>>89411
You've gone too far this time, PoliticalShaggerLad*.

*Not to be confused with Lembit Opik.

>>89412 >>89413

By the end of lockdown, you'll be ready to fuck Ann Widdecombe. The only thing falling faster than the FTSE 100 is our standards.

>>89414
Give it another month after we get to Anne Widdecombe and maybe someone will want to shag me.

>>89414
Young Ann Widdecombe has a sexy Martha Argerich vibe about her. Isn't she still a virgin before god or something? It doesn't rule out ritual and being shielded by Baphomet's grace and her being thumbed through like the Xmas Radio Times, candles snuffed to avoid human witness.

>>89398
>Corbyn and his cronies had ages to line up a successor but their rank incompetency meant they ended up with the human potato that is Rebecca Long-Bailey.
There's not really anyone from any faction in the Labour party who's up to the task in fairness. If they couldn't dig up a future prime minister under Blair/Brown/Miliband, there was little reason to suspect the talent vacuum would end under Corbyn.
Honestly, I wish mandatory re-selection had become policy for this reason - some incumbent MPs would be booted out and hopefully sheer random chance would eventually deliver Labour a future prime minister. Sure, it's sad that some excellent social workers of last resort with ten years of parliamentary experience under their belts and who're remarkably nice people if you ever meet them in person event would lose their jobs due to the votes of weirdos who joined for 50p on the Thursday before the vote, but it seems like a risk worth taking.
Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe Starmer is a premier in waiting, a prime minister of the dull Clement Attlee sort who nobody really took too seriously before the big national crisis. It would certainly justify my decision to have voted for him.

I've adopted a sort of syncretistic Discordian-Pyrrhonist-Gnosticism but I don't like talking about it much as I worry it sounds like I'm just taking the piss out of other people's beliefs when it's not really. It's compatible with ideas like
>but doesn't Godel's theorem also hold true if you accept that the results of something "god-like" could also be explained as entropy or chaos

>>89437
I've never looked into what our Quakers believe but I have a lot of respect for them from my interactions with them. Brave, peaceful people.

>>89438

As someone who's a year deep into studies on Historical Jesus and the origins of biblical monotheism in ancient Israel I can only say Poo Poo. But you do you, lad.

It's become fashionable to be agnostic these days, I feel, and atheism has become associated with those edgy, neckbeard fedora types. It's a tragedy if you ask me, because you have otherwise rational people excusing all sorts of nonsense brain-worms just because they don't want to look like a teenager from 4chan.

As far as I want to be able to give people the freedom to believe in what they want, I really truly can't reconcile how an otherwise intelligent person can practice faith, at least in the traditional, Jeduo-Christian/Iglooist way. It seems to me all too obvious that these religions in particular have, historically, been responsible for altogether more evil than good. Their very roots in culture exist as an early form of social control and manipulation, before we'd invented mass propaganda and the modern police state. Indeed that's the only reason they have become unnecessary.

I think it's a relic of our past we'd really be better off without. There are better philosophical approaches to dealing with the quandary of the unfathomable.

>>89427

People who beleive something anyway prove something they believe anyway, yet fail to convince anyone else. Is the best way of summing up Godel's ontological theorem. it is circular reasoning plain and simple.

>>89420

>I was a militant Christopher Hitchens style atheist

I really hate the equivocation of atheism with this brand of it, it seems like an oversimplified Americanism. And I think the prevailing truth suffers from political tit for tat for it being treated like it is a counter point to Christianity when it isn't and shouldn't behave like it is.

>>89371
>if it largely blows over

Does anyone seriously think it will? This is the new reality for the next three months or so.

>>89372
Sloppy choice of words, sorry. If the inevitable lockdowns succeed in curtailing the rate of spread of the virus, if hospitals remain open and functional and there isn't a total breakdown in public order then I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that current world heads of state will be beyond reelection.

>>89372
I think it's going to completely fuck up Yankland, more so than here because of the attitude of their society in general.

>>89374
I think there are two things that are going to hurt the US badly - as you say, their misplaced ideas about what constitutes "freedom" means they aren't likely to quarantine or shutdown places like China would. The second part is that this is showing up what happens when you have absolutely no healthcare system to speak of - hence the debacle where some states have only run double-digits in numbers of tests.

>>89375
> The second part is that this is showing up what happens when you have absolutely no healthcare system to speak of

A long time ago (2011, I think) I had a long, long talk over 30 or 40 beers with a fairly right-wing chap who was opposed to universal health care. Eventually I was able to persuade him that universal healthcare was important precisely because people who aren't vaccinated or can't afford to see a doctor will keep on going into work and spreading disease to vulnerable people which will, overall, hurt society more than simply paying for that person's basic healthcare. Apparently it was a point of view that a 30 year old had never considered before. Jesus wept.

Anyway, I feel like I'm rambling but I think this year he's finally going to get the practical half of the lesson 9 years after the theory part.

>>89328

That's not what my lad Stephen Bush said in the e-mail this morning - and I always listen to Stephen Bush.

(He is better at thinking than me, so I just let him think for me now.)

