blandy

I did the long one too. I got the results below. I think they might be a bit skewed because there are a couple of Green and a couple of Labour policies I recognised, and really don't like, so I ended up picking what appear to be LD answers for those questions. Not a hint of tory in my answers. :smug:

Blake's a fool. Like you say, some places voting green is the best option - obviously Brighton Pavilion,but also Bristol, Norwich etc. Plus safe seats where there will be no change, then vote green, if you're a green. And that's before anyone looks at Labour's weaknesses. Parties get funding based on their share of the vote. Wanna get more funding for the greens, then vote green, unless it can actually stop a Tory.

Literally unplayable

This is the thing. It’s not “we were away from home”, or “it’s Man U” or whatever. It was “how do we try and win”, and then putting that into practice. The whole point is trying to win. We might not, we might, but we tried, and we wanted to. Not “let’s see if we can sneak it”. A football team trying to do what football teams are supposed to do. Playing to win, playing to be entertaining, representing the club and fans. Getting better at it, too. It’s a joy.

Pair of Window-lickers.

[Edit] This reply was written before I saw posts by @chrisp65 and HV and Bicks discussing the same thing. [/edit] This post makes me sad - "the damage that the SNP, and to a much lesser extent Plaid, are doing to Labour's prospects" - To me that's the wrong way round. SNP and Plaid are clearly offering something to the voters in Scotland and Wales which the people who live there prefer to what Labour offers. If Labour is trailing, it's not the others doing the "damaging" it's Labour not being good enough, or being what they should be - the damage is done by Labour, basically, no-one else. And then you move on to "Labour need to try to bring the Lib Dem vote down". No, they don't. Labour need to either increase the Labour vote OR accept that in some places the Lib Dems are actually well placed to unseat Tories and actually allow the LDs a chance to do so (as do the LDs in reverse in other areas). So it all reads like a photographic negative. Obviously if all you want is a Corbyn gov't and nothing else will do, then that negative slant is understandable, perhaps - "It's others stopping us, the nasty others, Booo!". But to me whether inadvertently or not, it kind of reads all wrong. Because if what you want more than anything is "not tory government" then the SNP, Plaid, Lib Dems, Green, Independents are not "damaging" things by being more popular than Labour in some places, they're part of the solution. They're doing or offering things Labour fails to do. The tories and Labour have gone into their Silos and are ignoring an awful lot of the populations of England, Wales, Scotland and NI.

Amen Brother.

Given that it's reported One of the men who took down the terrorist was a convicted murderer on day release. I'd like to think it shows people can change. Maybe, just maybe, this person wanted to in some way compensate, or act in the way they did because they'd done such a bad thing earlier in their life. I dunno. Maybe that's trite.

It does, Mike, yeah. And this for a Neil Young Vibe. Give the whole thing a listen, it's just magnificent.

Is this pub rock? Whatever, it’s good.

That's changed, I think. There's loads of good Aussie indie and even Pop acts now. Though they seem strangely obsessed with Paul Kelly, of "Making Gravy" ahem, "fame". But back to the indie stuff, theres king gizzard and the lizard wizard, Courtney Barnett, Jen Cloher, Luluc, the stroppies, Julia Jacklin, Nick Cave & the bad seeds and some with sweary names. Anyway, Luluc

Fremantle.I posted a pic of his statue there a while back. Freemantle with 2 e's is Southampton uk. The Youngs were Scots, too.

Yeah, the redemption was that because of the complaints of MEPs and the exposure that got and then the petitions etc. and because of stroppy (God bless 'em) Belgian district politicians and others, they put a stop to it. Not sure I get the point about how that caused or contributed to Brexit, but that'll be me being dim.

That's a fine point well made. The first two paras, I agree with every word. The last one, starts off the same. Perfect. Where I slightly struggle is that (and I am genuinely posting in this thread not to persuade or oppose or whatever, just to try and be analytical, rather than partisan) while I sort of share the suspicion that the tories, at least in part, would like to do more privatisation of the NHS for bell-end reasons, I don't think that they are actually pro selling it off whoilesale, as Labour claims. So the line "our government is proposing to open up the NHS to the US" is not one that I've seen any evidence for. It's just (maybe correct, maybe not) guesswork. My intuition says this bunch of robbers are quite bad enough to do that, but then we're just talking "my intuition is that..." Maybe with this report leak thing, there's something from revealing that the US would like to sell drugs at higher prices, etc., but there's no "gotcha" in knowing the US want to do that. We knew that already. Going back to TTIP, what was appalling about that wasn't that negotiations were in private/secret, it was that the politicians were not allowed access, that lobbyists and big corp. were and charities an other interested parties were excluded. It wasn't talks about potential talks (in a post Brexit type scenario), it was the actual negotiation. On its own it was enough to make me think "leave the EU, this is appalling".

The establishment - it's a broad term, but for me it includes politicians (EU and UK) local and national, senior media owners and execs, senior civil servant and military, heads of universities, financial companies, multi-national company UK leaders, CBI bods, Union leaders and so on. Farage as a former stockbroker, a long term politician, a party leader etc. is definitely "establishment". As are Johnson, Gove, Banks and all the other knobbers from the Leave campaign. People with access to money and influence able to affect the course of events. Brexit being anti-establishment is like Keyser Söze.

