...Without further ado, let’s have a look at our new responsive takeover, developed directly with our clients to meet the needs of increasingly mobile-based news consumption.
What a load of b****cks.
Almost as self-delusional as their favoured party.
It has cut my time on the site by about 90%.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 6:57 pm
by howsillyofme1
Hi all
Been absent a few days - got fed up of what passes for political discussion in the UK at the moment (apart from here of course!)
I got 81% Labour and 7% Tory - very glad about that. Managed to get 66& LD as well though - don't understand how that can be so different from the Tories, unless of course they are a band of lying, yellow-bellied quislings
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 6:57 pm
by danesclose
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:BBC rejects demands by the Democratic Unionist Party to be included in election debates
Ere we go again. DUP taking legal advice - and so is Sinn Fein.
Ball is back in Ducking Dave/s court.
I don't really see it, the DUP and SDLP et al have no relevance to anywhere other than NI. They don't even discuss the same issues and neither the Tory Party, Labour Party or the Zombies stand in NI.
The lawyers will tell them no chance.
The ball isn't in Dave's court other than to decide if he wants to be present when the debates happen.
I thought, in theory at least, the Conservatives did stand in Northern Ireland, or at least had a presence? They've certainly claimed, in the past, to be the only Party that is truly nationwide. And the contempt shown by OGRFPG and others toward Sinn Fein is both telling and slightly worrying.
They did at the last election, as the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force, aka UCUNF, a merger of the UUP & Tories.
I believe that they will stand as just Tories this time (and get battered in all 18 constituencies)
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 6:59 pm
by rebeccariots2
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Above are you suggesting Trident submarines can't be trusted to avoid tankers? Which I could well believe.
I don't see any other issue, there is oddly relatively little that is dangerous about a nuclear sub.
Five reasons why moving Trident to Milford Haven may never happen... and one why it might http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... rd-8530796
1. It is unsafe
Milford Haven is home two facilities for liquefied natural gas – including the South Hook LNG terminal, the largest such facility in Europe. It is also home to two oil refineries, although one of them is pegged to close.
Dr Nick Ritchie, a lecturer in international security at the University of York, previously told the BBC that its inconceivable the Ministry of Defence would allow LNG plants and oil refineries to stay open if Trident was relocated to Milford Haven.
It is thought that Milford Haven was once considered for Trident’s predecessor Polaris in the 1960s, but was ruled out on safety grounds with Esso having established an oil refinery there.
William Walker, one of the authors of a book on UK nukes, said that even if there is a low probability of a submarine colliding with a tanker, the consequences could be horrific...
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:00 pm
by PaulfromYorkshire
Michael Portillo
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:03 pm
by Spacedone
yahyah wrote:Some quotes about the new Guardian site:
...It's great to see user consumption driving content across multi platforms
...A key difference between our new beta site and the current Guardian site is the way we approach content curation and presentation.
...Without further ado, let’s have a look at our new responsive takeover, developed directly with our clients to meet the needs of increasingly mobile-based news consumption.
What a load of b****cks.
Worse than simply b****cks, it's marketing b****cks.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:03 pm
by rebeccariots2
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Michael Portillo
It is now impossible to avoid the Les Paterson switchback system which gives us:
Iain Duncan Smith
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:06 pm
by rebeccariots2
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:
yahyah wrote:Some quotes about the new Guardian site:
...It's great to see user consumption driving content across multi platforms
...A key difference between our new beta site and the current Guardian site is the way we approach content curation and presentation.
...Without further ado, let’s have a look at our new responsive takeover, developed directly with our clients to meet the needs of increasingly mobile-based news consumption.
What a load of b****cks.
Almost as self-delusional as their favoured party.
It has cut my time on the site by about 90%.
Same here. Makes the Daily Mail seem positively stylish. I now need a strong drink to cleanse my system ...
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:10 pm
by ohsocynical
rebeccariots2 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Michael Portillo
It is now impossible to avoid the Les Paterson switchback system which gives us:
Iain Duncan Smith
Peter Bottomley.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:11 pm
by ohsocynical
Edwina Curry!!!!!
