itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

Course I voted Dalian but I wanted to vote for Le Tissier.

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Probably, yes. But is it a result of the possibility of a Labour Government in the near future? With Labour looking to renationalise the power companies, this could be an attempt at a final hurrah for shareholders 

 

Not a bad thought.

Tbf if you're going to start with any organisation power seems to be the one. They are doing well, have a strong network, seems to be more on top of upgrades than other utility companies and will turn a profit.
 

17 hours ago, bickster said:

They aren't at all. If they were neo-liberal they'd be doing all they can to stay in Europe.

This lot don't seem to have a "philosophy", more of a stupidity. You've got a bunch of people who the country didn't really want in power, the leader is the leader because no one wants her job because everyone knows it's going to be a pigs ear, this Brexit. Either side of her you've got pro and anti breixiteers chipping away at her and all they're really interested in is looking good whist not taking the blame, ready to pounce when he time is right.

If they were honourable people they'd put a stop to this nonsense for the good of the country, right now. But they aren't honourable, they are quite deplorable.

So a hard brexit then and be done with it? Or do you mean reversing the decision of the referendum?

20 hours ago, Jareth said:

The Mooch is an absolute legend - just when you thought the US government couldn't get any more twisted, they go and appoint a character from Wall Street (the movie) to speak for el presidente. Bloody loving watching all this. Sadly I think a North Korean war is inevitable, Japan gonna get flattened. 

Madness isn't it.

19 minutes ago, DK82 said:

I think he will get better the more we play him. Keep him in the team and I think the rewards will come - especially in the league we are in.

I'd agree with that. He's not quick but he stand defenders up and makes them backtrack, players like that need time and opportunities to make mistakes until they work out their rhythm and tactics.
If we're winning, I think he deserves a prolonged period of education.

Great to see two things that have been lacking for quite some time. A midfielder who can accurately play the early pass, and a winger who sticks wide and puts the ball in.
Still not convinced on Gabby as a lone player but he's not having a bad game for a forward. 

Annoying to see throw-ins are still pretty messy.

1 hour ago, peterms said:

From about half way through, he kept on touching her.  Very odd.  And then there's this.  She seems to be watching his hands...as you would...

 

 

Perhaps he was wearing shorts and she was checking out his legs or bulge. Bloody pervert!

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't really understand your point here. 

To address what I think you're saying - 'Enthusiasm' is not a one-way street. Republicans do not, in fact, always 'come out in force', and we don't have to go too far back in history, to 2008, to find an election in which a deeply unpopular Republican president and a crap candidate led to lots of Republicans staying home. 

Whether voters stay home or not is dictated, in part, by the enthusiasm they feel for a particular candidate, which is why it's important to measure the strength of people's approval for a candidate rather than just approve/disapprove. When we do that, we find that not only are Trump's top-line numbers very poor, but that his support is softening. 

What advantage would be provided by a poll that deliberately ignored voters in purple states that actually change hands in elections? Voters in 'Trump-heavy regions' are already included in national polls. 

--------------------------------------------------

None of this is to say that this trend will continue, of course. Observing a trend in the recent past and the present is not a prediction for the future. But your initial claim was that focusing on the Russia scandal is galvanising and 'emboldening' Trump's supporters. The fact is, there's no evidence for that. In reality, whether due to the scandal or other factors or both (and 'both' seems obviously true to me) his support is declining amongst the general population, and the strength of it is declining amongst his supporters. 

Obama might help you here. His vote showed, twice. When it didn't, the Democrats suffered. The sad rhetoric of the right softened many of their own supporters, and while they might not have voted, Obama's guys did.

That's why it would be interesting to see how typical Trump supporters are feeling, rather than a cross section of the population. Also from both a Democrat and Republican POV that's vital information. Perhaps even for policy makers!

I'm sorry, but all this started because the BBC posted stories about people taking their kids out of scouts, so if you want proof, head to twitter, facebook or youtube. People (especially the core supporters) feel the media is being unfair to him and the Russia scandal is a huge element of that blunt approach to journalism. 

