Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The British Trump – the similarities between the President and

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited April 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The British Trump – the similarities between the President and the Leader of the Opposition

On the eve of the 2016 US Presidential election Charlie Falconer, in Italy giving a tour d’horizon of politics to a group of distinguished lawyers, said he thought that Trump would win – it felt a lot like Brexit. He was resigned to it. And right. Farage wasted no time in getting himself photographed with Trump boasting about his special relationship with him. Yet, 3 years on, arguably it is another British politician who has a better claim to be the British Trump: our PM In-All-But-Name (© Alastair Campbell) – Jeremy Corbyn.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531
    edited April 2019
    First.

    Excellent article, Ms Free.

    One thing I've noted in the past is that there is a common 'playbook' for nasty people in power: popularised by Putin, it covers some of the areas you mention. Telling the domestic public untruths, controlling the media, infringing on the rights of opponents.

    Erdogan in Turkey seems to have copied this playbook to a certain extent, and Trump seems to have learned some lessons from it as well (although he is thankfully more constrained in what he can do). I'd argue Orban has been studying this way of running a country as well.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    TBH Boris is probably more our Trump, Corbyn compares better with Sanders.

    In fact the Washington post called Sanders the Trump of the left, I think it just means outside the consensus in those terms, where Trump and Corbyn/Sanders separate is their words and goals. When people criticise Corbyn (as a very bad person) they usually assign some cynical or evil goal beyond what he is actually proposing or saying. There is no need to do that with Trump.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited April 2019
    While the Trump comparisons are tempting, I think there is one huge difference. Trump is driven entirely by self-interest. He is in it for himself. Whatever else you can say about Corbyn I don't think you can say that about him.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    Meantime, this guy, who is utterly unlike either of them, has a real (albeit outside) chance:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/03/pete-buttigieg-northeastern-university-1254963
    Though 19-year-old Milton Posner shares the progressive views of candidates like Sanders and Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, he said Buttigieg’s “pragmatic solutions” would be easier to achieve than “lofty goals” or taking “one massive swipe” on issues. Warren, for example, calls for making “systemic change” in Washington on the campaign trail. Sanders often calls for a political revolution.

    “I’m struggling to remember a time I was more impressed by a politician,” Posner said. “This was a ‘wow’ kind of thing.”...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531
    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    https://twitter.com/bern_identity/status/1113271581260701696


    (from the linked article)
    Sanders’ campaign collected $18.2 million from 525,000 donors — most of them under age 39
    _________________________________________________________

    On American news and linking in with Corbyn comparisons... They are both outside the mainstream but the message of Sanders and Corbyn is a different one to Trump's which is why it appeals to the younger generations.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Nigelb said:

    Meantime, this guy, who is utterly unlike either of them, has a real (albeit outside) chance:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/03/pete-buttigieg-northeastern-university-1254963
    Though 19-year-old Milton Posner shares the progressive views of candidates like Sanders and Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, he said Buttigieg’s “pragmatic solutions” would be easier to achieve than “lofty goals” or taking “one massive swipe” on issues. Warren, for example, calls for making “systemic change” in Washington on the campaign trail. Sanders often calls for a political revolution.

    “I’m struggling to remember a time I was more impressed by a politician,” Posner said. “This was a ‘wow’ kind of thing.”...

    I've listened to a few talks and videos he has done. He's very articulate and has a good line on regenerating the mid-West. His CV is great and he's charming.

    But what really strikes me is he is consciously defining himself as a millennial. Perhaps we are starting to see the first sign of generational backlash. I don't think we have any prominent millennial politicians in the UK, but perhaps that's an angle that's available for someone to exploit.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.

    Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.

    * Or son
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765
    Whoops.

    Jeremy Corbyn discusses his talks with the Prime Minister on the radio, and says this:

    'There was no deal on her side, and there was no deal on our side.'

    See why politicians should not open their mouths...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765

    TBH Boris is probably more our Trump, Corbyn compares better with Sanders...When people criticise Corbyn (as a very bad person) they usually assign some cynical or evil goal beyond what he is actually proposing or saying. There is no need to do that with Trump.

    His policy offering has some similarity to that of Sanders. His personality and approach is much more similar to that of Trump. Since his policy offering is unrealistic (please nobody bother claiming it was costed, when it's been repeatedly demonstrated it wasn't) it had that in common with Trump's famous 'wall.'

    Ultimately, the key point to bear in mind is that Trump, Chavez, Tsipras, Modi, Orban and to a lesser extent Putin are populists who will say and do whatever it takes to get enough of the electorate to vote for them to win. That doesn't even mean they have to be popular (Trump isn't!) but it does mean that anything they say will be a lie, and anyone who criticises them will be demonised and bullied. Corbyn certainly fits that mould very well. But it's also fair to point out that it's served him pretty well electorally over the last five years, far better than we all expected.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    ydoethur said:

    Whoops.

    Jeremy Corbyn discusses his talks with the Prime Minister on the radio, and says this:

    'There was no deal on her side, and there was no deal on our side.'

    See why politicians should not open their mouths...

    Freudian slip.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037

    While the Trump comparisons are tempting, I think there is one huge difference. Trump is driven entirely by self-interest. He is in it for himself. Whatever else you can say about Corbyn I don't think you can say that about him.

    To be honest, i wish he was.

    It’d make him far less dangerous.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765

    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...

    The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?

    And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    rcs1000 said:

    President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.

    Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.

    * Or son

    Pete Buttigieg? In a country that can elect Trump? Nope.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531
    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...

    The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?

    And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
    No and no.

    The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.

    The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.

    Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    Good article, Cyclefree. And very scary.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited April 2019
    ydoethur said:

    TBH Boris is probably more our Trump, Corbyn compares better with Sanders...When people criticise Corbyn (as a very bad person) they usually assign some cynical or evil goal beyond what he is actually proposing or saying. There is no need to do that with Trump.