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:11 pm
by danesclose
rebeccariots2 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Michael Portillo
It is now impossible to avoid the Les Paterson switchback system which gives us:
Iain Duncan Smith
In that case, against my better wishes, I'm forced to go with Charlotte Leslie
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:12 pm
by citizenJA
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Above are you suggesting Trident submarines can't be trusted to avoid tankers? Which I could well believe.
I don't see any other issue, there is oddly relatively little that is dangerous about a nuclear sub.
Why was it built then?
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:14 pm
by Toby Latimer
yahyah wrote:Some quotes about the new Guardian site:
...It's great to see user consumption driving content across multi platforms
...A key difference between our new beta site and the current Guardian site is the way we approach content curation and presentation.
...Without further ado, let’s have a look at our new responsive takeover, developed directly with our clients to meet the needs of increasingly mobile-based news consumption.
What a load of b****cks.
I have only been a 'regular' reader of the online edition for around five years but I feel like an old timer now after the second change in a short time.
I was going to give it a wide berth after the nesting was dumped upon us, they never listened to the criticism of the community btl then either, but I stuck with it mainly for the Society section. I find it much easier lately to follow Patrick Butler & co on twitter who paste links there to most worthwhile articles, it saves time and patience wading through the guff.
It looked like this when I was a lad Much more user friendly
Poll - Who should Nick Clegg back- - Comment is free - guardian.co.uk_1273320399151.jpg (42.68 KiB) Viewed 13087 times
guardian2.jpg (33.61 KiB) Viewed 13087 times
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:15 pm
by 55DegreesNorth
thatchersorphan wrote:
Toby Latimer wrote:
yahyah wrote:You are to be commended Toby for bothering to navigate your way around the appalling new Guardian site.
It is dreadful to get around right now, it may be that we get used to older things, it is second nature when they become a habit. I don't like how the things I read are now buried. For now I've stored the links to the Politics & Society sections main pages in the browser 'favorites' I might persevere with it, but I don't post there a fraction of what I once did, just seems like change for the sake of it. I can't really see what they have gained.
It's more what they've lost - more of the older and more informed community, including us disabled. They've also lost clicks, from us, the people we tweet to and the links we share on various forums. They're obviously hoping to balance that out by attracting more mobile/tablet users.
Well they've dropped a gooly in that case, because it doesn't work properly on my iPad. It's truly horrible. Whoever it was up thread that suggested using the layout for 'Today's edition' is right, it's still useable, for the time being.
Wow, another cybernat goes quiet when shown Labour didn't vote for £30bn of cuts.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:17 pm
by TechnicalEphemera
rebeccariots2 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Above are you suggesting Trident submarines can't be trusted to avoid tankers? Which I could well believe.
I don't see any other issue, there is oddly relatively little that is dangerous about a nuclear sub.
Five reasons why moving Trident to Milford Haven may never happen... and one why it might http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales ... rd-8530796
1. It is unsafe
Milford Haven is home two facilities for liquefied natural gas – including the South Hook LNG terminal, the largest such facility in Europe. It is also home to two oil refineries, although one of them is pegged to close.
Dr Nick Ritchie, a lecturer in international security at the University of York, previously told the BBC that its inconceivable the Ministry of Defence would allow LNG plants and oil refineries to stay open if Trident was relocated to Milford Haven.
It is thought that Milford Haven was once considered for Trident’s predecessor Polaris in the 1960s, but was ruled out on safety grounds with Esso having established an oil refinery there.
William Walker, one of the authors of a book on UK nukes, said that even if there is a low probability of a submarine colliding with a tanker, the consequences could be horrific...
I have a low tolerance for people like Mr Walker.
If a sub collides with a tanker the sub will sink. The nukes are incredibly unlikely to be compromised and they certainly won't go off.
Sinking nuclear subs are sadly not unknown.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:21 pm
by NonOxCol
Did anyone see tonight's Party Political Broadcast by the Liberal Democrats?
