RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:Warning, low flying teddies!!

You should see my pussbook. Very entertaining although somewhat sad at the same time that people would rather deride that people have voted Tory and not why they have

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: If you think the Conservatives are extremists you've lost all perspective.
The UKIP vote has declined because they achieved their sole aim.

I've lost perspective? Absurd.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk_eu_referendum2016

This shows the political perspective of the various main political opinion that dominated the EU ref. Conservatives (A & F) are clearly extreme. That you cannot see their extremism is rather disconcerting.

I stopped reading when they described Corbyn as a 'left of centre social liberal'.
Rather than give me an referendum-centric opinion piece which thinks Corbyn is left of centre, give me some Conservative Party policy that is extremist. That they want to leave the EU after the referendum, the result of which stated that the country should leave the EU, doesn't count as an extremist policy.

See this is the problem right there. Because the brexit vote process was so short on facts and detail we have no idea how voters feel about staying in the Eu customs area, or whether we want to keep the Eu court of justice, that sort of thing.

Because the debate only got as far as Poles out and think of all the money the NHS will have I don't see how you can suggest that the Tories are not responsible for the decisions that seem to be suggesting a hard brexit is looking likely.

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I've lost perspective? Absurd.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk_eu_referendum2016

This shows the political perspective of the various main political opinion that dominated the EU ref. Conservatives (A & F) are clearly extreme. That you cannot see their extremism is rather disconcerting.

I stopped reading when they described Corbyn as a 'left of centre social liberal'.
Rather than give me an referendum-centric opinion piece which thinks Corbyn is left of centre, give me some Conservative Party policy that is extremist. That they want to leave the EU after the referendum, the result of which stated that the country should leave the EU, doesn't count as an extremist policy.

See this is the problem right there. Because the brexit vote process was so short on facts and detail we have no idea how voters feel about staying in the Eu customs area, or whether we want to keep the Eu court of justice, that sort of thing.

Because the debate only got as far as Poles out and think of all the money the NHS will have I don't see how you can suggest that the Tories are not responsible for the decisions that seem to be suggesting a hard brexit is looking likely.

Because you need a hard Brexit to control immigration and to not be sending a large chunk of money to Brussels every year. It's impossible to have a soft Brexit and achieve those two aims you've identified as key.
Though, my point really was that you can't be labelled an extremist solely for wanting out of the EU.

Mellsblue wrote: Though, my point really was that you can't be labelled an extremist solely for wanting out of the EU.

It'd also be hard to label as extreme when it's such a widespread view. One could of course label these unfortunate gits as blithering idiots, though some mayn't be idiots, they might just be racist scum.

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I stopped reading when they described Corbyn as a 'left of centre social liberal'.
Rather than give me an referendum-centric opinion piece which thinks Corbyn is left of centre, give me some Conservative Party policy that is extremist. That they want to leave the EU after the referendum, the result of which stated that the country should leave the EU, doesn't count as an extremist policy.

See this is the problem right there. Because the brexit vote process was so short on facts and detail we have no idea how voters feel about staying in the Eu customs area, or whether we want to keep the Eu court of justice, that sort of thing.

Because the debate only got as far as Poles out and think of all the money the NHS will have I don't see how you can suggest that the Tories are not responsible for the decisions that seem to be suggesting a hard brexit is looking likely.

Because you need a hard Brexit to control immigration and to not be sending a large chunk of money to Brussels every year. It's impossible to have a soft Brexit and achieve those two aims you've identified as key.
Though, my point really was that you can't be labelled an extremist solely for wanting out of the EU.

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well. What I was trying to say was that the tories are leading us towards a hard brexit on the back of a very narrow win for leave. There would only need to have been a couple of percent swing to remain for the result to be reversed. If more of the consequences of brexit had been explained in a sensible way during the campaign might we have seen that swing?

I don't think that a narrow win in a referendum provides the strength of mandate that the tories are invoking.

Although maybe the local election results might suggest otherwise.

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote: See this is the problem right there. Because the brexit vote process was so short on facts and detail we have no idea how voters feel about staying in the Eu customs area, or whether we want to keep the Eu court of justice, that sort of thing.

Because the debate only got as far as Poles out and think of all the money the NHS will have I don't see how you can suggest that the Tories are not responsible for the decisions that seem to be suggesting a hard brexit is looking likely.

Because you need a hard Brexit to control immigration and to not be sending a large chunk of money to Brussels every year. It's impossible to have a soft Brexit and achieve those two aims you've identified as key.
Though, my point really was that you can't be labelled an extremist solely for wanting out of the EU.