In the general population yes. But there is absolutely evidence to say that this one dimensional pressure is creating a narrative of its own. That seems a risky game to play if the evidence doesn't stick.

52 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I agree with this. Also id add, in response that 'many trump supporters work too hard to pick up a phone'. Isn't this true of all people? If we're talking something that is representative like a poll?

unless those who vote trump are more likely to be working too hard to pick up the phone?

I'm struggling to infer anything else from that statement otherwise, why include it?

In fact red states rely on government support than blue states.

You are right and I shouldn't have bothered including it. 

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm not trying to be rude, but none of these are particularly good reasons to doubt the validity of the poll. 

Also, 'remember, Republicans vote for Republicans' is meaningless. Most do, but some don't. If it were a complete statement of fact, vote totals would exactly match party registration, which they obviously don't. Presidents do, in fact, become more or less popular at different points in their presidencies - even with their own supporters!

What I mean by that is there are Republican voters and there are Trump voters. Much like there are Democrats, and there are Sanders supporters. But Democrats will choose to not vote, as a protest, whereas Republicans come out in force.

We saw it in France too where their attitude was 'none of the above' . 

I just don't feel this poll is particularly representative of Trump supporters (who like Momentum move the voting conversation) and is more representative of a Republican feeling. I'd like to see a poll completed in Trump heavy regions, I think there is more of a 'Shy Tory Factor' at play than many realise.

On 06/07/2017 at 13:24, Stevo985 said:

Only if they specifically ask you about it.

Don't lie about it, but don't volunteer the information unless you're required to.

Good advice.

But on that, I am submitting an application for a role (unpaid) that requires me to keep info back to stand a chance. But I am forgoing all sense and doing the opposite as I need to make sure they are right for me.
I fully expect it to go badly but meh, it's part of a masterplan, ha.

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Robert Mueller was previously appointed by a Republican president and Republican congressmen and women went on record talking approvingly of his appointment. He was also not well-known. 73% approving sounds perfectly plausible. 

I assume you've put in those party ID numbers as a gotcha, but it's not a good one . . . there are (far) more registered Democrats than Republicans in the US, so a representative sample will include more registered Democrats. Many 'independents' are in fact party-line Republican voters who simply don't like to be identified as such. 

My point is exactly that. It's too technical a question for middle America and therefore cannot be considered a realistic study of what Trump supporters think. Many of them actually think he is doing a good job!!!!  A good 20% didn't know answers to many survey questions.

And no, it's not a gotcha, it's a fact that I researched and didn't simply take for granted because the Washington Post reported it. Many of the independents, particularity after Hillary, will be democrats too!
Furthermore, it was a random survey and so people were asked 'Generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?' 

With 50 states, that's asking fewer than 25 people in each state (remember how polarised the US state system makes the US). I'm not questioning the need for the poll but I am certainly questioning the validity of it when used to evidence Trumps demise within his own supporters. Remember, republicans vote for republicans. Trump is a by-product of beating the Democrats.
Also, where have you been for the last five years?!!!! Have you forgotten how completely disconnected journalism/researchers are from reality? 

34 minutes ago, ender4 said:

21 times?!!    over how long a period. 

so much cost in fees and stamp duty! 

I'm 35 and the eldest so it's over a 37 year period. A couple of those moves were to rented while we made choices on where to go/what to do.
I loved living in so many different places, though I never had a set group of friends and every time I started to, we were off! My mum got three school bus routes moved to accommodate our travel, ha.

I might do a calculation of stamp duty if I come back to Brum. I'm sure they've kept all documentation.

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

There really isn't much evidence for this. His overall approval rating is towards the lowest point it has been, having stabilised at around 38-39%, the lowest for any president in the modern era at this stage in his presidency, and the proportion of voters who strongly approve of him has declined significantly during his short presidency (graphs come from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/06/07/strong-approval-of-trump-is-fading-across-a-number-of-demographics/?utm_term=.80aec7d9b809), ie. he seems to be much more successful in turning off supporters than emboldening them:

 

I'm assuming it's the most recent one they've released? If so, they asked 1,212 people and 73% of respondents said they approve of Robert Mueller being named special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation, 15% disapprove.....sounds like a really strong study right at the heart of middle America! Most of those voters also rejected his decision on the Paris Climate Accord but 72% of republicans agreed with it.