Thanks. integrity has more than one aspect, the way I see it. Were it to be the case that Corbyn sees the content of the report and determines that it is proof of wrong-doing, then yes, I can see that "integrity" might demand that he acts upon what he sees. Equally though, integrity is being able to abide by commitments you have made to observe confidentiality, to adhere to the rules you accept when you sign up to something like the Privvy Council, to protect HMG data. To add to that, like I say, suppose Corbyn gets in, he starts discussions with the US on trade after doing his Brexit, or with Russia. When negotiations progress and some tory presents the equivalent leaked civil service document to the media, that hint at (for example) the new Labour Gov't being faced with a negotiating point from the US that wants the UK to allow US companies to bid for X-ray contracts or drug contracts or whatever, or that Russia wants the UK to allow Russian gas companies to provide energy to UK households - the tories then shout how Corbyn plans to betray, despite his words, his promises on the NHS, or how the UK is going to cede energy control and open us up to blackmail by Putin - can you not see that that would be out of order? because all it actually shows is someone we have to negotiate with has their own interests and their own opening stance? It destroys trust in politicians when things they haven't done and actually aren't going to do get portrayed as near certainties for party political ends, by opponents.

It's one take away.I didn't say he should be in trouble. It's really poor judgement from someone who wants to be pm, the journo bod is right. Now't will be done, mind. Another take-away is that Johnson was lying. So people who can't be trusted - Corbyn and Johnson. Who'd a thunk it?

Yes, I am. Whether something has been stolen by someone else, or by Corbyn directly, he knows what he is supposed to do is not to hand out copies to the media, but to alert the police or other authorities to the presence of sensitive, protected material wherever he "found" it. It is a seperate issue, you're right. The document doesn't show "what the regime is planning by way of handing over our assets and our rights". As I said earlier, if he gets in, he'll have to have the same trade talks with the same people on the same subject. The US position won't have changed. What he's done is purely political. In a way in terms of confirmation that the tories are liars, you can't blame him, and looked at through the lens of an election, it makes sense probably to more people than not, in the moment. Looked at over time, he'll regret it if he's got any sense. Nothing will be done, mind.

It isn't wrong. Trust me I've had a bit to do with security and protection of Government data etc. over the course of my working life. It's neither wrong in terms of fact, nor in any kind of "misuse" (in this instance) sense.

He's not a whistleblower. To be clear in answer to your question, it appears that this leaked document has been a available for a while now. Over a month. What Corbyn's done is solely political, to gain benefit for himself and Labour, in both the timing and the message he's putting out. Who ever uploaded it didn't give it to the media to blow the whistle. It happens that I agree with Labour's message on the NHS. The Tories absolutely can't be trusted on anything. I'm not sure that the document proves anything at all, other than the UK and US are talking about post Brexit deals and the US would like a hard Brexit and to get hold of NHS contracts. No shit Sherlock! If (he won't) Corbyn wins and does his ludicrous Brexit deal that he'll be neutral on, he'll have to have the same discussions with the same US negotiators. It proves nothing other than Corbyn's unsuitability.

Yeah, it’s appalling all round, reflecting badly on the Tory government, Corbyn and the journo. There are mitigations for all of them, but what a clusterpork. The govt had to be having trade talks with the US and others, Labour has to oppose the government, and the media when presented with such a story has to publish.

Jeremy Corbyn is a privy councillor, will have signed the official secrets act. If he passes protected documents to the media he is consciously breaking the law of the land, breaking his word and is using protected material for political/ personal advancement. Staggeringly awful from Corbyn.

Even as a rudimentary janitor algorithm, with some human-like characteristics ( Like Jim Jarmush films and Tea), I can detect that the sound of this Queen music of which you speak, Pelle, is sub-optimal and requires significant correctorial adjustment. tell user "Brian May's Hair" if selection is not {silent} then set sel to selection with timeout of 0.001 seconds repeat with allSongs by Queen repeat with allAlbums by artists "Queen" if existence of aSong is true then set theDestiny to expunge to pit of fire of aSong set expunge to pit of fire of aSong to the Abyss end if end repeat end Queen else display dialog "Please never play that again..." buttons {"Cancel"} default button 1 with icon 2 giving up after 5 end if end tell

Exactly Rob. That was what I was getting at a bit ago.

That's kind of fair I think. I didn't think he was the right choice and said so. I didn't think he would take us up and said so. But, to be fair, he did stop the rot. A difficult task. He did stop us conceding stupid goals. He did find some good players, more good than bad. He did get the club organised again. But that's kind of where it stopped. He wasn't able to do more than that. The coaching seemed to be based around give it to Jack and hope he does something. His limitations that were always apparent to many became apparent to all. As a man he's fundamentally decent, but thin skinned and that showed, too. In terms of steps on the way he was part of it. Not an easy step, not a glorious step, but one where we stopped sinking into the mud and started to dust ourselves down. Restocked the supplies and at least pointed to where we needed to go to get to our destination. But he was never, ever, going to take us there. This not what he does.