Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by blandy

  1. is what? The point I was trying to get across (badly, it seems) is that electability is really only known once we get to a general election and that being ahead or behind in the polls, whoever it is, is just a snapshot of a day when there's not an election at best (as you say) gives us a bit of data to help inform our opinions. I didn't mean to deflect from anything. I personally was convinced that Corbyn would never get elected, from the point, or even before, he became leader. But that's in the past. Starmer's got a massive job to turn round a 80 odd seat advantage to the baby eaters, and to date neither his individual efforts, not the collective ones of the Labour party look like they're going to be anywhere near good enough. Corbyn was hampered to by infighting and splits. My posts aren't partisan as from a particular part of the Labour party - IDGAS about that. They're observations of a rando on the internet about how it looks from the perspective of someone who wants the tories out and despairs about that happening.
  2. It's also speculation (being polite). Not to defend either of those two, but Corbyn Labour spent a bit of time ahead in the pols, as has Starmer Labour (I think, last year?). We do know that Corbyn twice failed to get Labour elected, though. So ultimately he proved not to be electable (to absolutely no surprise on my part). Labour looks no more or less electable/unelectable now, tbh. The current infighting an splits and stuff - either the party breaks up - more Tory governments, or it works out how to resolve the seemingly unsolvable differences and cracks on with being a potential government in waiting. it's not looking promising.
  3. Cool. Those two there - they're not mutually exclusive. you can have public services in public hands and ALSO partner private enterprise. I (probably like you) suspect that anyone thinking (hypothetically) the moment Starmer is Prime Minister he would nationalise Rail, Water, Energy....etc. in his first term, if ever, will be disappointed. I'm not entirely sure (personally) that all of those things would be wise, anyway. Some, yes, sure, others less so in the real world circumstances we have (and which change). For example the other day @Davkaus made the comment that these energy companies being stuffed by the rocketing price of Gas on the international market going bust, saying they do nothing it should be a nationalised industry. Only partly true - take Ecotricity for example - they are a renewable generator of Electricity and gas as well as a "retailer". All the money they make (pretty much) goes back into building more renewable generating capacity. They fund this by selling their power at a higher price to people who are prepared to pay more. At this moment they generate (I think) all of their electricity, but haven't got there yet on Gas. Give it another 10 years maybe and they could be 100% renewable completely, as private enterprise. Meanwhile even if energy was currently already nationalised, Gas prices would still feed through to consumers and the demand from people for "price control" would effectively prohibit Ecotricity from doing what they do. Any nationalised industry is always going to have political influence in terms of Government priorities and voter whims and needs. There's also a limit on the amount of intellect and expertise the government and civil servants possess to innovate and improve. Both systems, private and nationalised have their pros and cons. All the detailed arguments and discussions of the merits of that stuff get turned into ideology (which is fine, I guess), but the complex implications and unintended consequences down the line get ignored because of ideological standpoints (which are often too rigidly held and based on rubbish - "the market is always more efficient " - nonsense, "it's always private profit, public losses" - nonsense. And so on). I said at the time of the last (or last but one) election about Labours plan to nationalise water (at the time people were focused on Water charge rises) - nationalising water wasn't the most effective way to deal with that issue - apart from all the parliamentary time and effort necessary to bring water back public, they either pay the current market price to the shareholders, or they take it back at below market rate and essentially hit people's pensions, creating a pension and poverty problem. Then when they've got water public, who actually does the stuff that needs doing? It'll be the same people as now, just working for a different employer. But the government minister and servants overseeing it all are likely to be career civil servants, or an ever changing rota of Hancocks, Burgeons, Williamsons, and so on. Are they any better than who's doing it now? Wouldn't it be better to just legislate to introduce a cap on prices or profit margins? Taking a fraction of the time and effort, allowing government time and money to be spent on other areas, like I dunno, the NHS, or whatever?
  4. Is that referring to me Darren? If it is, then no, not at all. My posts on people saying he’s reneged on his pledges have been to ask “which ones and how”, (as a genuine question), to also express my disappointment at the absence of party policies and to express my opinion that I thought and expected that once they actually get some policies, then they won’t tally with his pledges, fully. For example: I think he’s floundering in a thick soup of various savoury and unsavoury ingredients, some of his own making, some not. But that’s another question.