    His policy offering has some similarity to that of Sanders. His personality and approach is much more similar to that of Trump. Since his policy offering is unrealistic (please nobody bother claiming it was costed, when it's been repeatedly demonstrated it wasn't) it had that in common with Trump's famous 'wall.'

    Ultimately, the key point to bear in mind is that Trump, Chavez, Tsipras, Modi, Orban and to a lesser extent Putin are populists who will say and do whatever it takes to get enough of the electorate to vote for them to win. That doesn't even mean they have to be popular (Trump isn't!) but it does mean that anything they say will be a lie, and anyone who criticises them will be demonised and bullied. Corbyn certainly fits that mould very well. But it's also fair to point out that it's served him pretty well electorally over the last five years, far better than we all expected.
    His personality and approach are like that of Sanders as well, well more similar anyway Sanders tends to go for more passion than Corbyn. It was costed, compare it to the Conservative policy you voted for which was completely uncosted or is this your own personal Trump impression? Subtly done I fell for it for a second...

    Sounds like you are describing the Conservative party you vote for rather than Corbyn's Labour there in the populist bit to be honest. The Trump Brexit comparisons probably ring more true. After all Trump promised Brexit plus plus (maybe another plus)

    Although it is entertaining Conservative voters accusing the opposition of being Trump like in every comparison the Conservatives are the British Republicans not Labour, arguably Boris is our Trump but they are still largely dancing to his tune.

    Have a great morning y'all, must be off.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    Jonathan said:

    Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?

    Farage just wants attention.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Jonathan said:

    Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?

    Maybe some Farage Boris hybrid then...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...

    The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?

    And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
    More like Nimrod 2000. Comet was the 1st real passenger jetliner and they had to work out all sorts of things from scratch, although similar in the sense Nimrod was based on it.

    No to the second question.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765
    edited April 2019
    Toms said:

    rcs1000 said:

    President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.

    Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.

    * Or son

    Pete Buttigieg? In a country that can elect Trump? Nope.
    In a country that elected Trump by a whisker and on a minority of the popular vote.

    That said, I still think Trump is favourite to win if he stands for re-election because:

    1) However loathed he is by younger voters and minorities, they are not a majority and tend not to vote anyway;

    2) His vote is efficiently distributed, the Democrats' is not;

    3) He has a nice long time to campaign to voters while the enormous number of hopefuls knock lumps off each other while simultaneously preaching to the choir;

    4) Unless the economy goes south (1932, 1980, 1992) it's quite rare for incumbent presidents who run in the actual election (not forgetting 1952 and 1968) not to be re-elected. I think the last time it happened for reasons other than a financial crash (leaving Ford aside) was Taft in 1912, and I see no Roosevelt to shred the Republican vote this time.

    So the odds are in his favour, which is not the same as saying he will win.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...

    The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?

    And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
    No and no.

    The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.

    The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.

    Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
    The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.

    NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093
    Toms said:

    rcs1000 said:

    President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.

    Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.

    * Or son

    Pete Buttigieg? In a country that can elect Trump? Nope.
    History tells us that the US can elect all sorts of presidents:

    2000 Elect opposite of Clinton
    2008 Elect opposite of Bush
    2016 Elect opposite of Obama
    2020/24 Elect opposite of Trump?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765
    edited April 2019

    His personality and approach are like that of Sanders as well, well more similar anyway Sanders tends to go for more passion than Corbyn. It was costed, compare it to the Conservative policy you voted for which was completely uncosted or is this your own personal Trump impression? Subtly done I fell for it for a second...

    Sounds like you are describing the Conservative party you vote for rather than Corbyn's Labour there in the populist bit to be honest. The Trump Brexit comparisons probably ring more true. After all Trump promised Brexit plus plus (maybe another plus)

    Although it is entertaining Conservative voters accusing the opposition of being Trump like in every comparison the Conservatives are the British Republicans not Labour, arguably Boris is our Trump but they are still largely dancing to his tune.

    Have a great morning y'all, must be off.

    I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

    And unfortunately you have just shown the most striking similarity between Labour and the Tea Party - their attempts to distract from their own lies with reference to their opponents. We had this last night too: 'Corbyn supports mass murderers and Holocaust deniers? That's nothing, the government's chums with Saudi Arabia!'

    Have a good morning with whatever you are doing

    Edit - I don't 'support' the Conservative party although I did vote for them at the last election. I voted Labour in 2015 but I don't vote for Nazi apologists on manifestos based on a pack of lies.

    That also unfortunately is out of the Trump/Orban playbook - 'if you're not with us, you must be a Tory/millennial/Jew.'
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?

    Farage just wants attention.
    Trump wants ratings, they really are alike.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765

    The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.

    NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.

    Why can NASA scientists not keep secrets?

    They're all spaced out.

    (De Havilland was eventually first taken over by Hawker and eventually nationalised because of numerous problems, of which the Comet was the most dramatic and best known. That might happen to Boeing, although I agree it's unlikely.)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...

    The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?

    And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
    No and no.

    The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.

    The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.

    Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
    The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.

    NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.
    NASA and the Pentagon are also where the R&D contracts (not state aid, you understand) to bail out Boeing will come from.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    ydoethur said:

    The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.

    NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.

    Why can NASA scientists not keep secrets?

    They're all spaced out.

    (De Havilland was eventually first taken over by Hawker and eventually nationalised because of numerous problems, of which the Comet was the most dramatic and best known. That might happen to Boeing, although I agree it's unlikely.)
    NASA have an anonymous database onto which any pilot can report concerns freestyle, for one, which is then periodically collated and published.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    DavidL said:

    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.

    Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.

    That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.

    That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
  • Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    ydoethur said:


    I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

    The Conservative manifesto was not costed at all.