REGISTERED VOTERS PARTY IDENTIFICATION
Republican 25% Democrat 31% Independent 37% Other/DK/NA 6%

This is some additional trend info they included - https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us06292017_trends_U29wzguu.pdf/

Quote

TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as President?

Btw, his approval rating has gone up in that question....even with Qunnipiac's polls, which I do not believe is particularity representative of either the republicans or a good cross section of American voters.

3 hours ago, peterms said:

It's not about rhetoric or wanting only things that support a certain world view.  Let me try to explain how I see it.......

A great explanation and I agree wholeheartedly but I still don't feel demonising him as the only course of action does much to improve the situation. It further divides voters and emboldens his supporters.
At this stage, it's not impossible that a small economic upturn at the right time could see him winning a second term for him or the republicans.
Why not report something about a President wasting his chance at inspiring the next generation of kids? Did enough people really take their kids out of scouts (which only hurts the child) to make a story out of it?

My assessment a few weeks after he won was that the Democrats need to immediately concentrate on policies for the mid-term election, not spend 18 months vilifying someone who doesn't care and isn't going to change, I think that goes for the media too. 
From the BBC report (and many others) you'd think very few of scouts in the US enjoyed his presence. But many people did enjoy his presence and will get a lot from it, that balance in the story gives increased weight when you attack him for failing in his main job, governance and not buffoonery. 

3 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Maybe, but then the reason that the Conservatives inherited such an enormous deficit wasn't exactly because of public spending, but rather because of the decision to bail out the banks in the wake of the financial crisis, this move alone saw the deficit explode. I don't think the Tories, were they have been in power at the time, would have done anything different. Of course, in additional to this, 'automatic stablisers' kick in when an economy goes into a deep recession, since unemployment rises more people have to claim JSA etc, this raises public spending, but there's very good economic reasons for things like this to exist.

100% true. And their response would have been to cut and not bother to understand the cyclical nature of social support. They need a lot of convincing until they do something smart.

But I would make one point about waste and that is actual cost of delivery. While the economy tanked and many people were impacted, the direction of money actually spent on support was not only wasteful but wholly irresponsible.

While those sums don't appear huge, in a productivity and support context, they were.
Eg - if you give every person in long term unemployment (typically referred from JCP) £5k to spend on things that had a tenuous link to their potential 'job outcome' and if they don't spend it, that money goes to the private company who provide the service, is that a good use of tax payers money to offer sustainable support?
When that was coupled with the removal of JobCentre responsibilities which were handed to the private sector, years of failed employment techniques (like agency jobs on the JobCentre website) and advisors that are either young people in their first job, or old people in their only job, you'll find very many people ending up in long term employment accessing services that should be preserved for the hardest to help.
In fact many people stuck around in unemployment to get a better client spend because there was a voluntary referral system too.

But it continues. Each of these private companies, which amounted a handful acting as a middle man to third sector/contractor providers, then received a first/second engagement, sustainable and continued support payment. And the rest! Whereas JobCentePlus continued having their wings clipped with salaries up to 30% lower than the private sector.
You don't have to be a genius to understand that from the very outset it was a wasteful and costly approach to tackling unemployment both before and after the crash. That's lives, not the world economy.

But on lives, if you're a Londoner experiencing unaffordable rents (everyone in London) you can thank planning policy that turned houses into small flats (which ended up an investment paradise and created a false price for flatted accommodation), huge developments of tiny or shared living flats, massive increases in the costs of building due to the disconnect between local and central  government and greenspace policy stopping development, and that's me only naming a few failures. This began exclusively under Labour and despite the Conservatives doing nothing to equalise prices, family homes are finally returning to the capital even if it's probably too late.

