Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About mormont

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    St Andrews, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

32,431 profile views
  1. We're talking about decades of outright lying by people on the anti-EU side of the argument (which has been going on for long before UKIP existed). You just want to handwave it away as 'stirring things up'? It would be meaningless if it did not allow for the option of 'No Brexit'. The idea that this vote can only be taken once does not come over as a principled defence of democracy: it comes across as a desperate defence of the result.
  2. No comment to offer on the fact that this has been the default mode of Eurosceptics for most of the time we have actually been in the EU? 'Our economy will go off a cliff' may be a fearful statement, and it may or may not turn out to be true, but the people saying it sincerely believe it to be true and have a factual basis for that belief, however overblown you might consider it. On the other side, it is a matter of fact that outright lies have been told for decades. They continue to be told. Members of this government have told them, knowing them to be lies. If you're concerned about people's fears being cynically manipulated, you should be condemning the Brexiteers. But you don't appear to be concerned about that, just calling for it to happen in the other direction - which is daft, because that manifestly has been happening to a far greater degree for a far longer time. I think she doesn't believe any of it. Oh good. Oh dear. if the first statement is true, the second is ill-advised to say the least. It's absolutist, caricatures the other side and offers no space for discussion. The argument against is that the referendum result was a narrow win, in a campaign so ill-informed as to pose a serious threat to democracy itself. A vote of 52-48 that results from misinformation and deception is certainly not such a great exemplar of democracy that it must, at all costs, be regarded as sacrosanct. A second referendum on the terms of Brexit is a reasonable request in the circumstances, and definitely respects democracy.
  3. OK, first of all, that was exactly what we did get, and have got non-stop for years. Decades. Second of all, 'project fear' is used in a derogatory way to suggest fears that have been exaggerated cynically to political ends. Again, that's what we have got, for decades, and it's why the referendum went the way it did. False fears whipped up for cynical political reasons. I can't name a single principle that Theresa May possesses. If she has one, I've never seen it. Can you point to what these principles are? Yeah, the use of the phrase 'certain definitions' was a clue there. Well, since you are in the group being dismissed as such, I can understand that view: nobody would appreciate that. And I, personally, wouldn't ever do that. But at the same time, you were guilty of dismissing the views of the other half of the country, albeit in a somewhat less insulting way, by talking about how 'this is something most people support', as if that should close down opposition. A major change that up to half the country have severe reservations about deserves more acknowledgement than that. Again, for certain definitions of 'ahead', 'majority' and 'recent'. Since the election, Labour have not had a consistent poll lead greater than the margin of error, and have been level or behind in a number of polls. If you want to talk 'recent', in polls taken in February they were behind more than they were ahead.
  4. We're not putting stock in those polls, but the ones that reflect current opinion. And honestly, the argument that we should ignore polls we don't like because there was that one poll that time that was wrong is pretty much always weak sauce. Even if you take three or four examples. No, not at all. I have no animus against Corbyn. I'd 100% rather he was PM than Theresa May. And I feel no need to demonstrate my left-wing credentials: I favour a lot of Corbyn's policies. My opinion doesn't come from a place of personal animus. It comes from a clear-eyed assessment. I got tired of seeing people donning the rose-tinted specs when assessing Corbyn a long time ago. But they keep on doing it, because they want him to be something he's not. I'd like it if he were that thing too. But I can see that he isn't. For certain definitions of 'most', 'people' and 'support'. It's a moot point, because he didn't actually do so.
  5. I can deny it. I do deny it. Unless of course the case you're making is that expectations of Corbyn were so low that they could not help but be exceeded, because it simply wasn't possible to undershoot them.
  6. With regard to Corbyn and the election, I could (and almost did) go into detail about how and why the idea that Labour's performance was a personal triumph for Corbyn isn't supported by the evidence, complete with citations, but honestly that would just get us into a serious derail. Suffice to say that, to the extent that the result lent Corbyn some momentum (heh), he's squandered it. Labour are level at best in the polls, Corbyn's approval ratings are underwater (comparable to Theresa May's), and his political positions are unclear (can anyone explain what a 'jobs first Brexit' is or how it's different to the Tory position?) All of which is to say, sorry, I don't think Photoshopping his hat has really undermined what would otherwise be a winning position.
  7. We all agree on that. What we don't agree on is whether photoshopping someone's hat on a late-night current affairs programme is a VRY SRIUS BREACH OF THA BBC CHARTER or, y'know, a piece of meaningless trivia. ps I've met Andrew Neil. Got drunk with him, actually. Not a badass, bona fide or otherwise.
  8. No, he couldn't. He doesn't have it in him. If he did, you wouldn't have to be indulging in what-ifs.
  9. It really hasn't. The fact that people say this does not make it true. It really doesn't. It's just a bit of an ironic illustration. This is fucking Newsnight, people. Its audience is almost entirely middle-class people with an interest in current affairs. Smart people. People who understand irony. This is a storm in a teaspoon (a teacup would be giving it too much credit). Get some perspective on this. Even if it were not, I'm really tired of the idea that Jeremy Corbyn is secretly a great leader held down by unfair media coverage. Hey, you know what's not fair? Politics. It's not fair and it never has been. The job of a politician is to get their message across anyway. That's what good politicians do. That is the fundamental goddam skill of a politician. If Jeremy Corbyn doesn't have it - and he demonstrably doesn't - he is just not very good at his job. And he really, really isn't, you know. The problem with the 'dodgy dossier' comparison is that it's comparing apples with oranges. In the current case, the evidence is leading the government to a conclusion that they are, on balance, reluctant to reach but can't avoid. You can't have it both ways: if Corbyn is right and the Tory party are corrupted by Russian money, they should be desperately trying to concoct a 'dodgy dossier' pointing to someone else.
  10. No, no. Kathy Bates.
  11. I wouldn't assume people don't care about Telford. It's one of those cases where there's simply no real discussion to be had, unless we all line up to say one after another how absolutely appalled we are.
  12. Impressive. Going to need a bit more time to absorb some details later, but there are quite a few to absorb...
  13. Well, the simplest explanation is surely just to do away with all the rumours and hearsay about planned SW projects and Disney dropping DuVernay because they had foreknowledge about Wrinkle being a bust and just take things at face value? DuVernay was making Wrinkle, then was offered New Gods. The mystery only appears to exist if we first assume facts that are not really in evidence. ETA - I agree completely about wanting to see Vertigo adaptations, though they're not really the sort of film DC seems to be looking for. New Gods offers a sort of Thor: Ragnarok crossed with Guardians of the Galaxy vibe. Catnip to a studio exec, surely.
  14. If that rumour is true, then maybe. But it seems unlikely DuVernay was only just approached this week, particularly as she responded to a tweet about her favourite superhero by naming Big Barda just three months ago. A more likely scenario is surely that even in December, she had been approached and may even have been in talks, which would naturally have been slowed in the runup to the release of Wrinkle In Time. I agree with you on DC's missteps until now, but if they're willing to change course, this would be the way to do it. Take a gamble, move the spotlight from Earth, do something new.
  15. My understanding is that the Russian economy isn't doing as well as it was, so Putin is not going to be inclined to stop selling gas to EU countries if he can help it.