    Labour's was costed, and when you say it was made up, that appears to be based on your own made up version of its social care policy. You might disagree with its policies, or even find its costings over-optimistic but at least they were there.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?

    It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    ydoethur said:

    His personality and approach are like that of Sanders as well, well more similar anyway Sanders tends to go for more passion than Corbyn. It was costed, compare it to the Conservative policy you voted for which was completely uncosted or is this your own personal Trump impression? Subtly done I fell for it for a second...

    Sounds like you are describing the Conservative party you vote for rather than Corbyn's Labour there in the populist bit to be honest. The Trump Brexit comparisons probably ring more true. After all Trump promised Brexit plus plus (maybe another plus)

    Although it is entertaining Conservative voters accusing the opposition of being Trump like in every comparison the Conservatives are the British Republicans not Labour, arguably Boris is our Trump but they are still largely dancing to his tune.

    Have a great morning y'all, must be off.

    I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

    And unfortunately you have just shown the most striking similarity between Labour and the Tea Party - their attempts to distract from their own lies with reference to their opponents. We had this last night too: 'Corbyn supports mass murderers and Holocaust deniers? That's nothing, the government's chums with Saudi Arabia!'

    Have a good morning with whatever you are doing

    Edit - I don't 'support' the Conservative party although I did vote for them at the last election. I voted Labour in 2015 but I don't vote for Nazi apologists on manifestos based on a pack of lies.

    That also unfortunately is out of the Trump/Orban playbook - 'if you're not with us, you must be a Tory/millennial/Jew.'
    Fuck me this really is a Trump impression you are going for, they got people in to cost it. I realise anything that isn't white nationalism is some kind of anathema to you but flat out lying just makes you look stupid.

    Let's drop the pretense, the reason you support our Republicans is because you don't mind the Americans republicans either. The tea party was UKIP which has migrated to its new home of the Conservatives where your vote is right at home.

    A bit of confusion in your edit as well, the Nazi apologists don't like Labour, about as much as you actually, it is why the far right copy the lines, much like people like you come out with actually. Coincidence I'm sure that you and the Nazi's hate Labour for similar reasons.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765

    ydoethur said:


    I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

    The Conservative manifesto was not costed at all.

    Labour's was costed, and when you say it was made up, that appears to be based on your own made up version of its social care policy. You might disagree with its policies, or even find its costings over-optimistic but at least they were there.
    No it wasn't. I have demonstrated that to you at least a dozen times. But you do not want to know. So I shall stop bothering.

    It's a disturbing reflection on democracy though that people swallow such bullshit.
  • DavidL said:

    Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?

    It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.
    Much appreciated. May's government racking up those top 5 record defeats aren't they?
  • O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.

    At my CLP meeting on Friday we are going to discuss safety. When we have done street stalls in the past, some of the "contributions" have been verbally abusive. As we are now likely to do street stalls every week leading up to the elections in May various members especially female members are genuinely apprehensive about the potential for screaming abuse or worse from the mouth foamers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081
    DavidL said:

    Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?

    It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.
    I must confess that even as a political nerd, I have lost track of all the votes and ammendments!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765

    Fuck me this really is a Trump impression you are going for, they got people in to cost it. I realise anything that isn't white nationalism is some kind of anathema to you but flat out lying just makes you look stupid.

    Let's drop the pretense, the reason you support our Republicans is because you don't mind the Americans republicans either. The tea party was UKIP which has migrated to its new home of the Conservatives where your vote is right at home.

    A bit of confusion in your edit as well, the Nazi apologists don't like Labour, about as much as you actually, it is why the far right copy the lines, much like people like you come out with actually. Coincidence I'm sure that you and the Nazi's hate Labour for similar reasons.

    I don't support your republicans, and unlike Corbyn I have never donated money to neo-Nazis like Eisen.

    The fact you now have to actually smear me by calling me a Nazi myself just because I have caught Corbyn out is I fear very telling.

    The reason I hate Corbyn - not Labour - is because of his long track record of dishonesty and bullying, and the company he keeps. Get rid of him, and there's every chance Labour will get my vote again.

    As for your first invitation - I'm sure you're charming, but really you're not my type.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Or is it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Farage is closer to being the UK Trump. No one can beat his disruptive agenda abroad can they?

    Farage just wants attention.
    Trump wants ratings, they really are alike.
    Really, not so alike.

    Trump sees the Presidency as a promotional arm for his wider business interests. His term(s) will serve him well later on when still promoting Brand Trump. That brand will continue on through his family*

    Farage has no brand to sell. He's just some gobby bloke, raking in what he can from the system he supposedly despises.

    *presuming always they aren't in jail
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765

    Good morning, everyone.

    Or is it?

    I'm fairly sure it's morning. If it's 7.30 at night I have an awkward conversation with my boss ahead of me.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    ydoethur said:

    Fuck me this really is a Trump impression you are going for, they got people in to cost it. I realise anything that isn't white nationalism is some kind of anathema to you but flat out lying just makes you look stupid.

    Let's drop the pretense, the reason you support our Republicans is because you don't mind the Americans republicans either. The tea party was UKIP which has migrated to its new home of the Conservatives where your vote is right at home.

    A bit of confusion in your edit as well, the Nazi apologists don't like Labour, about as much as you actually, it is why the far right copy the lines, much like people like you come out with actually. Coincidence I'm sure that you and the Nazi's hate Labour for similar reasons.

    I don't support your republicans, and unlike Corbyn I have never donated money to neo-Nazis like Eisen.

    The fact you now have to actually smear me by calling me a Nazi myself just because I have caught Corbyn out is I fear very telling.

    The reason I hate Corbyn - not Labour - is because of his long track record of dishonesty and bullying, and the company he keeps. Get rid of him, and there's every chance Labour will get my vote again.

