Roberto Larcos
Member
I'd prefer if we didn't go down the 'sins of the father' route in apportioning vitriol. Judge people on their own words and actions.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
I'd prefer if we didn't go down the 'sins of the father' route in apportioning vitriol. Judge people on their own words and actions.
Psychotext
Member
They're a right wing party that invited Farage to speak. The history lesson is valid I think.
None of that is my words, apart from the "not racist though", but they clearly are.
CyclopsRock
Member
Oh, god. If no one else is willing to say what we're all thinking, I'll do it and risk catching the perma.
Here:
HIGNFY hasn't been funny since Angus Deayton left. YUP.
Here:
HIGNFY hasn't been funny since Angus Deayton left. YUP.
Henchmen21
Banned
Without a doubt the most disgusting thing anyone has ever said in UK Poligaf.
Get out.
Bruce Forsyth's episode was good, but I largely agree.
The show's become so... irrelevant. And of course not funny. But it's sadder to see them squander something of unique value.
HIGNFY rehabilitated and unleashed various right wing monsters on us, from Boris Johnson (he's cuddly and funny lets ignore the criminal conspiracy to assault journalists from uncovering corruption) to Nigel Farage and Rees-Mogg. The show has no bite or edge to it at all, everything is presented as fluffy and inconsequential and everyone can have a laugh.
The only time I can remember them really going for someone was Piers Morgan, which is absolutely fun to watch. But they treat politicians with kid gloves.
The only time I can remember them really going for someone was Piers Morgan, which is absolutely fun to watch. But they treat politicians with kid gloves.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Fuck me that's inspired.
<missing the point>
Bu bu bu Louis XIV was a pretty damn capable ruler that led France to become Europe's number one diplomatic and military power. He (and his mom) cleaned house and ousted a whole bunch of unruly nobles, centralised power under him and led France into several successful wars. He loved wars and managed to remove the constant Spanish pain in the French rear. French diplomats were pretty capable and were utilised to their full extent during, before and after wars so he could keep peace in between kicking ass for just long enough to replenish soldiers and morale. The sun king may have been a king in the end, but as far as those go he was pretty damn decent. And the quote in the cartoon is only attributed to him, nobody knows whether he really ever said that. And, and and....
...And he holds the European record of staying in power the longest, seventy-odd years IIRC.
</>
Also, May in tights. Brrr.
Bu bu bu Louis XIV was a pretty damn capable ruler that led France to become Europe's number one diplomatic and military power. He (and his mom) cleaned house and ousted a whole bunch of unruly nobles, centralised power under him and led France into several successful wars. He loved wars and managed to remove the constant Spanish pain in the French rear. French diplomats were pretty capable and were utilised to their full extent during, before and after wars so he could keep peace in between kicking ass for just long enough to replenish soldiers and morale. The sun king may have been a king in the end, but as far as those go he was pretty damn decent. And the quote in the cartoon is only attributed to him, nobody knows whether he really ever said that. And, and and....
...And he holds the European record of staying in power the longest, seventy-odd years IIRC.
</>
Also, May in tights. Brrr.
Steverulez
Member
The second article 50 is revoked Brexit is dead so won't be that one. She won't resign because she's not that sort of person, she still sees the headlines that she sailed the UK ship through Brexit choppy waters and heralded a new and prosperous country when actually her and her shitty government are just making us walk the plank instead.
A soft Brexit is the only possibility out of that lot but even then Murdoch doesn't that, David Davis doesn't want that and I don't think most in her party want it either.
She'll probably just announce something so completely irrelevant its not worth getting excited for.
Huw_Dawson
Member
May resigning would be a de-facto triggering of the next general election - whether that's three months or two years from now - and the Tories (and DUP) absolutely want to avoid a Corbyn government. I'd imagine everyone from Clarke to Redwood wake up screaming from nightmares involving McDonnell walking into the Treasury. So putting aside the idea that May's intervention later this month will be to resign, and ignoring the wilfully ignorant idea that she's somehow going to try and put Brexit on hold or something, my bet is that her intervention is supposed to be her last-ditch attempt to salvage her career by using herself to form a bridge between the Soft and Hard Tory Brexiteer groups.
Fundamentally her job is to steer the UK through Brexit. Brexit is why she has her job, Brexit is the running theme of her leadership.
If when she gets up on stage in her intervention the best she can offer is some bizarre two-headed approach where we will both have a fast divorce and a detailed transition, and the right wing papers rip her apart for it, I think she might well resign soon after. She's out of options then - if she is unable to unite the two wings of her party under a common plan then she has to go, and the Tories will have to find somebody else.
For what it's worth I would rather May clings on. This political crisis ends with Brexit blowing up in the faces of its creators, and that has to happen for the country to move on.
Fundamentally her job is to steer the UK through Brexit. Brexit is why she has her job, Brexit is the running theme of her leadership.
If when she gets up on stage in her intervention the best she can offer is some bizarre two-headed approach where we will both have a fast divorce and a detailed transition, and the right wing papers rip her apart for it, I think she might well resign soon after. She's out of options then - if she is unable to unite the two wings of her party under a common plan then she has to go, and the Tories will have to find somebody else.