>Rishi Sunak will announce the biggest expansion in government borrowing in British political history as he approves a slew of infrastructure projects in his budget today, as he takes advantage of the era of low interest rates.

>And they're getting lower: the Bank of England has cut rates to 0.25 per cent in a boost to help the economy see its way through a covid-19 induced economic shock.

>Those two stories illustrate the benefit and the cost of the era of low low interest rates: on the one hand, governments can borrow more than they could in the past. The way that the British government structures its debt means that it may have even great wriggle room than many other states. But the downside is that when you hit an economic downturn, pretty much all the heavy lifting has to be done by fiscal policy, that is, through tax-and-spend.

>That reality is one reason why Sunak may be wise to avoid too much borrowing outside of infrastructure spending and measures to respond to the crisis - and that for all the talk of ending austerity, and the reality of increased spending for police, the NHS and education, the story for large parts of the public realm today will be the continuation of spending restraint rather than its end.

£104 less in NI next tax year. Wahey!

If the Tories under Johnson continue like this then Labour are absolutely fucked for the foreseeable future.

It's good to see them investing again, and you can certainly see this as a bit of a vindication to Labour's "we won the argument" mantra.

I can't help but feel like it's a bit late though. It's all well and good pledging money for infrastructure when most of it will just go into fixing the damage ten years of neglect has caused.

>>89332

They absolutely are fucked, but not because the Tories have nicked their politics. It's because Labour will do what they always do and piss about trying to position themselves as opposed to all of it, instead of standing up and saying "See? They've admitted we were right all along!" and driving that point home.

>>89332
So that's your council tax rise sorted then.

>>89255
I'm unsure of this claim. The roots of English in Germanic and Romance follow gendered language with the masculine plural as dominant e.g. Ragazzi means both group of male children and children generally in Italian.

While English developed gender neutrality, with limited exception, 'they' needlessly loses specificity (or brings confusion) which must be made up in context. This goes against the point of good communication in conveying information in as concise a way as possible.* Therefore these common folk in the 14-18th century were wrong. This is not to say that you should never use 'they' if not doing so would be rude of course.

*The whole sentence is awful:
>They sound like the kind of person who has made doing things out of spite because they are hurt into a lifestyle choice.
>She sounds like the kind of person who has made doing things out of spite a lifestyle choice.

>>89259
I believe Shakespeare himself used singular they in a couple of his plays. Chaucer certainly used it. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

>>89262

Was it contextually appropriate, like the character not knowing the gender of the person to which they were referring at the time?

>>89206
'Salted' is not 'Plain'.

>>89264
Yes it is.

>>89028
Maybe I'd feel differently IRL but I'd rather have a nosey around those Roman(?) ruins than look at her tits.

>>89030
I bet you would.

>>89034
That's from the Renaissance lad.

>>89035
You're still a bummer.

>>89036
Takes one to know one.

>>88613

That exists it is called basic first aid training you probably had some.

(A good day to you Sir!)

So... now we've left what might happen to the NHS?

>>89021
They've already realised they're going to have to lower the salary floor on skilled worker visas to boost immigration.

>>89022

It's almost like they don't want to ease the pressure on wages and upskill British workers at all, and everyone who voted Tory and Brexit because that's what they wanted to happen has been conned.

You wait though, this will be their downfall. Immigration is the political time bomb of our age. When people realise they've been had and that Brexit alone wasn't enough to stop it, that's when they're going to start turning to genuinely nationalist politics.

>>88580
Reminds me of the famous "Now I'm not racist but" thread we posted from FB many years ago. It was back in the days where you could still scrape FB posts without much of an account, and I remember compiling a list of all the people who posted it... probably not the done thing now.

Top universities ‘not being chosen by low-income students’

Poorer students with good A-level grades are significantly more likely to opt for less prestigious universities than those with similar results from more advantaged backgrounds.

This is the standout finding from major research that throws into question how effective higher education is in equalising opportunities.

Successive governments have spent heavily to encourage disadvantaged students to go to university. The Office for Students in England recently set ambitious targets for wider access. But a team at the UCL Institute of Education say their research, published by the Centre for Economic Performance, throws into question whether simply getting poor students into university is enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jan/26/poorer-students-opt-less-prestigious-universities

Not at all surprising, given that research has found many state school teachers have misconceptions about Oxbridge and don't encourage their brightest students to apply there.

>>88958
I probably I know but won't admit am not smart enough to have done the whole Oxbridge thing but as a state school kid who smashed straight As and A*s at GCSE with no tutoring or anything like that and then was predicted to smash As at A-level nobody even said to me 'consider oxbridge'.

I basically thought if I was good enough they'd have told me, so I didn't bother. Not that it changed much but the biggest shock now I'm in the working world mixing with all these people is not how private school kids are smarter than state school kids, other than knowing more obscure antiquities references I find they're not, it's how much more confidence and self belief they have in themselves. They might be the least qualified person in the room on a topic but they'll talk like they have a god given right to be there.

This isn't a criticism either, how do we get state schools to instill this sort of belief?

>>88959
Noticing as I hit submit I've added an extra 'l' onto instil so Oxford were right not to consider me all along.

