Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The one way for LAB to close down it’s antisemitism crisis is

124

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    1 down.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    viewcode said:

    Andrew said:


    Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...

    That's probably dictated by the insane production cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger. Certainly a good incentive not to let the story sprawl :-)

    You only have to look at the trailers for an indication of the crazy amount of money they spend.
    I have to go work, but I need to point out that there is an argument that Netflix is in financial trouble. It is burning through a shit-ton of cash in an attempt to capture the whole market but that model doesn't always work. See http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/03/blind-item-8-details-details-mr-hedge.html
    Westworld is hbo...
    I thought the thread was still referring to "The Crown": my bad, apols.

    Now to work... :(
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    DavidL said:

    This is not going to help consumption/growth in the next few quarters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-43587882/why-your-pay-packet-could-soon-get-a-little-bit-smaller

    Just when we get real wage increases again we find an extra cost that will keep spending down.

    We do still have an unsustainable trade deficit, we do need to restrain consumption, we do need to save and invest more as a nation, we do need to improve our production but damn, the timing is unfortunate.

    This is why opting out should not be allowed. The woman in the video says she might have to travel less. That is not a valid reason not to contribute to a pension that should protect you from poverty in old age, when you don’t have the human capital left to improve your situation.

    We need to consume less and produce more. Contributing an extra 2% of income to pensions is not blood, sweat and tears.

    Consume less indeed. It’s fine for those with above average incomes, but for the Just About Managing that’s up there with, as was remarked the other day ‘let them eat cake!’
    And as for those on zero hours contracts in the gig economy, it’s tantamount to an invitation to revolution!
    We’re talking about giving up one year’s disposable income growth, which is already near its record high, in exchange for greater security in old age.

    Zero-hours contracts represent 3% of the labour force. Britain is not a nation of starving day labourers, whatever the Labour Party and its acolytes say.

    Could we be wealthier? Of course. Will we be wealthier by constantly putting short-term needs ahead of the long term? Absolutely not.
    Totally agree about the desirability of greater security in old age. Very glad that I saved for several pensions, as well as my last employer contributing to one.

    However, one of my family teaches in a quite deprived area. His school raised £20 for Sport Relief. Others in his ‘academy group’, in more affluent areas raised significantly more, all using the same programme. Further, another of my family, in a wealthy area, whose children went to a ‘wealthy’ primary school, commented that raising ‘only £200’ at charity event of that kind would be regarded as very poor.

    We are definitely not ‘all in it together'!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Nigelb said:

    I finished V. By Thomas Pynchon this week. Mr Dancer might enjoy that, though if he works out what the hell it’s about, he can let me know. I’m currently making my way through Through A Scanner Darkly by Philip K Dick, which is as disturbing a dark comic novel as I’ve ever read.

    The non-fiction book I’ve enjoyed most for a long while is 1491 by Charles C Mann.

    Did you also read his 1493 ?
    It’s in the pile to read. I’ve got a lot going on at the moment so reading is mainly work stuff at the moment.

    This week I’m mostly on holiday so I’m making up for lost time. I’m also trying to make an effort to read a bit more fiction (estate agents’ particulars don’t count). Inevitably that’s hit and miss - I finished Endymion by Dan Simmons this morning, which was fluent but unstimulating.
    Yes, kinda by the numbers. And lots of pages.

    Interesting SF... try China Mieville or Hannu Rajaniemi.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    Good point by Ganesh, who I often disagree with. The clue to Teresa's survival may be in his own words though. Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg. The party seems almost comically reliant on geriatric supporters and old Etonian pretenders.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Andrew said:


    Of course we all know the greatest show of the past few years, Westworld, is a perfect 10 x 1hr episodes...

    That's probably dictated by the insane production cost: $10m or so per episode, and that's only going to go north now as the stars demand pay rises, and the on-screen events get bigger and bigger. Certainly a good incentive not to let the story sprawl :-)

    You only have to look at the trailers for an indication of the crazy amount of money they spend.
    I have to go work, but I need to point out that there is an argument that Netflix is in financial trouble. It is burning through a shit-ton of cash in an attempt to capture the whole market but that model doesn't always work. See http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/03/blind-item-8-details-details-mr-hedge.html
    Westworld is hbo...
    I thought the thread was still referring to "The Crown": my bad, apols.

    Now to work... :(
    I think hbo is doing well, but I guess they need to find another massive money maker like tits and dragons in the next year or two.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I finished V. By Thomas Pynchon this week. Mr Dancer might enjoy that, though if he works out what the hell it’s about, he can let me know. I’m currently making my way through Through A Scanner Darkly by Philip K Dick, which is as disturbing a dark comic novel as I’ve ever read.

    The non-fiction book I’ve enjoyed most for a long while is 1491 by Charles C Mann.

    Did you also read his 1493 ?
    It’s in the pile to read. I’ve got a lot going on at the moment so reading is mainly work stuff at the moment.

    This week I’m mostly on holiday so I’m making up for lost time. I’m also trying to make an effort to read a bit more fiction (estate agents’ particulars don’t count). Inevitably that’s hit and miss - I finished Endymion by Dan Simmons this morning, which was fluent but unstimulating.
    Yes, kinda by the numbers. And lots of pages.

    Interesting SF... try China Mieville or Hannu Rajaniemi.
    A dramatisation of Mieville's 'The City and the City' starts on the BBC this week (I think BBC2 on Friday).
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    It will be interesting to hear Corbyn's response to Winnie Mandela's death.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    DavidL said:

    1 down.

    I thought we had a PB crossword at Christmas, not Easter?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    1 down.

    I thought we had a PB crossword at Christmas, not Easter?
    Just more evidence that I am indeed clueless!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    It will be interesting to hear Corbyn's response to Winnie Mandela's death.

    “A remarkable woman, famous for her necklaces.”
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Viewcode, clicked on one at random. An hour is looong video. Nevertheless, when I have a spot of idle time I'll give him a look.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. B, of his stuff, I've only read The Scar. It was interesting, but I did get the feeling (this was a while ago) that Mieville liked to show off he knew so many esoteric words.

    You wouldn't catch me acting like that. Except for the word 'tatterdemalion', of course, which is in almost every one of my books. But that's a subtle nod to Queen's Fairy Fella's Master Stroke, which makes it alright.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    That is jaw dropping. If that isn't hand waving away anti-Semitism I don't know what is.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Re: Charles, I don’t think Australia will last 5 minutes once he takes the throne.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    However, in later years her reputation became tainted legally and politically.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-43621112

    Well that is certainly one way of putting it....
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Pro_Rata said:

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    Anazina said:

    I guess it isn't snowing down south since no one has mentioned it, but we've had a couple of inches of wet snow in the Dales. Now turned to rain.

    Torrential rain. Why are northerners so obsessed with the weather “down South”?
    Because southern media is always wittering on about it being glorious sunshine , or flooding when they get some drizzle , or blizzards when they get a few flakes of snow. They usually just say its raining up North to finish.
    "its raining up North"

    Is that news?

    was sunny yesterday
    I have to say that I don't think today's snow is newsworthy in terms of disruption - Easter Monday, the usual selection of mountain passes and some problems in a small number of towns and high suburbs tight to the Pennines doesn't do it. Disruption should be king in news reporting.

    We've had a bad winter here, every main bit of snow going has affected West Yorkshire this time around (not usually so, the Vale of York and eastwards normally sees more than us), but to be fair to London, we do generally get a mention. The day the news just plain missed us was back in January when the whole county ground to a halt for about 8 hours one evening rush hour, but because BBC Scotland had been put in charge of the story, we were completely overlooked. London simply wouldn't have done that.
    BBC Scotland should not be allowed to be in charge of anything , they are rubbish.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Tories win Top Prize on the Ferret, biggest liars by a huge margin...............https://theferret.scot/ferret-fact-service-fact-checking-numbers/
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Saddo, most of the Labour tribal vote appears to be sticking with the party. And the majority of the membership is now of the Corbynista nutcase variety.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    That is superb.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,973
    rkrkrk said:

    That is superb.
    As a long time Woking supporter, this horrifies me (especially as we hurtle toward relegation)
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    edited April 2018
    g
  • Elliot said:

    That is jaw dropping. If that isn't hand waving away anti-Semitism I don't know what is.
    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/980797109464129536
  • g

    I refer you to my avatar.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    When people are so desperate for change, they will support anything. This is not just a UK phenomenon, look at the recent Italian election.