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well. What I was trying to say was that the tories are leading us towards a hard brexit on the back of a very narrow win for leave. There would only need to have been a couple of percent swing to remain for the result to be reversed. If more of the consequences of brexit had been explained in a sensible way during the campaign might we have seen that swing?

I don't think that a narrow win in a referendum provides the strength of mandate that the tories are invoking.

Although maybe the local election results might suggest otherwise.

A moment of silence for the left wing brexiters...

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote: See this is the problem right there. Because the brexit vote process was so short on facts and detail we have no idea how voters feel about staying in the Eu customs area, or whether we want to keep the Eu court of justice, that sort of thing.

Because the debate only got as far as Poles out and think of all the money the NHS will have I don't see how you can suggest that the Tories are not responsible for the decisions that seem to be suggesting a hard brexit is looking likely.

Because you need a hard Brexit to control immigration and to not be sending a large chunk of money to Brussels every year. It's impossible to have a soft Brexit and achieve those two aims you've identified as key.
Though, my point really was that you can't be labelled an extremist solely for wanting out of the EU.

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well. What I was trying to say was that the tories are leading us towards a hard brexit on the back of a very narrow win for leave. There would only need to have been a couple of percent swing to remain for the result to be reversed. If more of the consequences of brexit had been explained in a sensible way during the campaign might we have seen that swing?

I don't think that a narrow win in a referendum provides the strength of mandate that the tories are invoking.

Although maybe the local election results might suggest otherwise.

That mandate is being sort at the election. Interestingly, the Lib Dems vote share shot up to 19% in Thursday's election, even if they did end up losing seats. If they can keep building like that - they were at 11ish% a couple of weeks ago - then who knows what the GE result may look like. Though, of course, our electoral system might not see an increase in seats to correlate with the increase in % - as the loss of council seats highlights.

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Because you need a hard Brexit to control immigration and to not be sending a large chunk of money to Brussels every year. It's impossible to have a soft Brexit and achieve those two aims you've identified as key.
Though, my point really was that you can't be labelled an extremist solely for wanting out of the EU.

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well. What I was trying to say was that the tories are leading us towards a hard brexit on the back of a very narrow win for leave. There would only need to have been a couple of percent swing to remain for the result to be reversed. If more of the consequences of brexit had been explained in a sensible way during the campaign might we have seen that swing?

I don't think that a narrow win in a referendum provides the strength of mandate that the tories are invoking.

Although maybe the local election results might suggest otherwise.

That mandate is being sort at the election. Interestingly, the Lib Dems vote share shot up to 19% in Thursday's election, even if they did end up losing seats. If they can keep building like that - they were at 11ish% a couple of weeks ago - then who knows what the GE result may look like. Though, of course, our electoral system might not see an increase in seats to correlate with the increase in % - as the loss of council seats highlights.

Tories' was about 10%pts lower than the polls. Backs up my insistence that the polls are biased.

My Week: Jeremy Corbyn*

Hugo Rifkind

Monday
“Everything will change,” says John McDonnell, “when the electorate gets to see the real you.”

All the top team are here. I’m in my kitchen with my back to them all, wearing my stained grey tracksuit and finishing a batch of jam to post off to my friends in Hamas.

“Hmmm?” I say, irritably.

Seumas Milne says John is right, because the media portrayal of me is completely biased. Smear after smear. Like all that stuff about Labour turning a blind eye to antisemitism. What other party leader has ever been accused of something like that?

“Hitler?” suggests Ken Livingstone, but everybody ignores him.


“Frankly,” says John, “if you believed the press, you’d think that Jeremy was a petulant old man who simply doesn’t have the work ethic to be prime minister. Which is ridiculous.”

“Totally ridiculous!” shouts Seumas. “The real fight starts now!”

“No it doesn’t,” I snap, turning around. “It starts tomorrow, because I worked on Sunday and I’m having a day in lieu. Pass me the strainer.”

Tuesday
The real fight starts now. With Diane Abbott doing an interview on LBC about our police policy. Which doesn’t go very well.

“I’m surprised,” I say, when she comes to debrief. “Because you’re normally our star performer.”

“Listen, Jewemy,” she says now, very, slowly. “I’ve done 10,000 interviews this morning and . . .”

“Are you sure?” I say.

Diane says it might be 25,000 interviews. Or 250,000 interviews. Or, perhaps, only about seven interviews. But the important point is that our police policy is out there now, and everybody knows what it is.

“Brilliant!” I say. “So what is it?”

Diane sighs, and closes her eyes.

“Diane?” I say.

