|
Darth Walrus posted:So how bad is this going to hurt us? Minor but unpleasant hiccup or triple-dip recession? Could range anywhere between unnoticeable to the public and whatever the Tories can justify with it. It's impossible to predict because it relies so heavily on the reaction to the market rather than the market itself. KKKlean Energy posted:I thought cheaper oil was supposed to be a good thing (for unrepentant consumers) Well, if the UK didn't invest so heavily in oil-reliant commodities...
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
A lot of the time these "why is the market doing x" stories are just fairy tales. No-one knows for sure, unless you can ask all the traders, which is impossible. And the oil price has been falling for weeks, so why now? Anyway, the FTSE has a reasonable number of oil companies and mining firms in it. So if their stocks fall, then that'll drag the index down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
With the guardian on the way out, which site should I use for my downtime in the office?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
notaspy posted:With the guardian on the way out, which site should I use for my downtime in the office? http://cat-bounce.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
http://www.ft.com/home/uk
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Paywall nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:They've taken on a new batch of writers and they're all loving dreadful. Even the football section has somehow got worse, there's been a bunch of articles where they outright make poo poo up and it's so bad it's funny. All mainstream news is turning into clickbait jezebel style reporting because thats what drives advertising revenue. You'll never believe what the future of journalism looks like. Number 5 blew our minds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:All mainstream news is turning into clickbait jezebel style reporting because thats what drives advertising revenue. You'll never believe what the future of journalism looks like. Number 5 blew our minds. you'll never guess who won the general election! South Croyden is amazing!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
If you refuse to pay you'll get poo poo reporting. If you care enough you'll pay for a subscription.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
A bunch of out of touch rich people ran for election. What happened next brought us to tears.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:If you refuse to pay you'll get poo poo reporting. If you care enough you'll pay for a subscription. This is an excellent reason why capitalism is a load of shite, ty muchly
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Phoon posted:There's a good justification for excluding the snp and plaid in that they are only running in Scotland/Wales so the majority of viewers wouldn't have an opportunity to vote for them. You get to hear their views anyway- and why should Scotland, the second largest country in the UK, have their majority party dismissed like that? We also have undecided voters who would want to see Sturgeon debating against the other parties. Especially since I thought we were all supposed to be equally important in this United Kingdom, or at least that's what we've been told by the establishment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:This is an excellent reason why capitalism is a load of shite, ty muchly If you don't like it, stop using those websites, and instead either buy the bloody paper or use the ft, and encourage everyone else to do the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:If you don't like it, stop using those websites, and instead either buy the bloody paper or use the ft, and encourage everyone else to do the same. wooooooooooooosh
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:You get to hear their views anyway- and why should Scotland, the second largest country in the UK, have their majority party dismissed like that? We also have undecided voters who would want to see Sturgeon debating against the other parties. Especially since I thought we were all supposed to be equally important in this United Kingdom, or at least that's what we've been told by the establishment. The snp is not equally important to national parties as it only runs in one region of the country. If they want to be in national debates they should run nationally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Jose posted:This one is probably the worst I've ever seen. I'd assume it was supposed to be a joke were it not for how bad they've been recently
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:You get to hear their views anyway- and why should Scotland, the second largest country in the UK, have their majority party dismissed like that? We also have undecided voters who would want to see Sturgeon debating against the other parties. Especially since I thought we were all supposed to be equally important in this United Kingdom, or at least that's what we've been told by the establishment. It's a national debate, the SNP don't run nationally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
edit: in fact never mind
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:You get to hear their views anyway- and why should Scotland, the second largest country in the UK, have their majority party dismissed like that? We also have undecided voters who would want to see Sturgeon debating against the other parties. Especially since I thought we were all supposed to be equally important in this United Kingdom, or at least that's what we've been told by the establishment. Equally important means assigning equal importance to an individual Scot as to a Briton. That means you're 8% important. Treating Scotland equally doesn't mean boring the other 92% of the UK to tears listening to a politician they will never be able to vote for in a national election. vv Where don't Labour run out of interest? Edit: Question answered, interesting. The Tories, clearly the only party with legitimacy! Prince John fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Phoon posted:The snp is not equally important to national parties as it only runs in one region of the country. If they want to be in national debates they should run nationally. stickyfngrdboy posted:It's a national debate, the SNP don't run nationally. Labour don't run nationally either, so it's a pretty poor judge of what should be in the debates. I don't care whether or not the SNP or DUP are in, but it's just not balanced to exclude them without excluding some of the other 4 parties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:You get to hear their views anyway- and why should Scotland, the second largest country in the UK, have their majority party dismissed like that? We also have undecided voters who would want to see Sturgeon debating against the other parties. Especially since I thought we were all supposed to be equally important in this United Kingdom, or at least that's what we've been told by the establishment. Maybe petition Scottish tv to to have debates for parties that only campaign in Scotland?