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    When people are so desperate for change, they will support anything. This is not just a UK phenomenon, look at the recent Italian election.

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
    I doubt they were voting for the loony lefty nonsense in the manifesto and beyond, more a case of a really bad campaign by May & what was considered a low risk of Corbyn winning.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534

    Mr. Saddo, most of the Labour tribal vote appears to be sticking with the party. And the majority of the membership is now of the Corbynista nutcase variety.

    Sticking for now, but after what will be years of layered substantial attacks on Corbyn on key areas a leader should be strong on eg defence, economy, patriotism, will they stay on side?

    Alongside that May will aim to build her mother of the nation status, getting on with the job.

    Of course if Brexit is a cluster fluck, anything can happen.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    saddo said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    When people are so desperate for change, they will support anything. This is not just a UK phenomenon, look at the recent Italian election.

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
    I doubt they were voting for the loony lefty nonsense in the manifesto and beyond, more a case of a really bad campaign by May & what was considered a low risk of Corbyn winning.
    Believe what you want to believe, but from abolishing tuition fees, to nationalising the railways there was widespread popular support according to polling, but also the actual GE.
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,282
    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

    I would have agreed with you on Corbyn's anti-semitism or lack thereof until recently even after he lied about his work with Paul Eisen. After all, he is not very intelligent and he is quite capable of making mistakes through naivety as much as malice.

    That defence comes to pieces over his comment on that mural. He clearly, deliberately supported the right of an anti-Semite to freedom of expression (which is allowed)on the basis that the Jews went round suppressing it (which is clearly prejudiced bollocks).

    He has a problem. It may not be serious, or even deliberate - it may be like Johnson's reflexive and unthinking racism in his journalism - but it's there. And that means he cannot with any moral authority criticise anyone else with racist views, including the very large number crawling it if the woodwork in Labour.

    The thread header is right - he has to go if Labour are to deal with the problem. But if he won't go for lying over his links to the Iranian government, or his support for the IRA or Hamas, or his wilful blindness to child sexual abuse in Islington, he won't go over this.
    It is an issue that has been blown out of proportion by people with a vested interest in discrediting Corbyn and the direction the Labour party is taking. Its continued domination of the airwaves will backfire on the Jewish community, particular at Easter time when Jews are perceived in an even more unfavourable light than the rest of the year. Corbyn and the Labour party leadership would best be advised to say nowt more on this matter; it is a red herring to most people. The neutral observer is likely to take the view that Corbyn is being picked on unfairly.

    Why are Corbyn's links with Iran/Hamas and Sinn Fein a problem any more than the Tory government's links to the Saudi/Zionist regimes and the DUP? Personally, I think that the UK should take a more neutral position. .
    So complaining about racism might 'backfire' on Jews. I'll call you what you are - a racist.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    saddo said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    When people are so desperate for change, they will support anything. This is not just a UK phenomenon, look at the recent Italian election.

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
    I doubt they were voting for the loony lefty nonsense in the manifesto and beyond, more a case of a really bad campaign by May & what was considered a low risk of Corbyn winning.
    If you think people weren't voting for the Labour manifesto, then why did the BES study of the 2017 election find that the public gave Labour the lead on "best policies" (while giving the Tories the lead on "best leader")?
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    MJW said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

    I would have agreed with you on Corbyn's anti-semitism or lack thereof until recently even after he lied about his work with Paul Eisen. After all, he is not very intelligent and he is quite capable of making mistakes through naivety as much as malice.

    That defence comes to pieces over his comment on that mural. He clearly, deliberately supported the right of an anti-Semite to freedom of expression (which is allowed)on the basis that the Jews went round suppressing it (which is clearly prejudiced bollocks).

    He has a problem. It may not be serious, or even deliberate - it may be like Johnson's reflexive and unthinking racism in his journalism - but it's there. And that means he cannot with any moral authority criticise anyone else with racist views, including the very large number crawling it if the woodwork in Labour.

    The thread header is right - he has to go if Labour are to deal with the problem. But if he won't go for lying over his links to the Iranian government, or his support for the IRA or Hamas, or his wilful blindness to child sexual abuse in Islington, he won't go over this.
    It is an issue that has been blown out of proportion by people with a vested interest in discrediting Corbyn and the direction the Labour party is taking. Its continued domination of the airwaves will backfire on the Jewish community, particular at Easter time when Jews are perceived in an even more unfavourable light than the rest of the year. Corbyn and the Labour party leadership would best be advised to say nowt more on this matter; it is a red herring to most people. The neutral observer is likely to take the view that Corbyn is being picked on unfairly.

    Why are Corbyn's links with Iran/Hamas and Sinn Fein a problem any more than the Tory government's links to the Saudi/Zionist regimes and the DUP? Personally, I think that the UK should take a more neutral position. .
    So complaining about racism might 'backfire' on Jews. I'll call you what you are - a racist.
    That is an unwarranted charge. I am not advocating discrimination, but merely pointing out (sadly) that people who make a fuss about it perversely often get blamed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Mr. B, of his stuff, I've only read The Scar. It was interesting, but I did get the feeling (this was a while ago) that Mieville liked to show off he knew so many esoteric words...

    Indeed - and genres, and worlds...
    But I get the impression he is a true lover of language and fiction, as well as just a bit of a show off.

    Embassytown and The City And The City are perhaps his most interesting works.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    When people are so desperate for change, they will support anything. This is not just a UK phenomenon, look at the recent Italian election.

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
    I doubt they were voting for the loony lefty nonsense in the manifesto and beyond, more a case of a really bad campaign by May & what was considered a low risk of Corbyn winning.
    Believe what you want to believe, but from abolishing tuition fees, to nationalising the railways there was widespread popular support according to polling, but also the actual GE.
    So says PB's foremost Lib Dem Corbynite! ;)

    I think you're both right in part: many factors led to Corbyn's relative success last year (and for that matter, May's increased votes). Corbyn had popular-sounding but empty policies, and was seen as a no-hoper. The Conservatives were complacent, had poorly-presented policies and attacked on the 'wrong' things. And the media concentrated on the government as Corbyn was such a no-hoper. Then you have the Lib Dems' failure to capitalise on the situation and the SNP's fall.

    These, and more, all played a part. We all pick the ones that best frame the political narrative we want to paint.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Re: Charles, I don’t think Australia will last 5 minutes once he takes the throne.

    You think they will hold out until then when they're three down?

    I admire your optimism!
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    edited April 2018
    daodao said:

    MJW said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

    I would have agreed with you on Corbyn's anti-semitism or lack thereof until recently even after he lied about his work with Paul Eisen. After all, he is not very intelligent and he is quite capable of making mistakes through naivety as much as malice.

    That defence comes to pieces over his comment on that mural. He clearly, deliberately supported the right of an anti-Semite to freedom of expression (which is allowed)on the basis that the Jews went round suppressing it (which is clearly prejudiced bollocks).

    It is an issue that has been blown out of proportion by people with a vested interest in discrediting Corbyn and the direction the Labour party is taking. Its continued domination of the airwaves will backfire on the Jewish community, particular at Easter time when Jews are perceived in an even more unfavourable light than the rest of the year. Corbyn and the Labour party leadership would best be advised to say nowt more on this matter; it is a red herring to most people. The neutral observer is likely to take the view that Corbyn is being picked on unfairly.