But she doesn’t open them again, and eventually I have to go out.

Wednesday
I’m discussing election strategy with Tom Watson and John McDonnell, even though I worked yesterday, when Sir Keir Starmer drops by. He says the PM has attacked the European Commission, and we need to talk about it.

“But who are you?” I say.

“The shadow Brexit secretary,” says Keir, looking surprised.

“Ours?” I ask.

“Looks like a Tory to me,” says John, menacingly.

“I swear,” says Keir. Then he says that the PM has accused Jean-Claude Juncker of trying to stop people from electing her as prime minister. Which suggests he wants them to make me prime minister, instead.

“Is he insane?” says Tom.

“He does drink a lot,” says Keir.

“Whose side are you on?” I say.

“It does sound odd,” admits John, “when you say it out loud.”

Thursday
It’s the day of the local elections. We’d all completely forgotten about them.

“We won’t lose more than 30 council seats,” says Diane Abbott. “Or maybe 300. Or, at a push, 300,000.”

“Are there that many?” I ask, but Diane has closed her eyes again, so that’s probably that.

Seumas Milne says these elections are only a test. The real fight starts once people have seen me on the doorstep.

“Especially now my wisteria is out,” I say, proudly, “and I’ve finally trimmed that rose bush.”

“Not your own doorstep,” says Seumas.

“Oh,” I say.

Friday
I’m at home making jam again. John McDonnell says our results are quite mixed, probably because of the biased media. Although we can deal with that once we’re in power. Like they did in Venezuela.

“We’re not getting into power,” snaps Tom Watson. “We’ve lost Glasgow. And half of Wales. And most of everywhere else. It’s a bloodbath. Wake up.”

John says one promising thing is that a few people have gone out and voted Labour, anyway, even though the biased media had told them that they weren’t going to.

“Does that make sense?” says Tom.

“Listen,” says Diane Abbott, and then closes her eyes and doesn’t say anything else.

“Remember,” I say, “the people who voted against us simply aren’t representative of the electorate. Whereas our supporters are.”

“But there . . . aren’t as many of them,” says Tom, hopelessly.

“That’s not important,” chuckles John.

“Yes it is!” shouts Tom.

“The real fight,” I say, sucking happily on my wooden spoon, “starts now.”
*according to Hugo Rifkind

If this evil b*tch says "Strong and Stable Leadership" one more fucking time...

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote: See this is the problem right there. Because the brexit vote process was so short on facts and detail we have no idea how voters feel about staying in the Eu customs area, or whether we want to keep the Eu court of justice, that sort of thing.

Because the debate only got as far as Poles out and think of all the money the NHS will have I don't see how you can suggest that the Tories are not responsible for the decisions that seem to be suggesting a hard brexit is looking likely.

Because you need a hard Brexit to control immigration and to not be sending a large chunk of money to Brussels every year. It's impossible to have a soft Brexit and achieve those two aims you've identified as key.
Though, my point really was that you can't be labelled an extremist solely for wanting out of the EU.

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well. What I was trying to say was that the tories are leading us towards a hard brexit on the back of a very narrow win for leave. There would only need to have been a couple of percent swing to remain for the result to be reversed. If more of the consequences of brexit had been explained in a sensible way during the campaign might we have seen that swing?

I don't think that a narrow win in a referendum provides the strength of mandate that the tories are invoking.

Although maybe the local election results might suggest otherwise.

You explained yourself perfectly the first time but it's always good to expand on a thesis.
You're ethically right. And anyone who says different is a prick.

I like this guy

Which Tyler wrote:I like this guy

Yep. Hes absolutely hilarious. His monologue in front of the Italian fly tipping is my favourite.

That Bristol Councils decision to feck the OAP that had her windscreen shattered by a council employee. They spent 170 pages of barrister on that. I'm fairly sure Governance cannot use their power to make such alterations to UK law.
Not least because they are directly using governance and adapting it to totalitarianism.

kk67 wrote:That Bristol Councils decision to feck the OAP that had her windscreen shattered by a council employee. They spent 170 pages of barrister on that. I'm fairly sure Governance cannot use their power to make such alterations to UK law.
Not least because they are directly using governance and adapting it to totalitarianism.

Don't be ridiculous.

Zhivago wrote:

kk67 wrote:That Bristol Councils decision to feck the OAP that had her windscreen shattered by a council employee. They spent 170 pages of barrister on that. I'm fairly sure Governance cannot use their power to make such alterations to UK law.
Not least because they are directly using governance and adapting it to totalitarianism.

Don't be ridiculous.