>>88959
I was selected for the Young, Gifted & Talented programme, which meant trips to the local university, events with kids from other schools in the area and starting AS Maths when I was in Year 10. The importance of going to university was regularly drummed home but I can't remember a single conversation about the importance of what you study and where; I reckon sitting down with someone for half an hour to actually go through that would have been far more useful than the actual programme itself.

Not once can I remember a teacher or anyone else talking to me in a meaningful was about university. I'm doing fairly alright for myself, but nobody I know went to a 'prestigious' university and most are stuck in dead-end jobs over 10 years since graduating.

I wouldn't be surprised if the children of my peer group end up going to top universities seeing as their parents experienced the pitfalls of the system and should now know how to navigate it.

>>88961
At least yours did something, they basically just told us several times that we were in the group and told us not to let our grades job.

In hindsight I did think there was probably meant to be a lot more they slacked on.

I've never been one to care where things get posted but how is this /pol/?

>>88859
"HE SAYS IT LIKE IT IS!" is the cornerstone of modern politics.

I dunno, people keep posting /v/ threads on /iq/ instead so everything has gone all topsy-turvy.

>>88855
This is as /v/ as it gets. He put the screen actors guild on blast, but otherwise it was just really witty.

Was it funny? No, but I agreed the fuck out of it.

>>88871

I don't think it was meant to be funny, it felt quite fucking vitriolic to be quite honest with you.

Regardless, OP probably posted it in /pol/ here because it was all over /pol/ on the other place for the last few days and he felt like fitting in.

>>88674
The graph doesn't show that at all. Where did you learn to infer causality, The Room?

If you have to dump a load of charts, open up Paint and stick them into one image or something, you big git.

>>88679
Classic trifle fan detected.

>>88680
Not him, but don't you fucking dare diss trifle.

>>88684

Trifle is awesome. It's the lasagne of desserts

>>88718
He was chief cashier at the Bank for ages (his signature is still on a lot of bank notes), and then Deputy. I think that more than qualifies him to be governor.

The FCA didn't do a fantastic job over RBS, but then their hands are slightly tied by the fact its a zombie bank. I disagree with the Woodford criticism.

There aren't many better people out there - Mark Carney has been a genuinely great governor and is well respected in the City - Bailey will probably keep a lower profile, but again, no bad thing in a central banker.

A much better, more interesting question might be - how do I get a job at the Bank of England when they don't pay anything near the market rate.

>>88719
>The FCA didn't do a fantastic job over RBS, but then their hands are slightly tied by the fact its a zombie bank.

Nicky Morgan had to threaten him with contempt over his refusal to publish their report on RBS unredacted.

The FCA were also asleep at the wheel over final salary transfers, which led to the mess over British Steel, and ignored warnings about mini bonds which included specific ones over the now collapsed London Capital & Finance.

>>87950
I'm sure people will stop calling Tory voters cunts when they stop being cunts.

>>87950

>that calling anyone who votes Conservative a rude name is a good idea.

Self-perceived moral superiority. And how dare you doubt my view point.

>>87949

The ones I always remember getting right up my fucking nose are the ones that contradict with what is by definition 'rationalism'.

I remember for a long time them being full on 'fat shaming by doctors is real, healthy at every size, intesectionalists unite' thankfully that situation has at least improved.

Mind you wikipedia can't even state the correct date for when the first bomberman game was released without someone editing it back to the wrong one so I'm not sure what standard you can realistically expect from a site that contains debatable topics and anyone can edit.

>>88504
Wikipedia's problem is that most people who know better would prefer to disparage Wikipedia rather than spending that same effort engaging in the editing process (which by the way needn't start and definitely doesn't end with pressing the edit button).

And there's no way Wikipedia doesn't state the correct date since there are a bunch of different dates given depending on where you look with different reasoning behind them. You're unhappy that one info box doesn't contain your preferred date.

>>88511

The edit war is based on the fact that hudsonsoft US nintendo team released a statement say 30 years of bomberman in 2015. This issue is that is the date that bomber man came out in the US, on the NES. The game was actually released 2 years earlier on the MSX (and inbetween multiple other systems) everywhere but in the US (although rebranded as Eric and the floaters in Europe because glorifying terrorism was considered a moral concern). There are paragraphs of people arguing quite logically and rightly that 1983 is clearly the date on the edit page, as they bloody owned the game before 85. But then US yards change it back to 85 because that's what the statement they've over generalised says that none of them have ever justified.

What makes this weirder is that the first game of the series is rightfully labelled on its page the 1983 game because you can't argue it first came out on a port when it is a clearly and objectively defined in a way the franchise wasn't at that point.

>>88131
WAYHEY

HOORAY FOR AL

>>88131

>>88122

>>86054

Yes, of course there is. "Nice cock, can I suck it?" is quite direct.

This woman is going to fuck Britain in the arse.

>>86042

I'd let her nibble on my sausage IYKWIM

>>87053

>2018_Annalena-Baerbock_Presse2_Urban-Zintel-1024x6.jpg

Ah, Google says she's a member of the German Green Party.

She looks like she's capable of proper filth, but she'll probably insist on biodegradable condoms and sustainably sourced wooden butt plugs.