    As for your first invitation - I'm sure you're charming, but really you're not my type.
    TBH I'm not sure Labour wants the votes of white nationalists. If you hate Muslims so much that standing up for their rights makes you an anti semite then stay voting with your racist friends in the Conservative party, you deserve each other.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.

    Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/05/the-sick-rose-the-disease-in-the-english-hard-right-and-the-failure-of-the-rest-of-the-right-to-confront-it/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    DavidL said:

    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.

    Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.

    That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.

    That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
    I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.

    To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765

    ydoethur said:

    Fuck me this really is a Trump impression you are going for, they got people in to cost it. I realise anything that isn't white nationalism is some kind of anathema to you but flat out lying just makes you look stupid.

    Let's drop the pretense, the reason you support our Republicans is because you don't mind the Americans republicans either. The tea party was UKIP which has migrated to its new home of the Conservatives where your vote is right at home.

    A bit of confusion in your edit as well, the Nazi apologists don't like Labour, about as much as you actually, it is why the far right copy the lines, much like people like you come out with actually. Coincidence I'm sure that you and the Nazi's hate Labour for similar reasons.

    I don't support your republicans, and unlike Corbyn I have never donated money to neo-Nazis like Eisen.

    The fact you now have to actually smear me by calling me a Nazi myself just because I have caught Corbyn out is I fear very telling.

    The reason I hate Corbyn - not Labour - is because of his long track record of dishonesty and bullying, and the company he keeps. Get rid of him, and there's every chance Labour will get my vote again.

    As for your first invitation - I'm sure you're charming, but really you're not my type.
    TBH I'm not sure Labour wants the votes of white nationalists. If you hate Muslims so much that standing up for their rights makes you an anti semite then stay voting with your racist friends in the Conservative party, you deserve each other.
    Okaaay...

    I'm revising my views. It must be 7.30 at night if you're running off down making libellous remarks without realising it.

    Or was it an all-nighter?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531
    ydoethur said:

    The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.

    NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.

    Why can NASA scientists not keep secrets?

    They're all spaced out.

    (De Havilland was eventually first taken over by Hawker and eventually nationalised because of numerous problems, of which the Comet was the most dramatic and best known. That might happen to Boeing, although I agree it's unlikely.)
    Wasn't there another, more fundamental, problem with Comet and the UK's civil aviation? We saw air travel as being a luxurious, cruise-liner style experience. Hence the brilliant but spectacularly ill-conceived Barabazon. Whilst the US went for the cram-them-in style to reduce ticket costs. Needless to say, the latter was the 'correct' approach.

    The Comet 1 carried 36 to 44 passengers. The equivalent (but later) DC-8 initially had well over double that, and so did the 707. Even without the Comet-1 crash, it is unlikely that the British would have gone for the mass market in the same way as the Americans did.

    You can argue that the Comet-1 was a world-beating aircraft that was ultimately going for the wrong market - and it would have been hard to just cram many more seats in without significant changes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...

    The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?

    And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
    No and no.

    The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.

    The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.

    Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
    I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    ydoethur said:

    Toms said:

    rcs1000 said:

    President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.

    Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.

    * Or son

    Pete Buttigieg? In a country that can elect Trump? Nope.
    In a country that elected Trump by a whisker and on a minority of the popular vote.

    That said, I still think Trump is favourite to win if he stands for re-election because:

    1) However loathed he is by younger voters and minorities, they are not a majority and tend not to vote anyway;

    2) His vote is efficiently distributed, the Democrats' is not;

    3) He has a nice long time to campaign to voters while the enormous number of hopefuls knock lumps off each other while simultaneously preaching to the choir;

    4) Unless the economy goes south (1932, 1980, 1992) it's quite rare for incumbent presidents who run in the actual election (not forgetting 1952 and 1968) not to be re-elected. I think the last time it happened for reasons other than a financial crash (leaving Ford aside) was Taft in 1912, and I see no Roosevelt to shred the Republican vote this time.

    So the odds are in his favour, which is not the same as saying he will win.
    One of the reasons Buttigieg has a chance is that he’s very much not preaching to the choir.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Toms said:

    rcs1000 said:

    President Pete is the kind of guy oldies wish their daughter* would marry.

    Which is why he's going to win. Millennials plus.

    * Or son

    Pete Buttigieg? In a country that can elect Trump? Nope.
    In a country that elected Trump by a whisker and on a minority of the popular vote.

    That said, I still think Trump is favourite to win if he stands for re-election because:

    1) However loathed he is by younger voters and minorities, they are not a majority and tend not to vote anyway;

    2) His vote is efficiently distributed, the Democrats' is not;

    3) He has a nice long time to campaign to voters while the enormous number of hopefuls knock lumps off each other while simultaneously preaching to the choir;

    4) Unless the economy goes south (1932, 1980, 1992) it's quite rare for incumbent presidents who run in the actual election (not forgetting 1952 and 1968) not to be re-elected. I think the last time it happened for reasons other than a financial crash (leaving Ford aside) was Taft in 1912, and I see no Roosevelt to shred the Republican vote this time.

    So the odds are in his favour, which is not the same as saying he will win.
    One of the reasons Buttigieg has a chance is that he’s very much not preaching to the choir.

    That's why he might have a chance in the election, but it reduces his chances in the primaries. Awkward paradox.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765

    ydoethur said:

    The US government (and i include the FAA in that) and Boeing are far too close.

    NASA is where the real whistleblowers go.

    Why can NASA scientists not keep secrets?

    They're all spaced out.

    (De Havilland was eventually first taken over by Hawker and eventually nationalised because of numerous problems, of which the Comet was the most dramatic and best known. That might happen to Boeing, although I agree it's unlikely.)
    Wasn't there another, more fundamental, problem with Comet and the UK's civil aviation? We saw air travel as being a luxurious, cruise-liner style experience. Hence the brilliant but spectacularly ill-conceived Barabazon. Whilst the US went for the cram-them-in style to reduce ticket costs. Needless to say, the latter was the 'correct' approach.