    Why are Corbyn's links with Iran/Hamas and Sinn Fein a problem any more than the Tory government's links to the Saudi/Zionist regimes and the DUP? Personally, I think that the UK should take a more neutral position. .
    .
    So complaining about racism might 'backfire' on Jews. I'll call you what you are - a racist.
    That is an unwarranted charge. I am not advocating discrimination, but merely pointing out (sadly) that people who make a fuss about it perversely often get blamed.
    I think the giveaway phrase was that apparently 'Jews are peceived in an even more unfavourable light' at Easter. Honestly, most of us like the Jews as much as anyone else - we really don't notice them as a separate group. The time of year has nothing to do with it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. B, aye, and I can't complain too much. I've mostly given up on making ridiculously obscure classical history references, but used to do it a bit. Still, if I'd continued I feared my time here would become as short as Numerian's reign.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    When people are so desperate for change, they will support anything. This is not just a UK phenomenon, look at the recent Italian election.

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
    I doubt they were voting for the loony lefty nonsense in the manifesto and beyond, more a case of a really bad campaign by May & what was considered a low risk of Corbyn winning.
    Believe what you want to believe, but from abolishing tuition fees, to nationalising the railways there was widespread popular support according to polling, but also the actual GE.
    So says PB's foremost Lib Dem Corbynite! ;)

    I think you're both right in part: many factors led to Corbyn's relative success last year (and for that matter, May's increased votes). Corbyn had popular-sounding but empty policies, and was seen as a no-hoper. The Conservatives were complacent, had poorly-presented policies and attacked on the 'wrong' things. And the media concentrated on the government as Corbyn was such a no-hoper. Then you have the Lib Dems' failure to capitalise on the situation and the SNP's fall.

    These, and more, all played a part. We all pick the ones that best frame the political narrative we want to paint.
    Against that, the Conservatives had the huge advantages of an initially popular leader still in her honeymoon period, the Brexit factor which pulled Labour Leave voters in the likes of Mansfield over, and a Labour ground campaign which wasn't efficiently distributed, with resources being piled into ultimately safe Labour seats rather than the some of the very vulnerable Tory-held marginals. All of which are advantages the Tories are unlikely to have next time.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    saddo said:

    Mr. Saddo, most of the Labour tribal vote appears to be sticking with the party. And the majority of the membership is now of the Corbynista nutcase variety.

    Sticking for now, but after what will be years of layered substantial attacks on Corbyn on key areas a leader should be strong on eg defence, economy, patriotism, will they stay on side?

    Alongside that May will aim to build her mother of the nation status, getting on with the job.

    Of course if Brexit is a cluster fluck, anything can happen.
    Trouble is they used the same attack lines on Milliband , defence , economy , patriotism marxist communist , They also added a dog whistle of ant -sentism in to , back stabber , looks strange .If you attack the soft left the same as the hard left , why should people differentiate.Every Labour leader is called a risk to the state never to be given a chance .Many people say we have heard it all before.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. City, he defeated his own brother. Pointing that out isn't anti-Semitic.

    I do agree, and partook in it myself [in my defence, I never thought the hard left would take over Labour], that attacks on Miliband's leftiness were overdone. That said, his commodity price freeze (amended to fixing) policy remains stupid, and is still stupid when May endorses it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    When people are so desperate for change, they will support anything. This is not just a UK phenomenon, look at the recent Italian election.

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
    I doubt they were voting for the loony lefty nonsense in the manifesto and beyond, more a case of a really bad campaign by May & what was considered a low risk of Corbyn winning.
    Believe what you want to believe, but from abolishing tuition fees, to nationalising the railways there was widespread popular support according to polling, but also the actual GE.
    So says PB's foremost Lib Dem Corbynite! ;)

    I think you're both right in part: many factors led to Corbyn's relative success last year (and for that matter, May's increased votes). Corbyn had popular-sounding but empty policies, and was seen as a no-hoper. The Conservatives were complacent, had poorly-presented policies and attacked on the 'wrong' things. And the media concentrated on the government as Corbyn was such a no-hoper. Then you have the Lib Dems' failure to capitalise on the situation and the SNP's fall.

    These, and more, all played a part. We all pick the ones that best frame the political narrative we want to paint.
    Against that, the Conservatives had the huge advantages of an initially popular leader still in her honeymoon period, the Brexit factor which pulled Labour Leave voters in the likes of Mansfield over, and a Labour ground campaign which wasn't efficiently distributed, with resources being piled into ultimately safe Labour seats rather than the some of the very vulnerable Tory-held marginals. All of which are advantages the Tories are unlikely to have next time.
    Possibly. Then again, if Brexit goes well (and I think we all, Europhobe or Europhile, have to hope it will) then there might be a big bonus for the government from that, yet alone any other events (e.g. Putin being a dick) that may occur.

    And we might see Labour split further (or totally) as sane, moderate Labour MPs grow a backbone.

    IMO I'm with RCS on this (I think): the thing that will most shape the next GE is the economy; any recession between now and then will be a killer blow to the government.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Israel has cancelled plans to deport migrants en masse to Africa after reaching a deal with the United Nations refugee agency.

    More than 16,000 asylum seekers will instead be resettled in Western countries, including Canada, Italy and Germany, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    About 16,000 others will be given residency in Israel, he said.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43619833
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    edited April 2018
    Cookie said:

    daodao said:

    MJW said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

    I would have agreed with you on Corbyn's anti-semitism or lack thereof until recently even after he lied about his work with Paul Eisen. After all, he is not very intelligent and he is quite capable of making mistakes through naivety as much as malice.

    That defence comes to pieces over his comment on that mural. He clearly, deliberately supported the right of an anti-Semite to freedom of expression (which is allowed)on the basis that the Jews went round suppressing it (which is clearly prejudiced bollocks).

    He has a problem. It may not be serious, or even deliberate - it may be like Johnson's reflexive and unthinking racism in his journalism - but it's there. And that means he cannot with any moral authority criticise anyone else with racist views, including the very large number crawling it if the woodwork in Labour.

    The thread header is right - he has to go if Labour are to deal with the problem. But if he won't go for lying over his links to the Iranian government, or his support for the IRA or Hamas, or his wilful blindness to child sexual abuse in Islington, he won't go over this.
    .
    So complaining about racism might 'backfire' on Jews. I'll call you what you are - a racist.
    That is an unwarranted charge. I am not advocating discrimination, but merely pointing out (sadly) that people who make a fuss about it perversely often get blamed.
    I think the giveaway phrase was that apparently 'Jews are peceived in an even more unfavourable light' at Easter. Honestly, most of us like the Jews as much as anyone else - we really don't notice them as a separate group. The time of year has nothing to do with it.
    Unfortunately, Christianity is inherently antisemitic, in part arising from the Easter myth. England invented the blood libel.

    Contrary to your experience, my observation is that Jews (and also Muslims in this country) are disliked by many people, but sotto voce, even more so now as it is non-PC. That is why this issue dominating the headlines is not good for Jews, whatever the rights or wrongs. It is better if they are not noticed as a separate group.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    MJW said:

    daodao said:

    ydoethur said:

    If your priority is to prevent a Tory government Labour is your only choice in almost all of England and much of Wales. I don’t believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. It’s more that he has never repudiated the anti-Semites he has actively campaigned with for decades and now that he is in charge they are swarming into the Labour party, emboldened and gunning for power. Most voters don’t see this because, quite understandably, they are not paying attention. Enough do, though, to ensure Labour will never win with him as leader.

    I would have agreed with you on Corbyn's anti-semitism or lack thereof until recently even after he lied about his work with Paul Eisen. After all, he is not very intelligent and he is quite capable of making mistakes through naivety as much as malice.

    That defence comes to pieces over his comment on that mural. He clearly, deliberately supported the right of an anti-Semite to freedom of expression (which is allowed)on the basis that the Jews went round suppressing it (which is clearly prejudiced bollocks).

