] be done but it isn't easy and simply wouldn't be done.

    The only reason people fell for the uproar is because then Gina Miller was unknown so people didn't know better and because it was "The S*n" and they have a dreadful reputation to live down to so it seemed believable.
    Agree; must admit I was a little surprised when I saw her in the (TV) flesh as clearly other papers have done the same thing as the Times.

    Suspect that you are right, and it's technically possible to lighten a TV image, but can't see how one could do it in a live interview. I suppose if the producer instructed one camera to be focussed on her all the time, and all the others to keep her out of shot
    Different lighting on different subjects in the studio?
This discussion has been closed.