    The Comet 1 carried 36 to 44 passengers. The equivalent (but later) DC-8 initially had well over double that, and so did the 707. Even without the Comet-1 crash, it is unlikely that the British would have gone for the mass market in the same way as the Americans did.

    You can argue that the Comet-1 was a world-beating aircraft that was ultimately going for the wrong market - and it would have been hard to just cram many more seats in without significant changes.
    Well, it did stay in commercial service for 33 years, which considering the tech available at the time it was built was a pretty good record.

    But it still can't really be called 'world beating' given what happened.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?

    It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.
    I must confess that even as a political nerd, I have lost track of all the votes and ammendments!
    Oh likewise, I went to bed. Wake up this morning and find that the Bill has passed by 1 vote. Presumably the woman on a tag who shouldn't be there but hey, there's plenty of dodgy characters on both sides. Didn't expect it to be that close tbh. DUP voted against. I wonder if this is the tipping point for them to come around to May's deal after all. There are many worse options out there.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...

    The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?

    And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
    No and no.

    The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.

    The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.

    Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
    I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.
    I don't think it's necessarily the software at fault rather than the hardware sensors that send in the data. It is a good example of why design should fail safe, which clearly isn't the case here.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...

    The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?

    And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
    No and no.

    The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.

    The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.

    Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
    I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.
    And more importantly their location, changing COG and centre of thrust.

    There’s actually nothing wrong with artificial stability, if implemented well. Boeing’s egregious error was to try graft a patch onto flight control software designed for the previous airframe. Doing it properly would have taken much more time - and required properly qualifying pilots to fly a new system, which would have been a big cost in time and money for their customers.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Or is it?

    I'm fairly sure it's morning. If it's 7.30 at night I have an awkward conversation with my boss ahead of me.
    After you've had a fitful night's sleep....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?

    It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.
    I must confess that even as a political nerd, I have lost track of all the votes and ammendments!
    Oh likewise, I went to bed. Wake up this morning and find that the Bill has passed by 1 vote. Presumably the woman on a tag who shouldn't be there but hey, there's plenty of dodgy characters on both sides. Didn't expect it to be that close tbh. DUP voted against. I wonder if this is the tipping point for them to come around to May's deal after all. There are many worse options out there.
    Every option at this moment is for one reason or another a worse option than endorsing May's deal. Even Labour's policy requires it to be signed, so far as can be judged.

    The problem is the House of Commons cannot see this because there are too many on all sides chasing their personal unicorns of Remain, No Deal, or standing on your head riding a unicycle while whistling Ode to Joy (OK, I made that up).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531
    Foxy said:

    I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.

    That's what lots of people are saying: and if it gains currency then Boeing could be in significantly more trouble. In particular, if it turns out the 737 NG planes have issues as well as the Max (though they'd be different issues) as I mentioned below.

    My semi-educated guess is that Boeing were startled by the success of Airbus' competitor, the A320NEO. They wanted something in the air quick. To get sales, they told airlines their pilots would not need any simulator time for difference training when moving from the 737NG to the 737Max - which reduces the airlines' cost significantly.

    As the engineering progressed, they realised that they had issues with the aerodynamics. Rather then make changes to the plane that would invalidate their promises to airlines wrt training, they retrofitted MCAS, which was already on military refuelling aircraft, to the civilian 737 Max. After all, it worked fine on the military planes, didn't it?

    Yet to prevent retraining requirements and make the Max like the NG, they had to omit some of the features the military planes had - like using two sensors instead of one ...

    It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,765

    ydoethur said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Or is it?

    I'm fairly sure it's morning. If it's 7.30 at night I have an awkward conversation with my boss ahead of me.
    After you've had a fitful night's sleep....
    Well, it would have been a much better night's sleep than I realised!

    Have a good morning. At least - what I hope is morning!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited April 2019

    DavidL said:

    Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?

    It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.
    Much appreciated. May's government racking up those top 5 record defeats aren't they?
    TBF she’ll be on the government defeats leaderboard for a long time

    Bit like when you used to go into a pub and “MaxZap” had 6 of the top 10 scores and there was no shifting him.

    It’s a legacy of a sort...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037

    O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.

    Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/05/the-sick-rose-the-disease-in-the-english-hard-right-and-the-failure-of-the-rest-of-the-right-to-confront-it/
    It’s got noteably worse in the last week.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037

    ydoethur said:


    I agree the Tory manifesto was not properly costed and unconvincing, but Labour's was simply made up. It was based on a series of random invented numbers that added up to zero as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

    The Conservative manifesto was not costed at all.

    Labour's was costed, and when you say it was made up, that appears to be based on your own made up version of its social care policy. You might disagree with its policies, or even find its costings over-optimistic but at least they were there.
    Labour’s costings were absolute fantasy.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    I think that the bill which passed the Commons yesterday will prove to be an albatross around the neck of a government finding this too hard already. Not for the first time we are undermining our own negotiating position such as it is. The pressure is now on May and Corbyn to find a face saving "compromise" that allows a tweaked version of May's deal to pass before this nonsense gets through the Lords and becomes law. The fox of the ERG, the default position, has been shot and they really need to rescue what they can from the wreckage of a badly overplayed hand.

    But what it also shows, for all I disagree with what she has done here, is what a poor choice Labour made in Corbyn instead of Cooper. To achieve this as a back bencher is something truly remarkable, unprecedented as I understand it. If May had 1/5th of her ability to build a consensus around a position we would not be in this mess.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.

    Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/05/the-sick-rose-the-disease-in-the-english-hard-right-and-the-failure-of-the-rest-of-the-right-to-confront-it/
    It’s got noteably worse in the last week.
    You’re mainly noticing it because you’re now outside the in group. Its seeds were in the casual use of the language of treachery, betrayal and quislings. It was already being acted on by many and indulged by many more.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,037
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.

    Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.

    That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.

    That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
    I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.

    To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
    He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.

    Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.

    Why shouldn’t he win?
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810
    Charlie Falconer in the threader?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Off topic (sorry Cyclefree) what was the vote that the government lost by 180 yesterday?

    It was an amendment to the bill which sought to restrict its scope so that their hands were not tied in terms of asking for an extension, basically a wreaking amendment.
    I must confess that even as a political nerd, I have lost track of all the votes and ammendments!
    Oh likewise, I went to bed. Wake up this morning and find that the Bill has passed by 1 vote. Presumably the woman on a tag who shouldn't be there but hey, there's plenty of dodgy characters on both sides. Didn't expect it to be that close tbh. DUP voted against. I wonder if this is the tipping point for them to come around to May's deal after all. There are many worse options out there.
    Every option at this moment is for one reason or another a worse option than endorsing May's deal. Even Labour's policy requires it to be signed, so far as can be judged.

    The problem is the House of Commons cannot see this because there are too many on all sides chasing their personal unicorns of Remain, No Deal, or standing on your head riding a unicycle while whistling Ode to Joy (OK, I made that up).
    Obviously. Not one of them is talented enough to do something as complicated as that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.

    Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.

    That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.

    That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
    I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.

    To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
    He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.

    Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.

    Why shouldn’t he win?
    The answer to that question is quite a long list.

    But I think he will.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961


    It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.

    And therefore, worthless.

    If I were in the market for a fleet of jets, I'd have some penetrating questions when I finally got to Boeing - after quizzing Airbus at length on their ability to meet delivery deadlines with all this new demand....

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,093
    edited April 2019
    DavidL said:

    I think that the bill which passed the Commons yesterday will prove to be an albatross around the neck of a government finding this too hard already. Not for the first time we are undermining our own negotiating position such as it is. The pressure is now on May and Corbyn to find a face saving "compromise" that allows a tweaked version of May's deal to pass before this nonsense gets through the Lords and becomes law. The fox of the ERG, the default position, has been shot and they really need to rescue what they can from the wreckage of a badly overplayed hand.

    But what it also shows, for all I disagree with what she has done here, is what a poor choice Labour made in Corbyn instead of Cooper. To achieve this as a back bencher is something truly remarkable, unprecedented as I understand it. If May had 1/5th of her ability to build a consensus around a position we would not be in this mess.

    May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.

    Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.

    Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.

    Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.
  • Why the heated discussion about 2017 manifestos? Both went in the bin as soon as the election was over.

    Or is this just the kind of Brexit cascade reaction that we can look forward to as hackles rise and tempers fray? I refer you all back to my public safety as a candidate post of earlier.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    The greatest similarity between Cornyn and Trump is that neither are pluralists - they don't believe opinions which run contrary to theirs can be valid.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.

    Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.

    That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.

    That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
    I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.

    To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
    One of the good things about the web is that it enables people with niche interests, such as betting on politics, to easily find each other to an extent not possible without it. Many otherwise lonely and isolated people are able to find a community of joint interest.

    However it turns out that sometimes these interests are in just-so stories about the world that have little grounding in reality, and we can see that the web makes cult-like behaviour much easier to fall into. A little bit of a cult is a good thing - the confidence that derives from being part of a like-minded group, the feeling of fellowship, etc - but too much is not good for us.

    It would take someone smarter than me to find a way to strike the right balance.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136


    It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.

    Or existent, but overruled by management...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    I think that the bill which passed the Commons yesterday will prove to be an albatross around the neck of a government finding this too hard already. Not for the first time we are undermining our own negotiating position such as it is. The pressure is now on May and Corbyn to find a face saving "compromise" that allows a tweaked version of May's deal to pass before this nonsense gets through the Lords and becomes law. The fox of the ERG, the default position, has been shot and they really need to rescue what they can from the wreckage of a badly overplayed hand.

    But what it also shows, for all I disagree with what she has done here, is what a poor choice Labour made in Corbyn instead of Cooper. To achieve this as a back bencher is something truly remarkable, unprecedented as I understand it. If May had 1/5th of her ability to build a consensus around a position we would not be in this mess.

    May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.

    Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.

    Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.

    Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.
    May will agree anything to get this through now, she is that desperate. Corbyn has to work out what he wants. The main prize is a GE. So we put through the WA with an agreement that there will be a GE in 6 months and that the government will not commit the UK to a final deal until after a new government has been elected giving them 18 months to sort this out. Simples.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    I think that the bill which passed the Commons yesterday will prove to be an albatross around the neck of a government finding this too hard already. Not for the first time we are undermining our own negotiating position such as it is. The pressure is now on May and Corbyn to find a face saving "compromise" that allows a tweaked version of May's deal to pass before this nonsense gets through the Lords and becomes law. The fox of the ERG, the default position, has been shot and they really need to rescue what they can from the wreckage of a badly overplayed hand.

    But what it also shows, for all I disagree with what she has done here, is what a poor choice Labour made in Corbyn instead of Cooper. To achieve this as a back bencher is something truly remarkable, unprecedented as I understand it. If May had 1/5th of her ability to build a consensus around a position we would not be in this mess.

    May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.

    Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.

    Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.

    Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.
    Perfect explanation of where we are.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.

    That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.

    Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.

    That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.

    That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
    I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.

    To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
    One of the good things about the web is that it enables people with niche interests, such as betting on politics, to easily find each other to an extent not possible without it. Many otherwise lonely and isolated people are able to find a community of joint interest.

    However it turns out that sometimes these interests are in just-so stories about the world that have little grounding in reality, and we can see that the web makes cult-like behaviour much easier to fall into. A little bit of a cult is a good thing - the confidence that derives from being part of a like-minded group, the feeling of fellowship, etc - but too much is not good for us.