    He has a problem. It may not be serious, or even deliberate - it may be like Johnson's reflexive and unthinking racism in his journalism - but it's there. And that means he cannot with any moral authority criticise anyone else with racist views, including the very large number crawling it if the woodwork in Labour.

    The thread header is right - he has to go if Labour are to deal with the problem. But if he won't go for lying over his links to the Iranian government, or his support for the IRA or Hamas, or his wilful blindness to child sexual abuse in Islington, he won't go over this.
    It is an issue that has been blown out of proportion by people with a vested interest in discrediting Corbyn and the direction the Labour party is taking. Its continued domination of the airwaves will backfire on the Jewish community, particular at Easter time when Jews are perceived in an even more unfavourable light than the rest of the year. Corbyn and the Labour party leadership would best be advised to say nowt more on this matter; it is a red herring to most people. The neutral observer is likely to take the view that Corbyn is being picked on unfairly.

    Why are Corbyn's links with Iran/Hamas and Sinn Fein a problem any more than the Tory government's links to the Saudi/Zionist regimes and the DUP? Personally, I think that the UK should take a more neutral position. .
    So complaining about racism might 'backfire' on Jews. I'll call you what you are - a racist.
    I'm glad someone else has picked up on this. It is a disgusting statement.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    daodao said:

    Unfortunately, Christianity is inherently antisemitic, in part arising from the Easter myth. Contrary to your experience, my observation is that Jews (and also Muslims in this country) are disliked by many people, but sotto voce, even more so now as it is non-PC. That is why this issue dominating the headlines is not good for Jews, whatever the rights or wrongs. It is better if they are not noticed as a separate group.


    Jesus. Founder of Christianity. Was a Jew.

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    edited April 2018
    Morris , he did .However they went for how he looked a lot.One morning I heard Humphries on radio ,4 ask Ed if he was to ugly to be PM .I thought then this was crazy.On most occasions the media could not even get his name correct , calling him David.The back stabber theme was used for other purposes in that he was not to be trusted.He stood against his brother in a democratic leadership contest .Also the Ed is crap was a running theme on here.So all this we want a soft left opposition , spoken on here, I take with a large pinch of salt .To be fair , I never thought the hard left would ever win a leadership contest either.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    When people are so desperate for change, they will support anything. This is not just a UK phenomenon, look at the recent Italian election.

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
    I doubt they were voting for the loony lefty nonsense in the manifesto and beyond, more a case of a really bad campaign by May & what was considered a low risk of Corbyn winning.
    Believe what you want to believe, but from abolishing tuition fees, to nationalising the railways there was widespread popular support according to polling, but also the actual GE.
    So says PB's foremost Lib Dem Corbynite! ;)

    I think you're both right in part: many factors led to Corbyn's relative success last year (and for that matter, May's increased votes). Corbyn had popular-sounding but empty policies, and was seen as a no-hoper. The Conservatives were complacent, had poorly-presented policies and attacked on the 'wrong' things. And the media concentrated on the government as Corbyn was such a no-hoper. Then you have the Lib Dems' failure to capitalise on the situation and the SNP's fall.

    These, and more, all played a part. We all pick the ones that best frame the political narrative we want to paint.
    Against that, the Conservatives had the huge advantages of an initially popular leader still in her honeme.
    Possibly. Then again, if Brexit goes well (and I think we all, Europhobe or Europhile, have to hope it will) then there might be a big bonus for the government from that, yet alone any other events (e.g. Putin being a dick) that may occur.

    And we might see Labour split further (or totally) as sane, moderate Labour MPs grow a backbone.

    IMO I'm with RCS on this (I think): the thing that will most shape the next GE is the economy; any recession between now and then will be a killer blow to the government.
    Not necessarily, the Tory voteshare in 1992 was just 0.3% down from its 1987 total despite a recession because the voters just could not stomach Kinnock as PM. They had first made that clear in 1987 and 1992 settled the matter. In 2022 Corbyn will also be attempting to win on his second attempt
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    daodao said:

    Unfortunately, Christianity is inherently antisemitic, in part arising from the Easter myth. Contrary to your experience, my observation is that Jews (and also Muslims in this country) are disliked by many people, but sotto voce, even more so now as it is non-PC. That is why this issue dominating the headlines is not good for Jews, whatever the rights or wrongs. It is better if they are not noticed as a separate group.


    Jesus. Founder of Christianity. Was a Jew.

    I wouldn't bother confusing him with facts. Daodao has some difficulty with facts that don't fit his(?) views. I did explain some historical matters relating to religious and scientific antisemitism to him a week ago, including how Christian and Islamic antisemitism was roughly comparable despite the New Atheist tropes on the subject, but he wasn't appreciative.

    I'm only glad I didn't go into the persistent papal bulls condemning anti-Semitism, the record of Stalin's avowedly atheist regime or Hitler's comments that he only became an anti-Semite after he ceased to be a Christian. That really would have set cats among pigeons...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Yorkcity said:

    Morris , he did .However they went for how he looked a lot.One morning I heard Humphries on radio ,4 ask Ed if he was to ugly to be PM .I thought then this was crazy.On most occasions the media could not even get his name correct , calling him David.The back stabber theme was used for other purposes in that he was not to be trusted.He stood against his brother in a democratic leadership contest .Also the Ed is crap was a running theme on here.So all this we want a soft left opposition , spoken on here, I take with a large pinch of salt .

    Looks like your space bar is on the blink. :o
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Yorkcity said:

    Morris , he did .However they went for how he looked a lot.One morning I heard Humphries on radio ,4 ask Ed if he was to ugly to be PM .I thought then this was crazy.On most occasions the media could not even get his name correct , calling him David.The back stabber theme was used for other purposes in that he was not to be trusted.He stood against his brother in a democratic leadership contest .Also the Ed is crap was a running theme on here.So all this we want a soft left opposition , spoken on here, I take with a large pinch of salt .

    "Ed is crap was a running theme on here."

    Well, that running theme was correct. He was cr@p. Forget the last GE; the Edstone debacle shows how not to run a GE campaign.

    Part of his problem is that in 2015 Labour had to be seen as a government-in-waiting and therefore had to be at least a little realistic. Coming into the 2017 GE, Labour under Corbyn were seen as no-hopers and were therefore not held to the same standard. Why bother questioning policies when they'll have no chance of being implemented, and there was so much easier stuff to attack him on?

    That's not to say they had it easy, but the campaigns would have been very different if the media had seen Corbyn as a likely next PM.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Yorkcity said:

    Morris , he did .However they went for how he looked a lot.One morning I heard Humphries on radio ,4 ask Ed if he was to ugly to be PM .I thought then this was crazy.On most occasions the media could not even get his name correct , calling him David.The back stabber theme was used for other purposes in that he was not to be trusted.He stood against his brother in a democratic leadership contest .Also the Ed is crap was a running theme on here.So all this we want a soft left opposition , spoken on here, I take with a large pinch of salt .

    I have never quite understood why people think David Miliband was somehow robbed of the leadership by his brother.

    Ed was no Gaitskell, but he was clearly the best candidate available in 2010. He had imagination, flair and an ability to make decisions.

    He wasn't very good at communicating them and he was also strategically inept, but his brother was those as well and he wouldn't have had the ideas in the first place.

    The real irony of course is that May is now implementing many of the things he asked for.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Sean_F said:

    Mr. kle4, isn't Bristol a very Green city? If so, it'd suggest there's a strong pool of far left persons who may be swayed by daft ideas.

    Mr. Eagles, cheers for that answer (as you may've gathered, this isn't my area). Not a single BBC series amongst them...

    Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, buying the biography of a living person is not something I would do (except as a present for another).

    It is very useful to know about the man who will soon be ruling us.