  5. They’re trying to make it so (at Villa) “that’s not the way it works” (as much). It’s badly communicated and badly worded, I agree, but on the face of it, it’s neither surprising nor totally bad. Combine it with ending ticketbastard.com and the like from touting tickets for 95 quid and such like, and communicate it to their customers as if we are actual people, not naughty children and I’d be behind this move.
  6. No I'm not going to say that, because curry sauce is wholly acceptable for your moisture provision. But I will say that that choice would be £8.95 where I live in Lancs, or more if I go to a different chippy a bit further way.
  7. Yeah, I came to post the same thing. Lancs/Hants is a nailed on win for one of them. Don''t think it's the Bear's year, this year. Probably Hampshire would be the most deserving winners.
  8. No - it's fine to do that. In theory you're supposed to tell the club that your pal is using your ticket, but I doubt anyone ever does. This new stuff has been brought in I'd guess because demand is outstripping ticket availability, so some people may be breaking the law by re-selling and touting tickets/season tickets or to a lesser extent some away fans who can get tickets may be getting them for games they can't go to, to keep up their eligibility and then selling them on. In an ideal world the club wouldn't allow the various ticketing agencies to sell any tickets either. But seemingly they don't do that, which is a shame.
  9. I gues's Bick's copie'd the error' from the twe'et disenfranchising it’s working class membership for being “politically illiterate”
  10. IS it true that if your home is a leasehold, the holder of the lease is responsible for the buildings insurance (and the dweller for contents)?
  11. My phone fell out of my pocket when I was mountain biking in the desert and it landed (in it's case and with a screen protector) right on a pointy rock - sort of at the charging socket/home button area of the front of the iphone6. It smashed the screen, which was just about held in place and also rodgered the ability to sync it with a computer ( I later found out). It was my alarm clock, messenger and pub arranger and there was no repair place for 400 miles. I managed to nurse it through the next 6 or 7 weeks till civilisation and then took it to the apple shop, where they gave me a replacement (I'm guessing refurbed one) for 79 quid. That lasted for a few years before going haywire (randomly opening apps and e mail and stuff and starting to type in text, and not responding to any inputs). Anyway, I took that one back to the shop and got a full trade in value even though it misbehaved in the shop. I truthfully told the bloke who assessed it that I'd recently loaded a Beta version of the OS onto it (I did that to see if it fixed the problems - it didn't). So both those things cheered me up. I've never insured a phone or gadget.
  12. I saw Mark Robinson get interviewed last night after play, and he said the pitch was a road, so I guess wickets will be hard to winkle out.
  13. Understood - I didn't mean to imply that, if that's how you read my post. I thought he was **** useless but agree he was right on a number of key issues (and wrong on a whole bunch more) - I meant to try and summarise the left v centre comments in a short made up phrase, not imply that either of those were your personal view.
  14. I agree with all of your post, completely. With the caveat that it is hindsight re the 2015 election and "austerity". In another 6 years hindsight might have changed back again, or may be an even stronger version of what you outlined. But anyway, on the quoted bit I think it's necessary (for me) to understand the problem Starmer is seeking to fix. Some people seem to be saying "the current system got Corbyn voted leader and he was a disaster, change the system to stop it happening again". Others seem to be saying "the current system got Corbyn voted leader and he was brilliant, but the right are trying change the system to stop it happening again" - I guess that's your point. But that's not necessarily the same as "that is the genuine reason, it's all about Corbyn (or Corbyn 2.0)" You're right that "the Parliamentary Labour party are not necessarily better at knowing the electorate than Labour members are". The flip side is that the elected MPs are better placed to assess the merits and effectiveness of their colleagues in their parliamentary work and that is a very important aspect of the PLP. And that's the thing that's (IMO) broken in the current system, (whether it elects a Corbyn or a Starmer). If you take the Labour party aspect out of it and look at another example - there's a blue party where the membership are perhaps not the ideal judges of who would be the best leader, as we've seen. So I kind of think this OMOV gives too much weight to the membership and Union branches and not enough to the PLP branch, regardless of actual winners and losers. If that's the core thing that he's trying to fix, then the timing is wrong, but it's probably necessary. If it's really just "no more Corbyns" then...one sector will get it and the others will hate it - more in-fighting.
  15. blandy

