blandy

Yeah, though there are exceptions, obviously. Sometimes a remix to make something completely different and Dancey works

Hence the old horrible racist "No dogs, no blacks, no Irish" signs that B&Bs used to apparently put up?

No. Boss: "Norman go to the CBI thing and live tweet the speeches". Norman: "(makes a typo live tweeting)" Internet: "Bias [sic] BBC, stooges, anti Labour #JC4PM"

Yeah, me too. I have no beef with you, it’s all good. I mean I don’t like him on the right, I think it diminishes his influence. And Jack’s move has meant that happened more than I’d like. I do get where you’re coming from and we’re all looking at how we might do better. Me personally, I don’t see McGinn as anything other than an asset to the club and team and I don’t agree with the “problem is McGinn”. UTV

It’s another “Look over there” move in its timing. It’s also odious on its own terms.

There are theoretically any number of less bad deals, but they are all bad. Every last one of them. It's a hard thing to get people to love sewers. But if you decide disconnect from the sewage system you end up knee deep in jobby.

Yes, exactly - and that's why I posted what I did above. I think that realistically, with politics, and like it or not (I don't) the ONLY way a remain case can, or could have, been made would be for one of the two main parties to have made it. In that way, in terms of voters generally being affected the media - TV particularly, but also radio and others traditional media - would have to have covered the "remain" case as an adversary to the Government's Leave "steps". What we've basically had is Labour and Tories pushing different theoretical (unicorn) Leave versions. and then the media covering (most of the time) either events in the process of leaving, arguments about which type of leave would be better/less bad, and personalities (will May survive, will Johnson chuck out whoever, will Labour change it's policy... what will the DUP do, what will the SNP do...?) No one "official" has made an attempt to argue for the UK to remain. There are approx half the population who are Remainers and neither party representing what they want. Yes, a referendum might give people hope that the decision be re-thought and changed - but an argument for another Ref is actually about the Ref, parlaimentary v Popular democracy, etc. not about remaining. Even now, Labour is saying they'll come up with some Labour flavoured deal and offer a Ref v Remain on it, but there's no case been made by them WHY people should either consider their Labour Leave, or why actually Remain is better. And that's because the leadership think one thing and the membership another. It's a party survival fudge not a genuine policy based on what "they" believe. It's a massive shame, a huge misjudgement and will lead to a shellacking at the polls and a Tory Brexit

It's partly due to the 2 main parties being Leave parties. There's not been either main party providing opposition to Leaving, just different versions of leaving. Obviously individual MPs, but Party wise it's been Labour and Tory Leave and the small, ignored (apart from in Scotland) parties Remain. So the media coverage of it politically has been slanted toards Leave, with "shock! drama" if/when a Grieve or whoever manages to rustle up enough votes to win a (to most people) odd parliamentary vote and fdefeat May or Johnson. So even though Labour (sometimes) supported those backbencher votes, their own policy, er, remained "to Leave" (and it sort of still is - first thing they say they'll do is to negotiate a different deal to Leave). Meanwhile, Lib Dems are in some places standing where they'd be better off letting a genuine remainy Labour candidate challenge the Tory, and Labour are doing exactly the same where they have no hope, but a LD does. It's in neither of their interests, really, though I know why they do it.

Fair enough. I don't agree with it at all - I mean "some skill but not much passing ability....plays like a number 9....can't move ....absolutely destroys us.... out of position when we lose the ball.....never being available for a pass" is not remotely how I see it. Normally I'd take longer and write down a load of reasons why, but on this one our views are so different there's no point. AGree to disagree and move on, kind of thing.

No.

I had to look up what a zweibrütiger scheckenfalter is, as my German's not that good. Turns out it's a meadow fritillary butterly. I'd have got schmetterling, but anyway, here's a couple of other butterfly translations. "Oberthür's grizzled skipper" is "Zweibrütiger Würfel-Dickkopffalter" "Assmann's fritillary" is "Assmanns Scheckenfalter" "Glanville fritillary" is "Rostgelber Moorwiesen-Wegerich-Scheckenfalter" I'm listening to Death Row by Jesca Hoop, which mentions a Chrysalis, so sort of butterfly related

I didn’t choose it, Sid, my friend Pam did.

Not to the same extent as you (well done, Tony), I was having a fresh air break outside the Pub (greyfriar's in Preston) 2 weeks ago, and obviously saw the homeless/beggar types loitering around outside. his one bloke asked me for some money so he could buy some food. So I had a chat with him, asked him his name, where he was from, what he wanted for tea and stuff. It was cold and drizzly. He was Polish, came over here for work, didn't currently have a job, had no money and no way to get back to Poland either. He wanted a pizza from a takeaway up the road, he said. As he was genuine, and genuinely miserable I gave him some money and went back inside, thinking he'd get the rest of the money off someone else. Went back out about an hour later, he's still there. Spoke to him again, he'd not had his tea, still. So I gave him the rest of the money and off he went, happy and bought his Pizza, and at least he was fed for the night. But what struck me was that firstly there are a fair old number of these people, secondly that they're utterly **** - stuck between a rock and a hard place. Thirdly that there's no council or voluntary orgs (in Preston) seemingly able to help them get sorted and lastly that standing in the rain for 3 hours hoping to get someone to give you 4 quid or whatever for some hot food is utterly miserable. Most people ignore these people completely, like they're invisible. There's a whole lot wrong with our society.