    If he can betray his wife, what's to stop him from betraying us?
    I doubt if he'll betray us. But, all the evidence is that he is very selfish, very self-pitying, and totally lacking in self-awareness.
    He's going to do wonders for the republican movement, I suspect he'll fracture the Commonwealth as well. Take back control from unelected foreign rulers might be a useful slogan in plebiscites on removing the British monarch as head of state across the Commonwealth.
    Not necessarily, Prince Charles has an approval rating of 47% which is higher than both May and Corbyn's approval ratings.

    While Charles comes nowhere near the stratospheric approval rating of Prince William and Prince Harry at 81% each or the Queen at 80% his approval rating is fine for the next King, especially as his highest support comes from pensioners and as he is over 65 anyway he will only live as long as they do
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/11/29/5-charts-british-reaction-prince-harrys-engagement/
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    daodao said:

    Unfortunately, Christianity is inherently antisemitic, in part arising from the Easter myth. Contrary to your experience, my observation is that Jews (and also Muslims in this country) are disliked by many people, but sotto voce, even more so now as it is non-PC. That is why this issue dominating the headlines is not good for Jews, whatever the rights or wrongs. It is better if they are not noticed as a separate group.


    Jesus. Founder of Christianity. Was a Jew.

    And we have absolutely cracking evidence for the blood libel for a millennium and a half before the first occurrence in England. And the 381 revision of the Nicene creed (pretty much Christianity's founding Constitution) allocates blame as follows: "he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father." Pontius Pilate was not a Jew. It isn't difficult to verify this sort of stuff before posting about it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. City, pointing out that someone who was a bit crap is a bit crap isn't anti-Semitic.

    The only time Miliband's Jewishness became an issue was when he himself raised it to, wrongly, assert he'd either be the first Jewish PM (it was Disraeli) if he won or was the first Jewish leader of a major party (Disraeli again, and Howard too). And that's a simple matter of historical accuracy.

    Was there any problem with Cameron being part of an anti-Semitic Facebook group (or three)? Did he praise an anti-Semitic mural? Did he have Jews marching en mass to protest against him?

    Pish to your arguments, sir. Pish!
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    RobD said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Morris , he did .However they went for how he looked a lot.One morning I heard Humphries on radio ,4 ask Ed if he was to ugly to be PM .I thought then this was crazy.On most occasions the media could not even get his name correct , calling him David.The back stabber theme was used for other purposes in that he was not to be trusted.He stood against his brother in a democratic leadership contest .Also the Ed is crap was a running theme on here.So all this we want a soft left opposition , spoken on here, I take with a large pinch of salt .

    Looks like your space bar is on the blink. :o
    Apologies , it is this crap tablet.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Yorkcity said:

    Morris , he did .However they went for how he looked a lot.One morning I heard Humphries on radio ,4 ask Ed if he was to ugly to be PM .I thought then this was crazy.On most occasions the media could not even get his name correct , calling him David.The back stabber theme was used for other purposes in that he was not to be trusted.He stood against his brother in a democratic leadership contest .Also the Ed is crap was a running theme on here.So all this we want a soft left opposition , spoken on here, I take with a large pinch of salt .

    "Ed is crap was a running theme on here."

    Well, that running theme was correct. He was cr@p. Forget the last GE; the Edstone debacle shows how not to run a GE campaign.

    Part of his problem is that in 2015 Labour had to be seen as a government-in-waiting and therefore had to be at least a little realistic. Coming into the 2017 GE, Labour under Corbyn were seen as no-hopers and were therefore not held to the same standard. Why bother questioning policies when they'll have no chance of being implemented, and there was so much easier stuff to attack him on?

    That's not to say they had it easy, but the campaigns would have been very different if the media had seen Corbyn as a likely next PM.
    I would not say crap , definetley second rate .

    To be honest in every GE , I can remember the general public , have come up with the correct result.

    Even though I might not have liked it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    When people are so desperate for change, they will support anything. This is not just a UK phenomenon, look at the recent Italian election.

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
    I doubt they were voting for the loony lefty nonsense in the manifesto and beyond, more a case of a really bad campaign by May & what was considered a low risk of Corbyn winning.
    Believe what you want to believe, but from abolishing tuition fees, to nationalising the railways there was widespread popular support according to polling, but also the actual GE.
    So says PB's foremost Lib

    These, and more, all played a part. We all pick the ones that best frame the political narrative we want to paint.
    Against that, the Conservatives had the huge advantages of an initially popular leader still in her honeymoon period, the Brexit factor which pulled Labour Leave voters in the likes of Mansfield over, and a Labour ground campaign which wasn't efficiently distributed, with resources being piled into ultimately safe Labour seats rather than the some of the very vulnerable Tory-held marginals. All of which are advantages the Tories are unlikely to have next time.
    Possibly. Then again, if Brexit goes well (and I think we all, Europhobe or Europhile, have to hope it will) then there might be a big bonus for the government from that, yet alone any other events (e.g. Putin being a dick) that may occur.

    And we might see Labour split further (or totally) as sane, moderate Labour MPs grow a backbone.

    IMO I'm with RCS on this (I think): the thing that will most shape the next GE is the economy; any recession between now and then will be a killer blow to the government.
    On the economy, I think the opposite.

    Part of New Labours appeal in 1997, was that the economy had picked up and there was a need to rebuild public services. When the economy is doing well, the calls to spend are harder to resist. A strongly growing economy may well play into Corbyn's message.

    I suspect that we will be dragged along in the wake of the strong worldwide growth, at the back of the convoy, but growing. Perhaps the biggest threats are Trump's trade war and Trump overheating the US economy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Ishmael_Z said:

    daodao said:

    Unfortunately, Christianity is inherently antisemitic, in part arising from the Easter myth. Contrary to your experience, my observation is that Jews (and also Muslims in this country) are disliked by many people, but sotto voce, even more so now as it is non-PC. That is why this issue dominating the headlines is not good for Jews, whatever the rights or wrongs. It is better if they are not noticed as a separate group.


    Jesus. Founder of Christianity. Was a Jew.

    And we have absolutely cracking evidence for the blood libel for a millennium and a half before the first occurrence in England. And the 381 revision of the Nicene creed (pretty much Christianity's founding Constitution) allocates blame as follows: "he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father." Pontius Pilate was not a Jew. It isn't difficult to verify this sort of stuff before posting about it.
    It is of interest to see the perception of all this in among non-Jewish, non-Muslim minority groups. Among those I know, it seems to be taken (from a wide range of backgrounds) that Corbyn et al are after the Muslim vote. A couple of Hindus of my acquaintance suggested that he was "doing a George Galloway".

    I don't believe he is, but that is their perception.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881



    Was there any problem with Cameron being part of an anti-Semitic Facebook group (or three)? Did he praise an anti-Semitic mural? Did he have Jews marching en mass to protest against him?

    Cameron supported Goldsmith's Islamophobic campaign for mayor - and used PMQs and his parliamentary protection to smear a Muslim individual as supporting daesh, who somewhat ironically turned out to be a conservative voter.

    I don't think Cameron actually was Islamophobic/prejudiced against Muslims, just happy to pander to try and win the mayoral election.

    By contrast Corbyn has joined some facebook groups where other people have said anti-semitic things, and said an anti-semitic mural should not be taken down.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    Wall street sneezing.

    https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/980841057498910722

    Obama's fault nae doot.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    Mr. City, pointing out that someone who was a bit crap is a bit crap isn't anti-Semitic.

    The only time Miliband's Jewishness became an issue was when he himself raised it to, wrongly, assert he'd either be the first Jewish PM (it was Disraeli) if he won or was the first Jewish leader of a major party (Disraeli again, and Howard too). And that's a simple matter of historical accuracy.

    Was there any problem with Cameron being part of an anti-Semitic Facebook group (or three)? Did he praise an anti-Semitic mural? Did he have Jews marching en mass to protest against him?

    Pish to your arguments, sir. Pish!