These are some stats I use in my presentations to local authorities. The first is delivery of houses and flats in Greater London.


And the second is London's population increase per annum vs annual completions. 30,000+ homes were delivered last year so an improvement but heck, we all know it's not been an improvement because it's the same sort of property being delivered! Small, shared, non-family, unaffordable.

The final one is house price rises in London for each type of property.

Obviously, housing lobbyist, etc. etc. but my god, the evidence for all round political failure, both locally and nationally, really needs to be understood so we can truly tackle the problems those we have voted for have caused. Financial crash or not!

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Nonsense.

A yearly get together of scouts is not a rally. It is not a matter of semantics or tomato/tomato.

What he did was wildly inappropriate and your comparison to Corbyn's political rallies is shallow and insincere.

Jesus christ you guys really are entrenched in anti-Trump rhetoric aren't you.

I said from the start it was a wholly classless display but as a scout I would have been wrapped if a President came to my world jamboree and spoke for so long. It would have served as an inspiration and a memorable experience that my club, the scouts (of which there are 3.4m in the US), were privileged enough to experience! It's absolutely worth reporting from both sides.
As I said, the word obtuse was correct, move outside the bubble you think is the world and don't just clamour for things that support your ever narrowing point of view. 

And besides, use an effing dictionary!

Quote

jamboree

ˌdʒambəˈriː/

noun

1. 1.

   a large celebration or party, typically a lavish and boisterous one.

   "the film industry's annual jamboree in Cannes"

   synonyms:

   rally, gathering, get-together, convention, conference; More

2. 2.

   a large rally of Scouts or Guides.

   synonyms:

   rally, gathering, get-together, convention, conference; More

People Assembly annual rally,  Scouts annual rally.....potato, potato; especially on a forum where every one of my posts made a point of saying that Trump did the wrong thing! 

But still, two political speakers turn up to speak at an event for X, but they use that position to talk about their politics and not the issues at hand....or they lightly touch on the issues and use it as a political platform.....how are they any different? The difference here is the majority of vocal people detest Trump but go either way with Corbyn, or, outside the UK nobody cares about him.

Again, for the millionth time, I like Corbyn and have respected him for twenty years. However, if you think he is above playing politics, then you are not only mistaken but part of this whole political problem.
I said it a week ago and I'm saying it again, when chanting 'ohhh Jeremy Corbyn' is almost as acceptable as '**** the Tories' then you have a damned problem. Particularly when the inept similarities between the parties are there for the world and their supporters to see.......if they were brave enough to scratch the surface like Corbyn was doing for 30 odd years previous. 

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Was the scouts thing a rally?

Jamboree. I used to wrong word but meh, potato/potato!

49 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Come on, you're being obtuse. 

Of course the news media picked up on the newsworthy bit of the speech. But why don't they report on all the planes that don't crash?

So you're saying there is no story at all in President Trump attending a jamboree rather than just paying lip service to it? 
I'd say very many young people (who will probably never be old enough to vote for Trump) will have felt quite inspired that day.

Obtuse was the right word, but perhaps not for me

45 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

Why would the rest of his address be reported on while he overshadowed it by politicising in a distasteful way?

A president praising the boy scouts is hardly newsworthy. 

#fakenews?

But perhaps if they attended the rally it might be? 

#PartialNews

5 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

So many 'buyers' out there are completely wasting vendors time viewing houses they've no intention in buying. I've known people who just go look at houses out of curiosity.

I had a couple look around a place I was selling once, with a couple of mins of talking to them it was abundantly clear they weren't interested in the house so I kicked them out.

Absolutely.

Our family has moved 21 times in all (I think, always lose count), around 17 of them were house sales. Some of the shocking offers we got and time wasted was incredible.
Still....they all sell in the end....just about!

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's the boy scouts jamboree; children, not a political rally.

No other President went there and made it political.

Crap comparison.