    Science Thread

    On a related note, there was a podcast I was put on to years ago called logically critical - they were (they're still available from that link, but there's no more new ones) amusing as well as informative and they brilliantly take the listener through the scientific/ crticial thinking route whilst looking at all kinds of stuff from workplace idiots to religion to Drug policy to the existence of ghosts and so on. One on critical thinking is here (mp3)
  16. blandy

    Dean Smith

    The thing Deano did was the thing that said you want to see more of A particular plan to target their high line and pressing game. I think another thing that Dean now has in his locker to use (and has used recently) is a stronger bench, for the "clever substitutions" you are looking for. That doesn't necessarily mean it will now happen as we'd like every time, but my feeling is we can see improvements he's brought about in areas like dead ball situations, we can see the results of the time he spent when games were off in one to one discussions he had with the players, we can see the team spirit that he has fostered. I think the trickiest thing for him at the moment is working out the best first team and formation and then turning his vision into consistent results while under the scrutiny and expectations of demanding supporters. The Liverpool game you mentioned was a huge thing for him because of the confidence and belief in him and his tactics the result will have instilled into the players. If he can get a win against a "big" opponent soon then I can see another stride forward being taken, but obviously he will be up against opposition that also has the detail and resources that he has been provided with, as well as potentially stronger squads. The next trickest thing he needs to improve is the away record (with fans present). He's got a way to go yet, but he's perfect the man for the job.
  17. Yes, it's a fact - it's much easier to fool someone than it is to get someone who has been fooled to see that they have been fooled.
  18. I agree no significant rejoin campaign will happen (if at all) for donkey's years. The EU won't want it, no British political party (of any size) will touch it with a bargepole, the consequences of Brexit will not hit all at once, like a Tsunami, but will be more like a steady rainfall, with sunny spells. People's collective minds won't change in significant ways other than a generational one. By the time the next generation has voting rights, the world will be different to now. Other stuff will be more important. I can foresee re-joining the single market happening in a few years as a possibility, but not much beyond that.
  19. blandy

    Science Thread

    I should add that I guess the tongue in cheek part of @mjmooney's post is valid, too - that studying in depth is better and more likely to bring better results. Get an expert to do the work.
  20. blandy

    Science Thread

    Exactly - Anyone can follow the scientific process, though the extent to which the have the necessary resources may be constrained, but the principle of science is totally available to everyone - observe, form a theory around your (or others) observations, for m a theory "why does this occur like this" experiment and test that theory, look at the results, refine the theory if not proven and verified by the results, or discount the theory if it's disproven. Publish the results for peer review, rinse and repeat. What @villakram proposed was education on the virus (virology), evidence gathering, and modelling based on known physics (itself a science) - absolutely all of that (and a lot more) is and will have been done by the scientists looking into Covid and publishing the results of their work. If anyone looks at their conclusions and spots a flaw or level of uncertainty in the results they can flag up those flaws or error margins or whatever and, if they're right the scientific conclusions will be modified accordingly. It's actually heartening to see what VA wrote, because it re-inforces the reality and underlying principles of evidence based analysis.
  21. I expect that they'd be on to a loser, because someone else will have taken over the house and be paying for energy, so the evidence will be there that your account for that address ended 2 years ago. But still, nice for it to be so simple.
  22. I think that's over egging it. For many it most definitely was, for many others it wasn't. The reasons people gave for and against were many. It was absolutely a part of it.
  23. Agreed. it's definitely flawed, IMO. For example my vote as a Union member who pays the political levy ( I don't, I stopped paying it) and who hasn't voted Labour since the 2nd Iraq war should not count exactly the same as that of (say) John McDonnell or Kier Starmer, or a Labour activist and member who helps and fund raises and canvasses and all the rest, unless the "Leader" is a token appointment, a kind of ceremonial goat, and the Leader in parliament is chosen purely by the Labour MPs. Now seems an odd time to try and fix that, even assuming his draft fix is any better.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.