    It would take someone smarter than me to find a way to strike the right balance.
    So we're all cultists now? Sounds about right. Personally PB is a cult I feel very at home in with a wide enough range of views that I can delude myself that I am informed and actually thinking. Thanks Mike, its genuinely appreciated.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,081

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.

    Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.

    That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.

    That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
    I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.

    To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
    He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.

    Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.

    Why shouldn’t he win?
    The election is still 18 months away, so lots can happen. The US economy is improving, but isnt that mostly on the coasts rather than Trumpland? As incumbent he has the advantage, but not nailed on.

    The Dems need a good candidate, but surely not Sanders or Biden? both should be pensioned off.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,915
    I think any similarities between Trump and Corbyn are largely superficial. The fundamental difference is that Trump acts in the interests of the wealthy and big business, while Corbyn does the opposite. This piece falls into the right wing trap of seeing the culture war as a fundamental element of the political space rather than what it is - a distraction and a trick designed to protect the economic interests of the elite in an era of mass democracy.
    One other point: do we really need another article demonising Corbyn? The Paras are using him for target practice, and one Labour MP has already been murdered by the far right. Like him or loath him, he is the legitimate leader of Britain's largest political party, he is the leader of her majesty's loyal opposition and has worked inside democratic politics his whole life. Words have consequences, and personally I think some of the anti-Corbyn rhetoric on this site is not only absurd and melodramatic, it is also dangerous.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited April 2019
    Good morning everyone

    I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois furious response to the ERG defeat quoting Jesus saying

    'Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do'

    I had no idea prior to Brexit that my party contained so many unpleasant mps

  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,307

    O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.

    Glad you’ve finally noticed but this has been a problem that has been years in the making. When I pointed it out a while back, the reaction of most Leavers was “not my problem guv”:

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/07/05/the-sick-rose-the-disease-in-the-english-hard-right-and-the-failure-of-the-rest-of-the-right-to-confront-it/
    It’s got noteably worse in the last week.
    its pretty much the logic of revolutions.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143


    It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.

    Or existent, but overruled by management...
    Someone at Boeing has a to do list that looks a bit like this.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BvuMPl9h3xg/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=4zzptgfyb4eb
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,093
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic:

    In other news, it appears that Boeing's woes with the 737 Max are, if anything, getting deeper. Leaks from the investigation into the second crash indicate that the flight crew at least initially tried to follow the directive Boeing released after the first crash, but ended up giving up on it.

    Meanwhile, others are saying that the directive was, in some cases, *not* a fix: the plane could easily get into a position where it would not work. That might have happened to those pilots.

    Also, the same might be true for their previous NG plane wrt runaway elevator: if not caught in time, you may not manually 'unwind' the elevator due to aerodynamic pressure. If you have altitude you can trade that off to reduce the pressure - but if you're just a few thousand feet up you don't have that luxury.

    If true, then ooops...

    The 737 Max - the comet of a later time?

    And if it is, will Boeing go the way of de Havilland?
    No and no.

    The first no: this issue is much more egregious than the Comet's issues with fatigue, and is very much an own-goal. It shows up massive flaws in the processes within both Boeing and the FAA. It's mind-boggling how MCAS even got through testing.

    The second no: Boeing is a massive company, with many different product lines, in civil yet alone military sectors. And they're also too big to fail: there's no other US civil aircraft maker who can take over, and the Yanks won't want to lose that. And the airlines want them because they want competition: a sole major supplier of airplanes in that size would be terrible for them.

    Expect "lessons have been learnt." and a lot of ass-covering.
    I am no aeronautical engineer, but it does seem fundamentally unsound to alter the size and weight of the engines significantly and then try to fix the intrinsic tendancy to stall via software rather than something more physical.
    And more importantly their location, changing COG and centre of thrust.

    There’s actually nothing wrong with artificial stability, if implemented well. Boeing’s egregious error was to try graft a patch onto flight control software designed for the previous airframe. Doing it properly would have taken much more time - and required properly qualifying pilots to fly a new system, which would have been a big cost in time and money for their customers.

    This is the first I've heard or read about the MCAS problems beyond headlines. If that's true then it's absolutely astonishing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776

    Good morning everyone

    I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois furious response to the ERG defeat quoting Jesus saying

    'Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do'

    I had no idea that my party contained so many unpleasant mps

    I made the same point downthread Big_G. A Labour party led by Cooper would probably be in power by now, let alone out of sight in the polling.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.

    Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.

    That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.

    That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
    I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.

    To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.
    He’s tried to implement his manifesto, whilst the US economy is doing rather well.

    Meanwhile, the Democrats have learnt nothing from 2016 and are determined to double down.

    Why shouldn’t he win?
    The election is still 18 months away, so lots can happen. The US economy is improving, but isnt that mostly on the coasts rather than Trumpland? As incumbent he has the advantage, but not nailed on.

    The Dems need a good candidate, but surely not Sanders or Biden? both should be pensioned off.
    There is an inversion in the bond yield in the US now. Normally means a recession within 12-18 months. Could be very bad timing for Trump whose debt fuelled growth is not sustainable.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531


    It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.

    Or existent, but overruled by management...
    Which is as good as non-existent.

    I used to manage graduate students (which was funny, because I wasn't a graduate). One of the things I'd tell them was a lesson I'd picked up from an old NASA anecdote: always ask yourself "How does it fail?"

    How something works is important. If you are working on anything that is critical, particularly for life, then as much, if not more, effort has to be put into failure. When it fails (and it will), what are the effects and consequences?

    In this case, they didn't (or worse, as you say, ignored), the simple question of what would happen if an AoA vane gave incorrect values at low altitude. This seems such an obvious failure mode that it is staggering it was not addressed.
  • Why the heated discussion about 2017 manifestos? Both went in the bin as soon as the election was over.