That's why I said it wasn't exactly the same but just so you're clear, the creation of the US boy scouts was a direct response to social problems, much like the Peoples Assembly....though I don't know the difference between the PA and the PA Against Austerity. Seem to be different.

Having spoken to very many of the PA as they patrolled the streets of Brighton during the election, a majority I spoke to felt the issues were not actually being discussed and it was descending into political rhetoric.
Their own website says they are not affiliated to any political party and encourage a wide debate........just not at the rally's when they have the most impact! 

Trump showed an overwhelming lack of class (and I left some of that in the quote below) but he also said 'scout' or 'scouting' 54 times in that speech. I wonder whether the things he said about scouts will get much of a report?...apart from in- one can assume - a delighted 'Scout Monthly'!

Quote

Each of these leaders will tell that you their road to American success -- and you have to understand -- their American success, and they are a great, great story, was paved with the patriotic American values and traditions they learned in the Boy Scouts. And some day, many years from now, when you look back on all of the adventures in your lives you will be able to say the same, I got my start as a Scout, just like these incredibly great people that are doing such a good job for our country. So that's going to happen.
(APPLAUSE)
Boy Scout values are American values. And great Boy Scouts become great, great Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
As the Scout law says, a scout is trustworthy, loyal -- we could use some more loyalty I will tell that you that.

http://time.com/4872118/trump-boy-scout-jamboree-speech-transcript/

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Donny Moscow's latest trick.

Whinging to a bunch of boy scouts (35,000 of them) about how victimised he is and inciting them to boo Obama

Just **** creepy.

Pretty shocking really. Who the hell turns up to a rally and spends all their time forming a political narrative. 

It would be like Corbyn turning up to a Peoples Assembly event and exclusively talking about the Tories instead of realistic solutions to failed policy. America clearly needs our new kind of politics 
Tongue in cheek because it's not exactly the same, but sadly it's not that dissimilar. 

31 minutes ago, lexicon said:

He's also a petulant, vile, goblin-faced chav. Wouldn't want him anywhere near the club. 

Ha, he certainly is petulant but I'd take him in a heartbeat if the wages were okay. He can dribble and pass which is more than we can say for 95% of the Villa team

1 hour ago, PompeyVillan said:

They're two quite different issues. The vote leave campaign made an explicit claim that the UK could spend an extra £350 million a week on the NHS if we chose to leave the EU. Corbyn made a wishy washy, ill advised comment that he'd 'deal with...' student debt. Which is now being twisted to mean he'd wipe out all historic student debt. Play along if you want, I don't think it's remotely the same thing.

For what it's worth, I consider my student debt an education tax, I'll not pay it off for years. But that was my choice. 

I saw a Conservative back bencher making the strawman/clutching at straws arguement to Angela Rayner in parliament. It's distraction 101.

During the election whilst media rules are different, we even hear from the likes of Plaid. They're back in their box until the next election now.  

Of course government figures get more media attention, that's only natural. It happened under New Labour too. 

I think Labour are trying to offer a different type of opposition because of this. 

Don't worry, one thing I tend not to do is play along. In fact this is my wording a page back when I first suggested the bus comparison -

Quote

Btw I'm definitely being facetious, I understand what Corbyn said and meant.

However, In a narrative sense (when played out in all media forms), how is the vague 'we could' any different from the vague "I'll deal with it"? Particularly when it's not explicitly corrected
....oh hold on, both were! Many, many times! 
The bus continued parading (despite months of the media putting people right) and Labour let a misappropriation run until the media decided to hold them to account.

I will always support policy and so a Conservative saying stupid things will always garner my criticism; however, Plaid aren't back in the box, it's just the media aren't covering them and the majority aren't interested in them! 
You'd think at this point, the more engaged voters would start to be less impacted by the media narrative and find their own truths. If it takes Corbyn to do that then I am all for it, especially as he did correctly cite the difficulties and didn't commit to paying out for it.
But, for example, when I see people shouting about the non-electrification of train lines (recent announcement) or public ownership of utilities, I expect them to know why electrification could very well be a dead duck and what the challenges to public ownership really are.