For what it's worth I would rather May clings on. This political crisis ends with Brexit blowing up in the faces of its creators, and that has to happen for the country to move on.
Steverulez
Member
This is beautiful
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Anyone else waiting for democracy to die with the inevitable Soubry heel turn?
I had Soubry down as the one saying 'This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause' personally.
Yup. I wonder which way it will go?
Remind me of the Lee Evans sketch when he talks about estimated utility bills. "They're making it up. Why can't I estimate it? I estimate I owe you fuck all."
You're saying Soubry's been working us, brother? I thought for sure it was a shoot.
He did go away, and then look what happened.
Yeah was definitely better with Deayton. If anything, the rift between him and Hislop/Merton added an edge - along with his deadpan delivery. I really don't care for the rotating presenters, they need someone to keep Hislop in check with his soapboxing and Merton with his cringey dad-jokes.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well yeah, and in that sense it's exactly the same as every other bit of spending.
Btw, I know I've said it before but I'm currently in Center Parcs and, therefore, enjoying many hours of Sky News whilst my girlfriend inexplicably sleeps for four hours a day more than I do having been confronted with the spectre of exercise (in the form of swimming in a wave machine) for the first time in months, and my god Kay Burley would absolutely get it. What a total babe.
I'm pretty sure she eats her mates post coitus.
Henchmen21
Banned
She's a Praying Mantis?
That or some sort of souless lizard
CyclopsRock
Member
I ain't about discriminating.
So here is an interesting chart (graphing gore aside).
I'm basically graph illiterate (innumerate?) but this says wages are going down, spending is going down, and savings are going up, right?
That's how I read it. People see the shitstorm on the horizon and are starting to hide their loot under the mattress rather than spend it.
On the other point further up, Kay Burley is the most repugnant and toxic person in news broadcasting. Piers Morgan doesn't count on the basis that he has nothing to do with actual news anymore and doesn't qualify as a person.
Stop - CyclopsRock can only get so aroused.
Nope. Savings is inverted, see green axis on the left.
Payroll has a very slight recovery.
Basically people are spending instead of saving, but it certainly isn't being seen by retail in real values.
So spending down, savings down, wages trending down but with a slight recovery?
Spending is up, because if you aren't saving, you're spending. However, retail isn't seeing the effects of that spending.
Though of course you also have to consider that with less payroll disbursed, you're also going to get less spending. So what is happening is that people have less money, so they don't save it, it goes straight into spending. However it isn't enough.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think that's probably because the pound has gone down sharply, but UK consumers and producers haven't been able to shift to producing and purchasing more domestic goods, because we're a highly specialised economy and that takes time. So we're still buying the same amount of imported goods, but the price of them has gone up, so we're having to eat into our savings to do so given our wages have not risen.
The corroborating evidence for this would be our worsening trade balance.
The corroborating evidence for this would be our worsening trade balance.
But if you look at the graph, you see that the effects (namely payroll and savings ratio) were there long before the Pound fell. The fall in the Sterling only magnified its effects and collapsed the returns in retail.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No, that's not true. Before the collapse of the pound, the economy looks quite normal. A demand-induced recession like the Great Recession is caused by everyone saving, an example of Keynes' paradox of thrift. The recovery is when everyone begins to spend again, driving up aggregate demand. As such, you would expect the savings ratio to fall during a recovery as wages pick up, and that's exactly what we see up until the start of '16. I know there is dip already from a peak in '15, but that's seasonal - it's not proper to plot payroll as a 3-month average for these sorts of conversations because the winter and spring payrolls are almost always lower than summer and autumn. If you compare season to season - e.g., spring '16 to spring '15 - you can see that payrolls are still increasing on a like-for-like basis, and accordingly the savings ratio falls as people become more confident. Up to early '16 is a more or less expected picture of a recovering economy - the only odd thing is just how slow the recovery is!
The real turning point is in summer 2016 - when the pound crashed.
So here is an interesting chart (graphing gore aside).
It infuriates me seeing graphs as poorly formatted as this.
As always with Question Time, I'd rather chew a mouthful of thumb tacks.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I normally watch Question Time out of a sense of belated duty, but the presence of Will Self is an automatic signal for me that it's just not worth it this time.
Audioboxer
Member
Theonik
Member
This is a pretty common view in the Tories and I mean it makes sense from his ideological point of view. If you are a Christian that believes in charity, conventionally you might assume that state sponsored charity in the form of welfare is the Christian thing to do.
However, for many Christians, having the state involved in charity is wrong and indeed for small government tories is entirely the wrong path. Then it becomes obvious that the real answer from that perspective is that the haves are morally obligated to donate money to charity privately.
The spin there is that more foodbanks indicate an uptick in private donations which from that perspective is the way things should be. One might argue that foodbanks show the good and charitable nature of the British public and indeed the UK's social cohesion.
It's entirely the wrong way to do this from my perspective of course as I think that being in government very much gives one the power to nip the problem in the bud and wishing people suffer to fit one's moral high-ground is an awful way to govern, minding that it is in most cases the only way to govern. (there will always be an affected group in any policy)
JonnyDBrit
Member
Tl;dr, he focuses more on the people helping aspect than the reasoning of why they're needed.
- Status