Unfunniest comedy on TV since The Royal Bodyguard.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:24 pm
by NonOxCol
And because I love you all and would hate for you to miss it:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rumours that the OED are redefining "chutzpah", "gall" and "hypocrite" as yet unconfirmed.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:26 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Sinn Fein pariahs who must not be approached.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:29 pm
by citizenJA
Mark Carney - Bank of England governor attacks eurozone austerity
Mark Carney says eurozone is caught in a debt trap and should ease hardline budget cuts just days after the Syriza election directly challenged policy
Very promising!
Is this not a promising, progressive, anti-austerity title?
However, Carney doesn't let Jeffery down...
Talks a lot of four martini lunch here...
The governor added that there are four features of Britain’s economic model that showed how to escape a debt trap: an integrated financial system that channelled savings into investment; fiscal policy that moved money around the UK and was flexible enough to allow budget deficits to rise during downturns; the economy was open and flexible; and the monetary policy operated by Threadneedle Street was credible.
Except there hasn't been investment, what money moving around the UK?, open, flexible, flexible some more & insults the intelligence of us all with this nonsense... Threadneedle Street's monetary policy operations are 'c r e d i b l e'.
Only in a work of fiction about a dystopian society where creatures eat money & the workers creating the value of everything.
yahyah wrote:
I think you are the same age as me Ephie [I'm 59 in April] and I'm getting my state pension at 66.
I'm 59 on Sunday. Perhaps I should check my paperwork again......
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:33 pm
by ohsocynical
NonOxCol wrote:And because I love you all and would hate for you to miss it:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rumours that the OED are redefining "chutzpah", "gall" and "hypocrite" as yet unconfirmed.
Fingers. Throat.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:33 pm
by citizenJA
Dave Cameron
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:35 pm
by rebeccariots2
Owen Jones retweeted
Media Diversified @WritersofColour · 9h 9 hours ago
Labour party watchers may want to read this, by a youth voter http://mediadiversified.org/2015/01/28/ ... converted/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … @hugh_muir @OwenJones84 @georgeeaton @zoesqwilliams
I didn't get much from it.
... Why would you pay to have ‘friends’ of influence when a photo-op of Ed digging into a box of 2 pieces chicken and chips will make him instantly relatable to all the urban youth who (inevitably) will have congregated at chicken shops after school?
Does Ed know that he can become an overnight vine celebrity by dropping a few urban slang terms such as “moist” or “greezy” into his speeches, thus ensuring that he is plastered over our Twitter feeds without Labour having to spend a penny on a forced campaign that the apathetic are unlikely to respond to?...
So that would come over as really sincere and not at all synthetic and manufactured? Is this a piss take article?
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:36 pm
by rebeccariots2
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Wow, another cybernat goes quiet when shown Labour didn't vote for £30bn of cuts.
Some of your posts read like you are engaged in an intergalactic war Tubby. May the force be with you.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:41 pm
by TheGrimSqueaker
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Owen Jones retweeted
Media Diversified @WritersofColour · 9h 9 hours ago
Labour party watchers may want to read this, by a youth voter http://mediadiversified.org/2015/01/28/ ... converted/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … @hugh_muir @OwenJones84 @georgeeaton @zoesqwilliams
I didn't get much from it.
... Why would you pay to have ‘friends’ of influence when a photo-op of Ed digging into a box of 2 pieces chicken and chips will make him instantly relatable to all the urban youth who (inevitably) will have congregated at chicken shops after school?
Does Ed know that he can become an overnight vine celebrity by dropping a few urban slang terms such as “moist” or “greezy” into his speeches, thus ensuring that he is plastered over our Twitter feeds without Labour having to spend a penny on a forced campaign that the apathetic are unlikely to respond to?...
So that would come over as really sincere and not at all synthetic and manufactured? Is this a piss take article?
When Ed wants to get down with Da Kidz he just plays a couple of games of pool with them!
(11 year old Joseph Green, who challenged Ed to a game on Monday night.)
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:42 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
We're only missing Dan Hodges on Labour's "death pact" with Sinn Fein.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:42 pm
by rebeccariots2
ohsocynical wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:And because I love you all and would hate for you to miss it:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rumours that the OED are redefining "chutzpah", "gall" and "hypocrite" as yet unconfirmed.