    Or is this just the kind of Brexit cascade reaction that we can look forward to as hackles rise and tempers fray? I refer you all back to my public safety as a candidate post of earlier.

    I know we are not on the same page politically but I really do share your concern for all party helpers in the coming locals facing unacceptable threats to their right to campaign

    Brexit has made so many so intolerant to others views and it will go down in the nations history as a deeply destablising period that brought condemnation of the whole political and media class
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776


    It's unbelievable that Boeing have got into such a mess. Their specification and software validation must be virtually non-existent.

    Or existent, but overruled by management...
    Someone at Boeing has a to do list that looks a bit like this.

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BvuMPl9h3xg/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=4zzptgfyb4eb
    That's superb but my non downloaded brain now needs to be transferred to Edinburgh. Good morning to all my fellow cultists.
  • DavidL said:

    Good morning everyone

    I have to say I am very impressed with Yvette Cooper and compare and contrast her responsible attitude with Mark Francois furious response to the ERG defeat quoting Jesus saying

    'Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do'

    I had no idea that my party contained so many unpleasant mps

    I made the same point downthread Big_G. A Labour party led by Cooper would probably be in power by now, let alone out of sight in the polling.
    Yes indeed
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Jonathan said:

    O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.

    That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
    Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
  • mr-claypolemr-claypole Posts: 217
    If we get a long extension, with EP elections then we are now I think, for the first time, heading for ref2 as it will soon be the brexiters only hope -or an election which labour win and the price of coalition with SNP etc is ref2.

    If no extension (which seems unlikely) it will be revoke followed by a coupon election with both parties all over the place and resulting in a coalition with ref2 as the price.

    Talks with Labour were really only a gambit to get MV4 passed next week by frightening the horses but it is pretty obvious that has backfired. If there is a long extension Tories have to get a new leader and then an election which leads to the same outcome as above.

    I thought for a long time the peoples vote strategy of last man standing was wrong - but it was me who was wrong all along.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    IanB2 said:


    May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.

    Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.

    Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.

    Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.

    That's a great summary. So isn't the likely upshot just that parliament fails to pass anything and TMay goes off to Brussels to ask for an extension armed with a blank piece of paper and a weak smile?

    Then the 27 have to decide whether to let the irritation drag on inconclusively or to set Ireland on fire. I think they'll say, "OK, do what you like but don't bother us again for at least 18 months."
  • Jonathan said:

    O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.

    That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
    Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
    This rhetoric needs dialling down
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136

    Jonathan said:

    O/T - I’m getting increasingly concerned by growing violent Leaver rhetoric over on Twitter, which seems to particularly come from the No Surrender wing.

    That’s a concern. A mob is rarely more dangerous than when it has a chip on its shoulder.
    Try a mob of 17.4m with righteous anger on its side....
    Brexit doesn't even have 17.4 million supporters any more, let alone 17.4 million angry ones.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,531
    I should add to my previous posts that politicians should also spend more time asking themselves: "How does it fail?"

    Asking that question, and putting in a few safeguards, could save themselves and the public a great deal of hassle.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,093
    edited April 2019

    IanB2 said:


    May and Corbyn aren't going to reach a deal. May has absolutely no room for manouevre, and only went for the Corbyn gambit because every other tactic meant changing her position and prompting resignations. At least while she is talking to Corbyn she can pretend her position is unchanged.

    Corbyn cannot afford to reach a deal without keeping a PV in play (a guarantee at least of a free Commons vote), and I don't see how May could concede that and stay in her job.

    Already they are both in the room trying to work out how to blame the other for an already scripted failure.

    Now it hangs on Monday in the House. The Cabinet will have to participate for the first time, exposing their fault lines for all to see.

    That's a great summary. So isn't the likely upshot just that parliament fails to pass anything and TMay goes off to Brussels to ask for an extension armed with a blank piece of paper and a weak smile?

    Then the 27 have to decide whether to let the irritation drag on inconclusively or to set Ireland on fire. I think they'll say, "OK, do what you like but don't bother us again for at least 18 months."
    On the end bit, I think you're right, underlined by the soon-to-be-law Cooper Bill that compels the PM to ask for an extension in those circumstances anyway.

    Monday depends on the voting system (there is some talk of using AV to narrow the options), whether the "composite" options being prepared by MPs (notably CU+PV) prove more popular or less popular than their elements separately, and the extent of whipping. Given how close some of the options have become, getting a decision isn't out of the question.

    The issue then becomes whether, if for example, the House goes for CU or CM2 on Monday, it is still feasible to aim for 22 May or whether a longer delay is now inevitable? I had assumed the latter but there has been some talk of still being able to leave quickly.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Normally a fan of @cyclefree articles but I'm not really seeing this one tbh. Both are disrupters
    who reject the status quo but that does not make them alike. They are both bad in their own ways and have their own collections of prejudices, biases and idiocies which don't overlap.

    Here’s the thing: whilst Trump is a cheat and liar in almost every area of his life, he seems to be faithfully (and tenaciously) attempting to carry out the entirety of the manifesto he was elected on.

    That’s not what I expected at all, as I assumed much of it was hot air.

    That should be taken into account when trying to understand the passion of his base.
    I have a small bet on him being re-elected. I expect to win it although I would be happy enough to lose it. He is a vile collection of bigotries, lies and distortions who makes very good use of the opportunities given by social media to distort.

    To go back to @cyclefree's theme what they do have in common is that our news media have not been able to dent them. Pointing out the lies, the fantasies, the failures, the bigotry, none of it seems to work. The more I think about that the more I think that the real problem is that our complete distrust of and willingness to disregard the self appointed "truth tellers" means no one is holding them to account. No one is holding the ring anymore.

    I think it’s simpler than that: people hear what they want to hear and in the age of social media they now do not need to hear anything else. Trump and Corbyn (and many others now) understand that instinctively because it’s how they’ve lived their entire lives.

This discussion has been closed.