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if they don't run nationally, as pointed out neither do Labour. We've been talking already, in this very thread, about how the SNP might end up the decisive factor in shaping the next government by their ability to support a minority Labour government, and they should be included. ESPECIALLY if loving UKIP are there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Spooky Hyena posted:Labour don't run nationally either, so it's a pretty poor judge of what should be in the debates. I don't care whether or not the SNP or DUP are in, but it's just not balanced to exclude them without excluding some of the other 4 parties. Simple: don't show the debates on Northern Irish tv. Coohoolin posted:It doesn't matter if they don't run nationally Yes it does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Pissflaps suggested contesting more than 50% of seats and I agreed. What % of seats do the snp contest?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I thought cheaper oil was supposed to be a good thing (for unrepentant consumers) When everything's a market, everyone's income [eventually] depends on trade, so you've got this ridiculous situation where nothing is ever allowed to fall too far in value otherwise you're beggaring a significant proportion of your population. I'm sure it's been noticed centuries ago how darkly hilarious it is that flooding a town with gold causes everyone to starve (though I can't recall who made this observation). Spangly A posted:This is an excellent reason why capitalism is a load of shite, ty muchly
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Phoon posted:Pissflaps suggested contesting more than 50% of seats and I agreed. What % of seats do the snp contest? That won't work either because the Greens contest more than 50% of seats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
The greens should be in the debates E: The SNP demanding to be in the debates has led to lots of articles putting them with the Greens. This is what annoys me as I feel the Greens have more right to be in the debates and saying "but then we have to include these people" (who are not necessarily popular in the rest of the UK) could weaken the position of the Greens. Phoon fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Alex Salmond should be given a front row seat at the debates and be encouraged to heckle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Phoon posted:The snp is not equally important to national parties as it only runs in one region of the country. If they want to be in national debates they should run nationally. I would vote for the SNP if they ran in my area. But yeah I don't really see the value of having a party in the debate if there's no way to vote for them and thus they cannot, by definition, offer anything constructive. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would vote for the SNP if they ran in my area. Why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Every candidate should have to go one on one with Frankie Boyle and defend their platforms without breaking down crying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
I might as well if they pursued some of the policies they have pursued in Scotland in the whole UK but they're not doing that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Because the other parties are all idiots/impotent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
What would they call themselves? The National Scottish Nationalist Party?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:What would they call themselves? The National Scottish Nationalist Party? Redefine any area with a sitting SNP MP as Scotland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
They could try to form an alliance with a party that runs in the rest of the country but I dunno who that would be
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Spooky Hyena posted:That won't work either because the Greens contest more than 50% of seats. Why does that mean it 'won't work'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Jose posted:This one is probably the worst I've ever seen. I'd assume it was supposed to be a joke were it not for how bad they've been recently What the hell happened to you, Guardian? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:It is a basic concept in British constitutional law that those who have their property confiscated should be compensated, a principle that has only been violated recently in times of war emergency. Add to that that the Europeans would be super pissed, as would investors in the country. To the extent that slaveowners were financially compensated when we freed slaves in the Empire. This one goes pretty far back. When's the last time any vaguely first world country just up and seized a private company like that? Venezuela did something of the sort a lot sooner than the 60s - http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/2245 - but not without any compensation at all. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:35 |
|
|
Prince John posted:Treating Scotland equally doesn't mean boring the other 92% of the UK to tears listening to a politician they will never be able to vote for in a national election. But 92% of people can vote for Cameron?  Seriously though, why should these 'debates' (  ) be purely a platform for establishment parties to make speeches? Sure it's harder to draw the line about who should be included and who shouldn't, but something like this should be about airing a range of views and prompting a debate about the issues affecting the country, and what each party plans to do about them.Whether people can vote for person X is secondary to giving voice to a representative of a segment of the population. And polls keep showing that the public actually support leftist policies like nationalisation, higher taxation, opposition to austerity etc. Who out of the establishment politicians is going to put this on the table for discussion? Nobody, because those views have been excluded from high-level UK politics. Having politicians on who will actually argue for these things, and force the others to defend their opposition to them, is good for the democratic process. As it is we'll end up with the exact same narrative we get in the media every day, except the party leaders will be talking past each other in practiced soundbites in the same room, instead of in separate PR statements. And that's exactly how they want it. What's the point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:10
|
|