Fingers. Throat.
I've just watched quite a bit of that. I found it very funny - as I didn't have the video image centred on my screen most of Clegg's walking forward speech to camera was seen without his head .... perfect.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:43 pm
by ohsocynical
Adam Boulton retweeted
Election Forecast UK @Election4castUK 12 mins12 minutes ago
Latest forecast update:
Con 283,
Lab 283,
SNP 33,
LD 27,
DUP 8,
UKIP 3.
Re. the Sinn Fein connection. Cameron knows full well that Sinn Fein never take up their seats in the House of Commons (as they refuse to take an oath of loyalty to Brenda), so any sort of pact would be nonsensical; they can in theory vote, they just choose not to. So his comment during PMQs was the lowest form of political point scoring, thoroughly insulting to the people of Northern Ireland and further proof that he is (as has just been suggested on Tubby's Twitter TL) a monumental bellend.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:50 pm
by TheGrimSqueaker
rebeccariots2 wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
NonOxCol wrote:And because I love you all and would hate for you to miss it:
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Rumours that the OED are redefining "chutzpah", "gall" and "hypocrite" as yet unconfirmed.
Fingers. Throat.
I've just watched quite a bit of that. I found it very funny - as I didn't have the video image centred on my screen most of Clegg's walking forward speech to camera was seen without his head .... perfect.
I agree with the comment about the Lib Dems working year round on a local basis; that is one of the saddest things, the way the national party have screwed over the hardworking local activists.
I thought Nick Clegg was better in Labour's "The Un-Credible shrinking Man" though.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:53 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
ohsocynical wrote:Adam Boulton retweeted
Election Forecast UK @Election4castUK 12 mins12 minutes ago
Latest forecast update:
Con 283,
Lab 283,
SNP 33,
LD 27,
DUP 8,
UKIP 3.
I've just watched quite a bit of that. I found it very funny - as I didn't have the video image centred on my screen most of Clegg's walking forward speech to camera was seen without his head .... perfect.
I agree with the comment about the Lib Dems working year round on a local basis; that is one of the saddest things, the way the national party have screwed over the hardworking local activists.
I thought Nick Clegg was better in Labour's "The Un-Credible shrinking Man" though.
I agree with you agreeing with the Lib Dems working year round on a local basis. It's the start of TGSmania ...
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:55 pm
by ohsocynical
@TGS
I thought Nick Clegg was better in Labour's "The Un-Credible shrinking Man" though.
Most PPBs are immediately forgotten, but that was a classic.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:56 pm
by rebeccariots2
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Adam Boulton retweeted
Election Forecast UK @Election4castUK 12 mins12 minutes ago
Latest forecast update:
Con 283,
Lab 283,
SNP 33,
LD 27,
DUP 8,
UKIP 3.
I'm wondering whether these private health care companies are backing down because they think Labour have a good chance of winning and if that happens they'll be made more accountable. Which in the long term will mean them losing money.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 7:59 pm
by ohsocynical
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Adam Boulton retweeted
Election Forecast UK @Election4castUK 12 mins12 minutes ago
Latest forecast update:
Con 283,
Lab 283,
SNP 33,
LD 27,
DUP 8,
UKIP 3.
MPs and campaign groups were furious at the proposals, saying the change could put vital hospital services at risk.
An independent assessment into the impact of the change showed Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust could lose more than £13.4 million over five years and also cause problems recruiting and keeping staff.
The report found actions needed to be taken to reduce the impact and negotiations have been taking place between the CCG, hospital trust and Bupa CSH to try to find a solution before a contract could be signed.
However Bupa CSH today announced it was withdrawing from the process because of the financial impact it would have on the trust.