    Morris I never said it was The attack on how he looked , the back stabbing accusations , and not to be trusted were the dog whistles.Thought most people would see that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Ishmael_Z said:

    daodao said:

    Unfortunately, Christianity is inherently antisemitic, in part arising from the Easter myth. Contrary to your experience, my observation is that Jews (and also Muslims in this country) are disliked by many people, but sotto voce, even more so now as it is non-PC. That is why this issue dominating the headlines is not good for Jews, whatever the rights or wrongs. It is better if they are not noticed as a separate group.


    Jesus. Founder of Christianity. Was a Jew.

    And we have absolutely cracking evidence for the blood libel for a millennium and a half before the first occurrence in England. And the 381 revision of the Nicene creed (pretty much Christianity's founding Constitution) allocates blame as follows: "he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father." Pontius Pilate was not a Jew. It isn't difficult to verify this sort of stuff before posting about it.
    Quite obviously it was the Romans who crucified Jesus, albeit at the behest of the Jews.

    Early Christians were a bit more anti-Roman, but after Constantine, the Catholic Church in particular found that blaming Romans rather impolitic.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    Which is the flip side of the enthusiastic installation of black boxes into all kinds of vehicles. The NTSB is thinking in terms of aircraft black boxes - which are seen as (almost) being the property of accident investigators. On the other side you have companies who see no advantage in not releasing data from systems they own, when they are being accused of something.

    If you own a car which has such tech in it, check the T&Cs - you will find the data the car stores or transmits back to the manufacturer is legally theirs, generally.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    ydoethur said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Morris , he did .However they went for how he looked a lot.One morning I heard Humphries on radio ,4 ask Ed if he was to ugly to be PM .I thought then this was crazy.On most occasions the media could not even get his name correct , calling him David.The back stabber theme was used for other purposes in that he was not to be trusted.He stood against his brother in a democratic leadership contest .Also the Ed is crap was a running theme on here.So all this we want a soft left opposition , spoken on here, I take with a large pinch of salt .

    I have never quite understood why people think David Miliband was somehow robbed of the leadership by his brother.

    Ed was no Gaitskell, but he was clearly the best candidate available in 2010. He had imagination, flair and an ability to make decisions.

    He wasn't very good at communicating them and he was also strategically inept, but his brother was those as well and he wouldn't have had the ideas in the first place.

    The real irony of course is that May is now implementing many of the things he asked for.
    As a younger brother I admired Ed M for not waiting his turn - if he thought he would be a better leader he should have gone for it, and he did.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Foxy said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    daodao said:

    Unfortunately, Christianity is inherently antisemitic, in part arising from the Easter myth. Contrary to your experience, my observation is that Jews (and also Muslims in this country) are disliked by many people, but sotto voce, even more so now as it is non-PC. That is why this issue dominating the headlines is not good for Jews, whatever the rights or wrongs. It is better if they are not noticed as a separate group.


    Jesus. Founder of Christianity. Was a Jew.

    And we have absolutely cracking evidence for the blood libel for a millennium and a half before the first occurrence in England. And the 381 revision of the Nicene creed (pretty much Christianity's founding Constitution) allocates blame as follows: "he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father." Pontius Pilate was not a Jew. It isn't difficult to verify this sort of stuff before posting about it.
    Quite obviously it was the Romans who crucified Jesus, albeit at the behest of the Jews.

    Early Christians were a bit more anti-Roman, but after Constantine, the Catholic Church in particular found that blaming Romans rather impolitic.
    Particularly since the Church became an arm of the state in an extremely short period of time after Christianity became the official religion.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Yorkcity said:


    I would not say crap , definetley second rate .

    To be honest in every GE , I can remember the general public , have come up with the correct result.

    Even though I might not have liked it.

    That's a strange comment and impossible to confirm as we can only speculate about what an alternative Government would have looked like or done.

    Had a Labour-SNP Coalition taken over after 2015 there'd have been no EU Referendum - of that at least we can be certain and we can also be certain Scottish independence would have remained a big political issue.

    Other than that we don't know so can't judge.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Morris , he did .However they went for how he looked a lot.One morning I heard Humphries on radio ,4 ask Ed if he was to ugly to be PM .I thought then this was crazy.On most occasions the media could not even get his name correct , calling him David.The back stabber theme was used for other purposes in that he was not to be trusted.He stood against his brother in a democratic leadership contest .Also the Ed is crap was a running theme on here.So all this we want a soft left opposition , spoken on here, I take with a large pinch of salt .

    I have never quite understood why people think David Miliband was somehow robbed of the leadership by his brother.

    Ed was no Gaitskell, but he was clearly the best candidate available in 2010. He had imagination, flair and an ability to make decisions.

    He wasn't very good at communicating them and he was also strategically inept, but his brother was those as well and he wouldn't have had the ideas in the first place.

    The real irony of course is that May is now implementing many of the things he asked for.
    As a younger brother I admired Ed M for not waiting his turn - if he thought he would be a better leader he should have gone for it, and he did.
    I would say not so much a better leader as having better ideas. I voted for EdM in the leadership contest because what he was saying hinted at Socialism, whereas DavidM was advocating more Blairism, albeit in a more polished manner.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Foxy said:

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Foxy said:

    saddo said:

    Given the loony left who have taken over Labour would, being generous, be running at less than 5% in the polls, there's c35% of traditional labour voter inertia to play for. How long is it likely to stay where it is?

    Well, all the evidence of last June was that Jezza was more popular than Milibandism.

    :

    Rather like Brexit, when people want to smash the Establishment, they don't always think of what is to replace it.
    I doubt they were voting for the loony lefty nonsense in the manifesto and beyond, more a case of a really bad campaign by May & what was considered a low risk of Corbyn winning.
    Believe what you want to believe, but from abolishing tuition fees, to nationalising the railways there was widespread popular support according to polling, but also the actual GE.
    So says PB's foremost Lib

    These, and more, all played a part. We all pick the ones that best frame the political narrative we want to paint.
    :
    Possibly. Then again, if Brexit goes well (and I think we all, Europhobe or Europhile, have to hope it will) then there might be a big bonus for the government from that, yet alone any other events (e.g. Putin being a dick) that may occur.

    And we might see Labour split further (or totally) as sane, moderate Labour MPs grow a backbone.

    IMO I'm with RCS on this (I think): the thing that will most shape the next GE is the economy; any recession between now and then will be a killer blow to the government.
    On the economy, I think the opposite.

    Part of New Labours appeal in 1997, was that the economy had picked up and there was a need to rebuild public services. When the economy is doing well, the calls to spend are harder to resist. A strongly growing economy may well play into Corbyn's message.

    I suspect that we will be dragged along in the wake of the strong worldwide growth, at the back of the convoy, but growing. Perhaps the biggest threats are Trump's trade war and Trump overheating the US economy.
    I can't foresee anything that would cause Labour to split. Firstly, all the rebels in the commons would be virtually certain to lose their seats - remaining Labour would unite to punish "traitors", "splitters" etc, Secondly, they argue that they shouldn't abandon the Labour party to Corbyn et al.

    The SDP, and the subsequent revival (and then fall) of the Liberals as the Lib-Dems is a warning as much as anything, to those inclined that way.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    ydoethur said:

    daodao said:

    Unfortunately, Christianity is inherently antisemitic, in part arising from the Easter myth. Contrary to your experience, my observation is that Jews (and also Muslims in this country) are disliked by many people, but sotto voce, even more so now as it is non-PC. That is why this issue dominating the headlines is not good for Jews, whatever the rights or wrongs. It is better if they are not noticed as a separate group.


    Jesus. Founder of Christianity. Was a Jew.

    I wouldn't bother confusing him with facts. Daodao has some difficulty with facts that don't fit his(?) views. I did explain some historical matters relating to religious and scientific antisemitism to him a week ago, including how Christian and Islamic antisemitism was roughly comparable despite the New Atheist tropes on the subject, but he wasn't appreciative.

