Cycling UK Forum

120 million quid is to be wasted "Unboxed: Creativity in the UK" , or Festival of Brexit as Jacob Really-Smug calls it. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 36577.html The website https://unboxed2022.uk/ , gives a clue it's meant to be about Brexit else why deck it out in Ukip's purple.

£120,000,000!?
Where do they get these figures from?Where has £120million actually gone or been spent!?
Are they sure it’s not just £120?

People will have to queue up for three days to get into the car park,
and when parked will need to fill out 50 pages of Brexit red tape to get inside the festival.

At least the Brexit faithful will have some entertainment:

If you thought Putin was good at dis-information, try reading this:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... brexit.pdf

And if this document is a festival precursor then I can't imagine how vacuous the event will be; and what a total waste of money

Stradageek wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 9:04am If you thought Putin was good at dis-information, try reading this:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... brexit.pdf

And if this document is a festival precursor then I can't imagine how vacuous the event will be; and what a total waste of money

I confess to voting for Brexit.
Looking at this document is making my eyes glaze over.
A load of waffle from the prince of wafflers.
Quantum strategy - what the hell is that? Lots of other quantums thrown in - did I really vote for this? ( I really wanted to avoid moving to a United States of Europe - I was happy enough with the EEC ).
And a £120 million jamboree - I wonder how many of Boris's chums will be benefitting from that.

ANTONISH wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 9:20am

Stradageek wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 9:04am If you thought Putin was good at dis-information, try reading this:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... brexit.pdf

And if this document is a festival precursor then I can't imagine how vacuous the event will be; and what a total waste of money

I confess to voting for Brexit.
Looking at this document is making my eyes glaze over.
A load of waffle from the prince of wafflers.
Quantum strategy - what the hell is that? Lots of other quantums thrown in - did I really vote for this? ( I really wanted to avoid moving to a United States of Europe - I was happy enough with the EEC ).
And a £120 million jamboree - I wonder how many of Boris's chums will be benefitting from that.

I reckon that a lot of people will be similarly minded to yourself, I certainly am. A case of dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t.

Can’t say that Boris impresses me much and next time round I’ll be voting for Starmer. If his party had pragmatically listened to folk on the doorstep then they might just be in power now, as opposed to the Tories who promised to get Brexit done - the big ticket item - and understood what was needed to win.

Carlton green wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 9:39amIf his party had pragmatically listened to folk on the doorstep then they might just be in power now

The Labour voters I see on Twitter don't understand that to win an election you need votes not new party members, and to steal those votes from a handful of Tories in marginal seats, not win hordes of votes in Labour safe seats, and that you don't steal votes from Tories by moving to the left.

Blair, Brown, Mandelson & Campbell did understand, that's why they're the only ones to win more than one term.

Lose lose lose lose, Blair Blair Blair, lose lose lose lose.

axel_knutt wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 11:25am

Carlton green wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 9:39amIf his party had pragmatically listened to folk on the doorstep then they might just be in power now

The Labour voters I see on Twitter don't understand that to win an election you need votes not new party members, and to steal those votes from a handful of Tories in marginal seats, not win hordes of votes in Labour safe seats, and that you don't steal votes from Tories by moving to the left.

Blair, Brown, Mandelson & Campbell did understand, that's why they're the only ones to win more than one term.

Lose lose lose lose, Blair Blair Blair, lose lose lose lose.

Harold Wilson won four general elections and Clement Attlee two.

axel_knutt wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 11:25am

Carlton green wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 9:39amIf his party had pragmatically listened to folk on the doorstep then they might just be in power now

The Labour voters I see on Twitter don't understand that to win an election you need votes not new party members, and to steal those votes from a handful of Tories in marginal seats, not win hordes of votes in Labour safe seats, and that you don't steal votes from Tories by moving to the left.

Blair, Brown, Mandelson & Campbell did understand, that's why they're the only ones to win more than one term.