They have directly used governance to use stupid.
That's the method these Pricks use.

Afternoon delight.

and you can al go silly your selves,

Listening to both major parties on the latest cyber attacks then so far at least they've not put forward anyone to talk to the media who has even a remote clue what they're talking about other than they don't want to spend any money. Labour dropping the ball more however as they can't even get any traction on the idea the Tories gutted the capital spend budgets in the NHS to meet daily/ongoing spends.

Both parties are to some degree getting away with no coherent policy around the cyber attacks as those conducting the interviews haven't got a clue either, IT really isn't a job for John Humphrys

Digby wrote:Listening to both major parties on the latest cyber attacks then so far at least they've not put forward anyone to talk to the media who has even a remote clue what they're talking about other than they don't want to spend any money. Labour dropping the ball more however as they can't even get any traction on the idea the Tories gutted the capital spend budgets in the NHS to meet daily/ongoing spends.

Both parties are to some degree getting away with no coherent policy around the cyber attacks as those conducting the interviews haven't got a clue either, IT really isn't a job for John Humphrys

Jeremy Hunt was on PM on R4 today saying that Corbyn and Abbot were to blame because they wouldn't back the cyber security/snooper charter bill, nothing to do with hospitals having to dip in to their IT budget to cover day to day running of the NHS

Has anyone asked the UK govt if its security arms stockpile IT vulnerabilities, and if so whether it will now stop as called for by Microsoft?

Lizard wrote:Has anyone asked the UK govt if its security arms stockpile IT vulnerabilities, and if so whether it will now stop as called for by Microsoft?

According to TheRegister, Microsoft already knew about the SMB bug that was exploited, and had already had a fix ready for XP etc., back in February but didn't release it until after the attack, so the question has to be asked, why Microsoft are stockpiling vulnerability fixes.

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote:Has anyone asked the UK govt if its security arms stockpile IT vulnerabilities, and if so whether it will now stop as called for by Microsoft?

According to TheRegister, Microsoft already knew about the SMB bug that was exploited, and had already had a fix ready for XP etc., back in February but didn't release it until after the attack, so the question has to be asked, why Microsoft are stockpiling vulnerability fixes.

Every now and then one stumbles across MS doing something surprisingly well, but in the main my experience of them would be they really try to do things on the cheap, and second they're so big and ubiquitous they really don't care about standard of service such they can get back to doing things on the cheap.

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote:Has anyone asked the UK govt if its security arms stockpile IT vulnerabilities, and if so whether it will now stop as called for by Microsoft?

According to TheRegister, Microsoft already knew about the SMB bug that was exploited, and had already had a fix ready for XP etc., back in February but didn't release it until after the attack, so the question has to be asked, why Microsoft are stockpiling vulnerability fixes.

That's not true. The released a fix back in November and another in February and tried to get people to patch it.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote:Has anyone asked the UK govt if its security arms stockpile IT vulnerabilities, and if so whether it will now stop as called for by Microsoft?

According to TheRegister, Microsoft already knew about the SMB bug that was exploited, and had already had a fix ready for XP etc., back in February but didn't release it until after the attack, so the question has to be asked, why Microsoft are stockpiling vulnerability fixes.

That's not true. The released a fix back in November and another in February and tried to get people to patch it.

I can't say whether it's true or not, I can only quote TheRegister.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/1 ... flaws_too/

On Friday night, Microsoft issued emergency patches for unsupported versions of Windows that did not receive the March update – namely WinXP, Server 2003, and Windows 8 RT. Up until this point, these systems – and all other unpatched pre-Windows 10 computers – were being menaced by WannaCrypt, and variants of the software nasty would be going after these systems in the coming weeks, too.

The Redmond tech giant was praised for issuing the fixes for its legacy Windows builds. It stopped supporting Windows XP in April 2014, and Server 2003 in July 2015, for instance, so the updates were welcome.

However, our analysis of the metadata within these patches shows these files were built and digitally signed by Microsoft on February 11, 13 and 17, the same week it had prepared updates for its supported versions of Windows. In other words, Microsoft had fixes ready to go for its legacy systems in mid-February but only released them to the public last Friday after the world was engulfed in WannaCrypt.

Here's the dates in the patches:

Windows 8 RT (64-bit x86): Feb 13, 2017
Windows 8 RT (32-bit x86): Feb 13, 2017
Windows Server 2003 (64-bit x86): Feb 11, 2017
Windows Server 2003 (32-bit x86): Feb 11, 2017
Windows XP: Feb 11, 2017
Windows XP Embedded: Feb 17, 2017