    I'm only glad I didn't go into the persistent papal bulls condemning anti-Semitism, the record of Stalin's avowedly atheist regime or Hitler's comments that he only became an anti-Semite after he ceased to be a Christian. That really would have set cats among pigeons...
    The blood libel was repeatedly condemned by successive popes, although belief in it was widespread.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    They shouldn't have called it autopilot....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited April 2018

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    Rightly so. If the NTSB are investigating then everyone involved should co-operate but shut up and let them investigate. We don’t see plane manufacturers trying to blame a deceased pilot before the accident report is published, which is as it should be.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    Tesla are using the data from the sensors in their cars to simulate auto-driving. Each car is a data gathering system. I believe this may be the largest data gathering from live, driving cars, in existence at the moment.

    What this means is that it gives the owner of that database (Tesla inc) a huge number of real world scenarios to test a true self driving algorithm against.

    Such as database and the proof of an auto-driving system "passing" the test set by it might well be the only way that fully autonomous driving is legally allowed on the roads.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2018

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    I believe there is another thing on top of the data. I can foresee a Netflix style service for self-driving cars, rather than people buying them you pay a monthly fee for the ability to do what Uber does at the moment, but the car drives itself.

    Also controlling road freight via autonomous vehicles.

    Controlling this space would be incredibly powerful and lucrative, before you even consider what to do with all that data that is being generated.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    Even for tech cos there's money to be made in hardware manufacture: see under apple. I am inclined to expect a mobile phone-like market for cars with perhaps high-end teslas running their own OS and the rest of us all in samsungs and motorolas all waiting to be upgraded to android wispa or whatever. Perhaps there will even be network analogs offering monthly contracts for recharging and in car entertainment. In principle there is no reason why current car mfrrs shouldn't bolt on IT rather than IT companies bolting on manufacture, but there is little doubt which is the more innovative industry.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    RobD said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    They shouldn't have called it autopilot....
    Indeed. Though if the rumours are true, then that might just be the least important factor in this. Why did the autopilot drive the car into the divider? (allegedly other drivers have reported their cars doing similar moves at that point, including the deceased man).

    The tech just isn't where Tesla claim it is.

    The odd thing (well, not really odd) is that Teslarati, the Tesla and Musk mad website, has not mentioned this story yet. It makes me think even more that it's run by people ramping up Musk's companies ...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited April 2018
    RobD said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    They shouldn't have called it autopilot....
    The current level 3 autonomous systems are downright dangerous, in that they require the human driver to do nothing for long periods of time yet remain alert enough to take over in a fraction of a second if required. Humans just aren’t wired to work like that.

    The testing needs to be much more strictly controlled, for example having multiple professional people in the car and limiting the driver to something like 30 minutes continuous observation, strict rest periods etc. The ‘safety driver’ in the Uber car that crashed the other week was on $9 an hour and had a string of driving convictions, I suspect the NTSB are going to throw the book at that company.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    I believe there is another thing on top of the data. I can foresee a Netflix style service for self-driving cars, rather than people buying them you pay a monthly fee for the ability to do what Uber does at the moment, but the car drives itself.

    Controlling this space would be incredibly powerful and lucrative.
    Indeed - so much so, that the anger at Elon Musk at drinks thing I attended for lawyers in the "environmental space" was palpable. His cars are too nice to drive and they give people the idea that driving isn't evil, apparently. One person actually said to me "and how do we stop people driving, if we can't tax the fuel and make them feel bad?"
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2018
    I should have added, I don't necessary think Google need to run the Netflix car service themselves, think more Amazon and how AWS makes them just boats loads of money because so much of the internet runs on it.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    I believe there is another thing on top of the data. I can foresee a Netflix style service for self-driving cars, rather than people buying them you pay a monthly fee for the ability to do what Uber does at the moment, but the car drives itself.

    Controlling this space would be incredibly powerful and lucrative.
    Indeed - so much so, that the anger at Elon Musk at drinks thing I attended for lawyers in the "environmental space" was palpable. His cars are too nice to drive and they give people the idea that driving isn't evil, apparently. One person actually said to me "and how do we stop people driving, if we can't tax the fuel and make them feel bad?"
    If we all switched to electric cars and trucks tomorrow, the UK government, while getting the VAT on the sale, would be something like £150bn a year down in VED and fuel taxes. That’s the entire NHS budget and then some.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    stodge said:

    Yorkcity said:


    I would not say crap , definetley second rate .

    To be honest in every GE , I can remember the general public , have come up with the correct result.

    Even though I might not have liked it.

    That's a strange comment and impossible to confirm as we can only speculate about what an alternative Government would have looked like or done.

    Had a Labour-SNP Coalition taken over after 2015 there'd have been no EU Referendum - of that at least we can be certain and we can also be certain Scottish independence would have remained a big political issue.

    Other than that we don't know so can't judge.
    2015 is the only election where I’ve met a reasonable number of people who wished they had voted the other way in hindsight.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    I believe there is another thing on top of the data. I can foresee a Netflix style service for self-driving cars, rather than people buying them you pay a monthly fee for the ability to do what Uber does at the moment, but the car drives itself.

    Also controlling road freight via autonomous vehicles.

    Controlling this space would be incredibly powerful and lucrative, before you even consider what to do with all that data that is being generated.
    Yep, exactly. Not the manufacturing, but for cars as a service.

    Here are some figures I may well have misremembered, so take with a pinch of salt: a million US trucks use satellite-enabled positioning and routing to choose the best routes and utilisation. This saves $30,000 a year per lorry in a fleet, meaning that that tech saves US haulage alone $30 billion a year.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    Even for tech cos there's money to be made in hardware manufacture: see under apple. I am inclined to expect a mobile phone-like market for cars with perhaps high-end teslas running their own OS and the rest of us all in samsungs and motorolas all waiting to be upgraded to android wispa or whatever. Perhaps there will even be network analogs offering monthly contracts for recharging and in car entertainment. In principle there is no reason why current car mfrrs shouldn't bolt on IT rather than IT companies bolting on manufacture, but there is little doubt which is the more innovative industry.
    The problem is that there are already car manufacturers in the Apple-analogue space: high-end manufacturers producing luxury cars that also are heavily in the low-end. It's a mature field and hard to break into. Tesla's rise is massive in terms of market capitalisation, but not in terms of car sales.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    https://twitter.com/Independent/status/980577208380076033?s=19

    What a hilarious jest!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    I believe there is another thing on top of the data. I can foresee a Netflix style service for self-driving cars, rather than people buying them you pay a monthly fee for the ability to do what Uber does at the moment, but the car drives itself.

    Controlling this space would be incredibly powerful and lucrative.
    Indeed - so much so, that the anger at Elon Musk at drinks thing I attended for lawyers in the "environmental space" was palpable. His cars are too nice to drive and they give people the idea that driving isn't evil, apparently. One person actually said to me "and how do we stop people driving, if we can't tax the fuel and make them feel bad?"
    If we all switched to electric cars and trucks tomorrow, the UK government, while getting the VAT on the sale, would be something like £150bn a year down in VED and fuel taxes. That’s the entire NHS budget and then some.
    True. The fault is with the government - they have lied so many times over the years, with everything relating to petrol and car taxation, that they have no credit.

    Road usage tax is a third rail in politics - a complete killer. Everyone believes that it would become Road tax + fuel tax + car tax, not replace one. Even if the proposal was for abolition of fuel duty in the same law. Hell, even if the law made proposing re-introduction of fuel tax High Treason with instant execution - still no-one will go for it.

    The mass use electric car is now inevitable - Tesla is just one vendor. The attempts to push Hydrogen fuel cells are running out of time.

    Trying to invent a reason to block the electric car will be a challenge, to say the least.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    They shouldn't have called it autopilot....
    The current level 3 autonomous systems are downright dangerous, in that they require the human driver to do nothing for long periods of time yet remain alert enough to take over in a fraction of a second if required. Humans just aren’t wired to work like that.