Lose lose lose lose, Blair Blair Blair, lose lose lose lose.

I think that that’s about correct. To a large extent the left are experts at getting the right elected, whilst Blair and Cameron has some insight into how to win elections. Whatever, I can’t do much if anything at all to change the Labour Party. I feel sorry for their Red Wall MP’s though; many of them said that the party should simply and clearly accept the referendum result and defused that bomb. However Labour didn’t go with that line of thought, the red wall MP’s lost their seats and ‘get Brexit done’ Boris hoovered up the votes to gain a massive majority.

The Labour Party missed an earlier opportunity too. Mrs May (a remain supporter) did her best to loose her majority and could have lost her election or been much more captive in minority government. It just needed a bit more pragmatism within the Labour ranks and the election result would have been different.

“£120,000,000!?
Where do they get these figures from?”

It’s quoted in the headline of the Independent’s article ... that particular ‘paper’, like its readers, just happens to be remain oriented. It’s not a ‘paper’ that I would read; newspapers aren’t solely about news, they’re a repeat purchase business that panders to their customer base.

Carlton green wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 12:07pm It’s quoted in the headline of the Independent’s article ... that particular ‘paper’, like its readers, just happens to be remain oriented. It’s not a ‘paper’ that I would read; newspapers aren’t solely about news, they’re a repeat purchase business that panders to their customer base.

I've always called them magazines, not newspapers and toyed with the idea of prosecuting most of them under the trades description act as they rarely convey any verifiable facts.

Dictionary definition of news being "newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events" where information is defined as "facts provided or learned about something or someone"

I like to play this song to any Daily Mail readers I come across

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Stradageek wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 5:59pm

Carlton green wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 12:07pm It’s quoted in the headline of the Independent’s article ... that particular ‘paper’, like its readers, just happens to be remain oriented. It’s not a ‘paper’ that I would read; newspapers aren’t solely about news, they’re a repeat purchase business that panders to their customer base.

I've always called them magazines, not newspapers and toyed with the idea of prosecuting most of them under the trades description act as they rarely convey any verifiable facts.

Dictionary definition of news being "newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events" where information is defined as "facts provided or learned about something or someone"

I like to play this song to any Daily Mail readers I come across

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Love the video, thanks .

Yes, I think that ‘magazines’ isn’t too harsh a description. What one does for un-slanted news I’m really not sure. I go by the BBC and The Times, maybe they’re not perfect but I find them sufficiently so.

Carlton green wrote: ↑18 Mar 2022, 5:49pmWhat one does for un-slanted news I’m really not sure. I go by the BBC and The Times, maybe they’re not perfect but I find them sufficiently so.

1 As wide a range as possible.

2 The Economist. By far the best English language newspaper.

3 The Guardian.

But beyond newspapers it has never before been so easy, cheap and quick to find authoritative reporting of just about anything.

Jonathan

Carlton green wrote: ↑18 Mar 2022, 5:49pm I go by the BBC and The Times, maybe they’re not perfect but I find them sufficiently so.

The Times, one of Rupert Murdoch's mouthpieces.

Carlton green wrote: ↑17 Mar 2022, 12:07pm

“£120,000,000!?
Where do they get these figures from?”

It’s quoted in the headline of the Independent’s article ... that particular ‘paper’, like its readers, just happens to be remain oriented. It’s not a ‘paper’ that I would read; newspapers aren’t solely about news, they’re a repeat purchase business that panders to their customer base.

The cross-party Culture Media and Sport select committee of MP's are saying the £120 million set aside for the festival is a waste of money. That's where the figure comes from.

If you regard the Times as a more reliable source of news you better read this then
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brex ... -vkbwc8h9v

pete75 wrote: ↑18 Mar 2022, 8:32pm If you regard the Times as a more reliable source of news you better read this then
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brex ... -vkbwc8h9v

Perhaps 120 prominent Tory Brexiters will turn up to be congratulated and handed a million quid each?