This was exactly the point Burnham was having to make - repeatedly - to Kirsty Wark last night. That the vast majority of the NHS had to remain public because increasing privatisation - inevitable under the current system in which CCG's have to competitively tender out all services progressively - will lead to severe undermining of the essential structures and fabric that we have to have in place and sustainable. She just didn't get the difference between ad hoc recourse to privatised services as a supplement (to reduce waiting lists for specific procedures) and using privatised services as a complete replacement of previous NHS provision. I thought she was displaying incredible obtuseness, ignorance ... or partisanship .... and / or just gutter interview tactics designed to get maximum coverage.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 8:09 pm
by ohsocynical
Grant Shapps MP @grantshapps 12 mins12 minutes ago
Today I joined MPs from across the House to sign the Book of Commitment to mark 70 yrs since the end of the Holocaust
Diane Rayburn @dimayray 1m1 minute ago
@grantshapps I hope you signed your correct name.
I couldn't resist that...
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 8:11 pm
by rebeccariots2
citizenJA wrote:Dave Cameron
Ahem ...
Jeffrey Archer.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 8:12 pm
by TheGrimSqueaker
ohsocynical wrote:I'm wondering whether these private health care companies are backing down because they think Labour have a good chance of winning and if that happens they'll be made more accountable. Which in the long term will mean them losing money.
It also, potentially, means companies may look to find ways of getting out of existing contracts as they see money-making opportunities diminish (as happened with Circle at Hinchingbrooke. One of the criticisms raised by the hard of thinking, who are basing their opinions based on Shouty Wark's performance rather than reading Burnham's speech, is that so much of the NHS is currently in private hands and Andy is doing nothing to address that; well, aside from the expensive option of paying off contract holders (a non runner), the sensible thing to do is to wait until contracts come to an end and then bring them in-house (as with the NHS 111 example RR2 flagged up last night) - if companies bail of their own accord, default on the contract conditions or fail to meet standards then that process comes into play. I could see that accelerating over time, until we have a proper state-run National Health Service again.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 8:12 pm
by citizenJA
ohsocynical wrote:Adam Boulton retweeted
Election Forecast UK @Election4castUK 12 mins12 minutes ago
Latest forecast update:
Con 283,
Lab 283,
SNP 33,
LD 27,
DUP 8,
UKIP 3.
'A Labour majority very unlikely' from that website - that's a preposterous assertion.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 8:14 pm
by rebeccariots2
Political Scrapbook @PSbook · 6h 6 hours ago
NEW → Tory MP caught charging own constituents for access to public officials http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/01/k ... officials/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 8:14 pm
by TheGrimSqueaker
rebeccariots2 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:Dave Cameron
Ahem ...
Jeffrey Archer.
Now, there is no need to be offensive.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 8:15 pm
by NonOxCol
howsillyofme1 wrote:Hi all
Been absent a few days - got fed up of what passes for political discussion in the UK at the moment (apart from here of course!)
I got 81% Labour and 7% Tory - very glad about that. Managed to get 66& LD as well though - don't understand how that can be so different from the Tories, unless of course they are a band of lying, yellow-bellied quislings
I got 91% Labour, which was higher than I expected tbh. Apparently I side with them on "economic, foreign policy, domestic policy, healthcare, environmental and education issues." Also 81% Green (economic, foreign policy, healthcare and environmental). Just 13% Tory - and half of that was probably because I just read an article about Zalkalns.
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 8:16 pm
by rebeccariots2
Emma Burnell @EmmaBurnell_ · 23h 23 hours ago
To be honest, the posture, sweaty hair and the ugly fleece are more unfortunate than the misplaced finger.
Emma Burnell on that Osborne photo ...
Re: Wednesday 28th January 2015
Posted: Wed 28 Jan, 2015 8:17 pm
by TheGrimSqueaker
ohsocynical wrote:
@TGS
I thought Nick Clegg was better in Labour's "The Un-Credible shrinking Man" though.
Most PPBs are immediately forgotten, but that was a classic.
I thought it hit the spot. And, for all the criticism it got at the time, it is still far classier and more punchy than anything Shapps has done (or, indeed, tonight's eminently forgettable LD yawnfest).
Much more user friendly 
I've just watched quite a bit of that. I found it very funny - as I didn't have the video image centred on my screen most of Clegg's walking forward speech to camera was seen without his head .... perfect.