    The testing needs to be much more strictly controlled, for example having multiple professional people in the car and limiting the driver to something like 30 minutes continuous observation, strict rest periods etc. The ‘safety driver’ in the Uber car that crashed the other week was on $9 an hour and had a string of driving convictions, I suspect the NTSB are going to throw the book at that company.
    I know RCS thinks I dislike Musk, but I don't: I quite admire him. But I'm not a fanboy, and feel free to criticise as well as praise. One of the biggest criticisms I have for him is over this Autopilot rubbish.

    Google have at least been honest and realised level 3 is stupid, and are aiming for level 5.

    Oh, and SpaceX are performing another launch in an hour or two: see
    http://www.spacex.com/webcast
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2018
    Momentum has warned its supporters that accusations of antisemitism in Labour are not rightwing smears or conspiracy, saying unconscious anti-Jewish bias is “more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/labour-antisemitism-more-widespread-than-thought-momentum-says

    I am not sure tweeting pictures of things like signs saying "Arbeit macht frei" is unconscious...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    If electric cars really do take off, won’t electricity prices skyrocket? Once again, motorists buggering it up for the rest of us. :p
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    edited April 2018

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752/

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    I believe there is another thing on top of the data. I can foresee a Netflix style service for self-driving cars, rather than people buying them you pay a monthly fee for the ability to do what Uber does at the moment, but the car drives itself.

    Controlling this space would be incredibly powerful and lucrative.
    Indeed - so much so, that the anger at Elon Musk at drinks thing I attended for lawyers in the "environmental space" was palpable. His cars are too nice to drive and they give people the idea that driving isn't evil, apparently. One person actually said to me "and how do we stop people driving, if we can't tax the fuel and make them feel bad?"
    If we all switched to electric cars and trucks tomorrow, the UK government, while getting the VAT on the sale, would be something like £150bn a year down in VED and fuel taxes. That’s the entire NHS budget and then some.
    True. The fault is with the government - they have lied so many times over the years, with everything relating to petrol and car taxation, that they have no credit.

    Road usage tax is a third rail in politics - a complete killer. Everyone believes that it would become Road tax + fuel tax + car tax, not replace one. Even if the proposal was for abolition of fuel duty in the same law. Hell, even if the law made proposing re-introduction of fuel tax High Treason with instant execution - still no-one will go for it.

    The mass use electric car is now inevitable - Tesla is just one vendor. The attempts to push Hydrogen fuel cells are running out of time.

    Trying to invent a reason to block the electric car will be a challenge, to say the least.
    VED and fuel duty are nothggn like £150bn per year
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    RobD said:

    If electric cars really do take off, won’t electricity prices skyrocket? Once again, motorists buggering it up for the rest of us. :p

    A question one of PB's brain trust may know: is there a standard for car charges (e.g. can a Volt charge from a Tesla powerpoint), or are all manufacturers using different plugs, voltages etc?

    If so, it'll be a massive barrier for uptake.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    If electric cars really do take off, won’t electricity prices skyrocket? Once again, motorists buggering it up for the rest of us. :p

    A question one of PB's brain trust may know: is there a standard for car charges (e.g. can a Volt charge from a Tesla powerpoint), or are all manufacturers using different plugs, voltages etc?

    If so, it'll be a massive barrier for uptake.
    Second, unrelated, question: are Apple involved? :smiley:
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Momentum has warned its supporters that accusations of antisemitism in Labour are not rightwing smears or conspiracy, saying unconscious anti-Jewish bias is “more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/labour-antisemitism-more-widespread-than-thought-momentum-says

    I am not sure tweeting pictures of things like signs saying "Arbeit macht frei" is unconscious...

    Traditionally "arbeit macht frei" meant management were Nazis rather than being anti-semitic (unless it was a Jewish firm, of course) though perhaps the zeitgeist has changed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    If electric cars really do take off, won’t electricity prices skyrocket? Once again, motorists buggering it up for the rest of us. :p

    A question one of PB's brain trust may know: is there a standard for car charges (e.g. can a Volt charge from a Tesla powerpoint), or are all manufacturers using different plugs, voltages etc?

    If so, it'll be a massive barrier for uptake.
    Second, unrelated, question: are Apple involved? :smiley:
    If Apple are involved you'll pay double for the 'leccy (with them skimming the extra), it'll charge at half the speed, but TSE'll be wittering on about how good his shoes look in it. ;)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    If electric cars really do take off, won’t electricity prices skyrocket? Once again, motorists buggering it up for the rest of us. :p

    A question one of PB's brain trust may know: is there a standard for car charges (e.g. can a Volt charge from a Tesla powerpoint), or are all manufacturers using different plugs, voltages etc?

    If so, it'll be a massive barrier for uptake.
    Second, unrelated, question: are Apple involved? :smiley:
    If Apple are involved you'll pay double for the 'leccy (with them skimming the extra), it'll charge at half the speed, but TSE'll be wittering on about how good his shoes look in it. ;)
    No doubt it’ll be called iLectricity


    Oh, my coat....
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited April 2018

    Nigelb said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Tesla will go bust (they are currently borrowing at junk bond rates).
    I wonder who would snap up their assets ?
    Would make sense for one of the deep pocketed tech companies with an interest in getting into transportation, perhaps even more than for one of the big carmakers...
    That's an interesting one (although I hope they don't go bust).

    The question that needs asking is *why* a tech company would want to go into the car business. Google / Alphabet are getting into autonomous car tech via Waymo, and Apple were apparently looking into building cars. I think the answer is not in liking manufacturing, but in gaining, selling and using data (something Waymo have just been forced to deny). As I've said passim, the money in autonomous cars will not be in manufacturing, but data.

    It'd be interesting to see if and how recent events change things.
    There is already a market for IoT (internet of things) car monitoring devices, with the payback for the consumer of cheaper insurance (ETA and knowing the kids drive responsibly when they borrow your car) -- so the data is already being gathered.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited April 2018
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Off-topic:

    The NTSB are unhappy with Tesla:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43617752

    They shouldn't have called it autopilot....
    The current level 3 autonomous systems are downright dangerous, in that they require the human driver to do nothing for long periods of time yet remain alert enough to take over in a fraction of a second if required. Humans just aren’t wired to work like that.

    The testing needs to be much more strictly controlled, for example having multiple professional people in the car and limiting the driver to something like 30 minutes continuous observation, strict rest periods etc. The ‘safety driver’ in the Uber car that crashed the other week was on $9 an hour and had a string of driving convictions, I suspect the NTSB are going to throw the book at that company.
    Tesla's testing regime is completely misconceived. You don't do live testing on safety critical systems. Ever. The purpose of live testing is to validate your models. Your system is the model. If a necessary condition is not in the model, the model is at fault.

    I suspect automated control is not doing Tesla any good. It is far too expensive for them to do properly and distracts from delivering cool and practical electric vehicles.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited April 2018

    Momentum has warned its supporters that accusations of antisemitism in Labour are not rightwing smears or conspiracy, saying unconscious anti-Jewish bias is “more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/labour-antisemitism-more-widespread-than-thought-momentum-says

    I am not sure tweeting pictures of things like signs saying "Arbeit macht frei" is unconscious...

    Traditionally "arbeit macht frei" meant management were Nazis rather than being anti-semitic (unless it was a Jewish firm, of course) though perhaps the zeitgeist has changed.
    But why use it in this climate. This weekend we have had trouble on the Israel Palestine border and Winnie Mandela's death but complete silence from Corbyn.

    Last weeks debate in the HOC Corbyn prevented question from conservative MP's though he accepted them from his side.He has not conducted one interview with any journalist recently and he tried to address the anti semetic problems with a piece to camera that just came over as insincere. Also if he is giving an Easter message to the Jewish community why does he not address UK christians at this most important weekend in their faith.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    We can all rejoice that the Arab Spring brought democracy to Egypt:

    "Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi has been re-elected for a second four-year term, after winning 97% of the vote last week, official results show."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43616270
This discussion has been closed.