That's the chap. Though "could" is only a theoretical option. I'd never vote Tory.

Exactly. I don't disagree with anything there. In terms of the argument for broadband being state controlled, people can make it and others can make equally valid arguments to not have it in state ownership, but to simply regulate/control it. I think we're in agreement.

The fuller extract is spot on

Each is very different technically and structurally IMO. As an example for what I mean, water - clean water has a number of aspects - it's genuinely critical to life - people die if it's poisoned, or stopped. Management of reservoirs, dams, flooding, sewage and so on is entirely different to provision of fast internet - as much as we who've got OK internet appreciate it, if we lose it for a few days our infants aren't in peril, no one is poisoned or harmed. Many can go to a local wi-fi thingummy - cafe/ library/ shop/ MacDonalds or use their phone or whatever. Inconvenient and very inconvenient if for a long time. Rail, is not a universal service - buses, taxis cars etc proved "transport". Clearly rail has advantages and disadvantages re green issues and stuff, but as Chrisp said earlier, hopefully people aren't having to go to London to do business in 2030 as much as they do now. Rail (and tube) is also, like water, critical particularly, but not exclusively, in cities for people to get from home to work. Northern Rail and Southern rail clusterporks of the summer showed just how much. Management of rail is about timetables (massively so) and integration with other types of transport and safety and capacity to move people fast and efficiently. Broadband and networks is more about technological advances. We once had some high up management bod come into where I work (Aerospace) and tell us that there was no difference between making aircraft and making Mars bars. Fundamentally, he said, it was all the same underneath. The dickhead. Dunno what happened to him, but needless to say he had a few things to learn.

Absolutely right, IMO. I'm less fussed about the philosophy of private or public ownership being the "virtuous" way to do it - arguments about market efficiencies or national asset or whatever and much more concerned about the practicalities of any situation. If Utilities are taking the mick with profiteering then regulation with teeth seems far more likely to be the simplest way to address that. I wouldn't have privatised any of the genuine utilities - water, power, rail, post office etc. But once they were, it doesn't follow that returning them to government run would make them "better" or "cheaper". A strong argument can be made for allowing rail franchises to lapse and be returned to government ownership - there's nil cost, essentially and a clear upside. The same isn't the case for e.g. Gas or water or Telecoms (including internet). If we want universal internet/broadband then either setting up a state union to provide it (fibre) where the market doesn't (remote locations) or legislating to make the telco's do it seems more efficient than bulk nationalisation. And it may all be overtaken by 5G and future tech anyway. Both Labour and the tories are touting solutions/philosophies to something which isn't the actual problem. If the problem is high prices or no service it is not necessary to nationalise everything. If the problem is lack of investment in unprofitable services in remote areas, the solution isn't "more privatisation, or more free-market, or worse T&Cs for workers, or higher prices and bigger profits. If the NHS is in a mess (it is) I'd rather gov't of whatever shade sorted that, than spent their parliamentary time and money and efforts bringing about nationalising BT, because a small percentage of people don't have fast broadband.

I half agree. Obviously there was a reaction within the tories and Labour a while back, and they've each moved more extreme in response to the other, but my feeling is that the next move will be more economically central and more environmental strident. The environment will continue creeping (and perhaps faster than creeping) up the agenda for people. Economic destruction/damage either through Brexity "Singapore style" or "Nationalise everything" idiocy will be seen for what it actually is - bonkers, over time. What is needed is better regulation, including environmental aspects on businesses and enterprises and services, not "nationalise it" or "free market, no red-tape freedom"

Well, yes. With the Music venue example, the problems are not with the individual business or the industry itself (live music) or with the economy in general. The problems are multiple and relate to the following factors (and others) - resident objections to "noise", increased rates, due to councils desperate for funds due to government cuts to their budgets and deliberately unevening the playing field - City councils (Labour) hit harder than tory ones. The same impacts affect retail generally (plus internet tax breaks etc - Amazon and other online shops... It's essentially a consequence of government policies, an unintended one, but pretty dramatic. So you're right, I think, I'd just phrase it as not "the economy" or any of the other things you mentioned, but individual specific factors resulting from government policies in other areas having negative and unforeseen consequences (perhaps unforeseen because they don't think about it enough).

Yeah, I agree. They're despicably low, even for tories.

What's that song you're always singing, Bicks? "We all live in a yellow submarine" by someone or other.

About 2 years, truth be told. All my (IMO) best jokes mostly go un-noticed, (except by the intellectuals like @peterms) so I lowered the bar.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I think there will be quite a lot of tight calls in the election, and from their perspective, the LDs making absolutely clear to people "Stop Brexit" is a leaf out of the "Brexit Party" Ltd book. Sure, single issue, but this election is because Brexit.