GRcade

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:00 pm**

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:I just saw Vince Cable’s New Years message.

Has there ever been a less inspiring leader of a “major” party?

The Lib Dem’s might be at a very low point thanks to Clegg, but their leadership choices since the end of the coalition have been terrible. A homophobe Liberal leader followed by a boring old man.

I think they are hamstrung. They get so little media time now because they are such a small force in parliament, even at PMQs they are a minor voice behind the SNP.

Cable was the best choice of what they had left in parliament, he's actually a pretty decent politician in my opinion but it's hard for him to have any kind of impact given where the LDs are electorally. They really could do wirh a rebrand and just becoming the Liberal Party or something.

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:10 pm**

Cable's a good politician but he doesn't have the personality to grow the party. He's also too old to make a good leader, especially if this parliament runs to a full term.

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:04 pm**

New York Homicides: 287 (as of December 30 2018)
New York Reported Rapes: 1,760 (as of December 23 2018)

London Homicides: 134 (as of December 30 2018)
London Reported Rapes: 7,613 (January 2017-2018)

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:46 pm**

KK wrote:
New York Homicides: 287 (as of December 30 2018)
New York Reported Rapes: 1,760 (as of December 23 2018)

London Homicides: 134 (as of December 30 2018)
London Reported Rapes: 7,613 (January 2017-2018)

Source?

Also how are reports of rape dealt with/processed in New York compared to London? Are there differences in definitions?

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:45 am**

KK wrote:
New York Homicides: 287 (as of December 30 2018)
New York Reported Rapes: 1,760 (as of December 23 2018)

London Homicides: 134 (as of December 30 2018)
London Reported Rapes: 7,613 (January 2017-2018)

London - officially safer than New York :toot:

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:27 pm**

twitter.com/YouGov/status/1079688410925813760

Cheaper train fares are regressive, as they'll only benefit the rich, who use trains, and not the poor, who don't use trains for entirely unrelated reasons, like not needing to go anywhere, or showing solidarity with their local bus service.

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:31 pm**

Knoëleo wrote:showing solidarity with their local bus service.

what

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:36 pm**

i think hes taking the piss

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:59 pm**

39% of people didn't use a train. Maybe that's because they are so strawberry floating expensive. :lol:

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:20 pm**

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:39% of people didn't use a train. Maybe that's because they are so strawberry floating expensive.

Maybe they're so rich they just use their private helicopter.

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:23 pm**

It doesn't surprise me at all that poor people on the whole can't afford to take the train. The cost is outrageous and continues to rise disproportionately.

Preezy, you need to upgrade your irony software.

Knoëleo wrote:not the poor, who don't use trains for entirely unrelated reasons, like not needing to go anywhere

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:23 pm**

I’m too uncultured to enjoy poetry, but I like this one.

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:41 pm**

This is a bit like those 'millennials are turning their back on restaurants' headlines that should really be 'millennials don't have any money'.

It's weird to make the upper wealthy tier for a household to start at £40,000 for one, when the median UK wage is something like £28,500. So a couple made up of one person making an 'average' wage and one making minimum wage in a full time job would break that barrier.

It's shitty for YouGov to make such a political statement when those on lower than average wages have to pay comparatively more to commute the same distance by train as higher earners. It's those workers who benefit the most, even if a greater number of households will apparently collectively benefit overall.

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:04 pm**

I don't think they really understand the statement they're making. The people who work at you gov make enough money that they really can't understand or won't think about people not being able to afford the train.

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:53 pm**

The Cuttcracker Suite wrote:It's shitty for YouGov to make such a political statement when those on lower than average wages have to pay comparatively more to commute the same distance by train as higher earners. It's those workers who benefit the most, even if a greater number of households will apparently collectively benefit overall.

The way they present it as though they're fact checking, as well, is particularly egregious.

"Don't let the emotionally manipulative media lead you to believe high fares are bad. They're actually good"

Also, Preezy. :lol:

Posted: **Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:55 pm**

When is my next patch release?

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:28 am**

Trains are shite. Services somehow get worse every year with prices going up. Value for money? Pah.

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:29 am**

Now read backwards

Posted: **Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:06 am**

Nicely impartial there YouGov. The kind of quality needed from a polling organisation :fp:

Posted: **Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:57 am**

twitter.com/britainelects/status/1081678914123124741

I completely understand why people don’t like Corbyn’s Labour, but I am stunned that the Tories are that far ahead.

Equally stunned really that the Lib Dem’s are on 10%. Remain supporting Tory/Labour voters drifting back maybe?

GRcade

Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5

Re: Politics Thread 5