Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Admitting that you were wrong, especially when the original decision has huge ramifications, is a painful and destabilising experience that the brain tends to resist. Research into this kind of denial has given us concepts such as cognitive dissonanceand confirmation bias.

“When you have a strong view about something, you’re likely to reject information that’s contrary to your view, reject the source of the information and rationalise the information,” says Jane Green, professor of political science at the University of Manchester and co-director of the British Election Study. “We select information that’s consistent with our views, because it’s more comfortable and reaffirming.” In fact, it’s physically pleasurable. Some recent studies of confirmation bias indicate that consuming information that supports our beliefs actually produces a dopamine rush.

That factcheck article has completely debunked your whole argument, borrowing more money will lead to more debt, it will not pay for itself. MacDonell either doesn't know what he's talking about or he's lying, probably both. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

If you're paying £400 a month on your mortgage and your income doubles, is it more affordable?

But that's not what's being proposed.You're going to triple your mortgage when your income has only risen 35% .

[Guest]

Honestly. I can't carry on with this.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Honestly. I can't carry on with this.

Admitting that you were wrong, especially when the original decision has huge ramifications, is a painful and destabilising experience that the brain tends to resist. Research into this kind of denial has given us concepts such as cognitive dissonanceand confirmation bias.

“When you have a strong view about something, you’re likely to reject information that’s contrary to your view, reject the source of the information and rationalise the information,” says Jane Green, professor of political science at the University of Manchester and co-director of the British Election Study. “We select information that’s consistent with our views, because it’s more comfortable and reaffirming.” In fact, it’s physically pleasurable. Some recent studies of confirmation bias indicate that consuming information that supports our beliefs actually produces a dopamine rush.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Admitting that you were wrong, especially when the original decision has huge ramifications, is a painful and destabilising experience that the brain tends to resist. Research into this kind of denial has given us concepts such as cognitive dissonanceand confirmation bias.

“When you have a strong view about something, you’re likely to reject information that’s contrary to your view, reject the source of the information and rationalise the information,” says Jane Green, professor of political science at the University of Manchester and co-director of the British Election Study. “We select information that’s consistent with our views, because it’s more comfortable and reaffirming.” In fact, it’s physically pleasurable. Some recent studies of confirmation bias indicate that consuming information that supports our beliefs actually produces a dopamine rush.

Mate, we've been doing things your way for 7 years. The economy is going down the pan. Let's just agree to disagree until the shit hits the fan and we can revive these old discussions.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Mate, we've been doing things your way for 7 years. The economy is going down the pan. Let's just agree to disagree until the shit hits the fan and we can revive these old discussions.

It's not going down the pan though is it? we're still growing, unemployment is down, tax receipts are up, borrowing down. Under the circumstances we're doing remarkably well. Even if we weren't, doing something utterly stupid like MacDonnell is suggesting, wouldn't improve anything.

[Rogstanley]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That factcheck article has completely debunked your whole argument, borrowing more money will lead to more debt, it will not pay for itself. MacDonell either doesn't know what he's talking about or he's lying, probably both. 

Just because channel 4 put ‘factcheck’ on it doesn’t mean it’s right.

 

For instance, it used the fiscal multiplier of 1.1 which the OBR does indeed use, but primarily for the purposes of calculating the cost of government cuts. 

 

Clearly it’s nonsensical to assume that every penny of government spending is going to generate an exact 1.1 return.

 

Secondly, as recently as 2010 the OBR were using 0.5. Thier own publications since then show a more accurate figure potentially as high as 1.7, so now they use 1.1. 

 

So your ‘factcheck’ uses a figure for a purpose it is not designed for, the value of which in the first place is very much up for debate.

 

Drawing conclusions from that is not a ‘fact check’, it’s just speculation.

 

Toddy posted an excellent article earlier detailing the failures of austerity and giving examples of where things have been handled better. I suggest you read it.

Edited 25 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Just because channel 4 put ‘factcheck’ on it doesn’t mean it’s right.

 

For instance, it used the fiscal multiplier of 1.1 which the OBR does indeed use, but primarily for the purposes of calculating the cost of government cuts. 

 

Clearly it’s nonsensical to assume that every penny of government spending is going to generate an exact 1.1 return.

 

Secondly, as recently as 2010 the OBR were using 0.5. Thier own publications since then show a more accurate figure potentially as high as 1.7, so now they use 1.1. 

 

So your ‘factcheck’ uses a figure for a purpose it is not designed for, the value of which in the first place is very much up for debate.

 

Drawing conclusions from that is not a ‘fact check’, it’s just speculation.

 

Toddy posted an excellent article earlier detailing the failures of austerity and giving examples of where things have been handled better. I suggest you read it.

So I shouldn't believe an article that makes you look stupid but I should believe an article that suits your argument? Why would I want to do that when common sense says borrowing billions of £s and giving it to a moron to spend is a bad idea?

[Rogstanley]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So I shouldn't believe an article that makes you look stupid but I should believe an article that suits your argument? Why would I want to do that when common sense says borrowing billions of £s and giving it to a moron to spend is a bad idea?

I think you should apply a bit of critical thinking to everything you read. Then maybe you’d see that a thorough analysis of what has actually happened here and elsewhere which shows other countries who chose different paths have had vastly more successful outcomes is a much stronger argument than a shit tv channel erroneously applying dodgy numbers to a dodgy theory to try and push their political agenda.

 

Common sense says if you need a van to do your job but you haven’t got any money, you’ll quickly become better off by borrowing the money to buy a van than you would by implementing austerity and spending ten hours a day walking to all of your jobs.

Edited 25 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I think you should apply a bit of critical thinking to everything you read. Then maybe you’d see that a thorough analysis of what has actually happened here and elsewhere which shows other countries who chose different paths have had vastly more successful outcomes is a much stronger argument than a shit tv channel erroneously applying dodgy numbers to a dodgy theory to try and push their political agenda.

 

Common sense says if you need a van to do your job but you haven’t got any money, you’ll quickly become better off by borrowing the money to buy a van than you would by implementing austerity and spending ten hours a day walking to all of your jobs.

You first.

 

Yes I need a van to work but it has to pay for it's self. If I only earn 35% of what the van costs me then I'm soon going to go bankrupt.

[Guest Kopfkino]

41 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I'd love to know where you've copied this post from, one expects it's suspect hence you didn't provide a link. Just looking at the figures for Icelandic government spending, the last year of cuts (which again were far more significant than our non-cuts, again people need to understand austerity) was 2012. Since then, government spending has increased by (inflation in brackets):

2013 - 1.02% (4.19%)

2014 - 1.72% (0.83%)

2015 - 1% (2.01%)

2016 - 1.8% (1.89%)

predicted 2017 - 0.92% (1.86%)

 

6.75% nominal increase since 2012

 

Compared to the UK, which I copy from a previous post:

 

2013 - 2.8%    (1.99%)

2014 - 0.7%   (0.5%)

2015 - 2%       (0.2%)

2016 - 0.1%    (1.6%) 

predicted 2017 - +2.4% (this may well have changed, cba to check) (2.96% last month)

 

8.18% nominal increase since 2012

 

So the UK has had higher growth in nominal govt spending since 2012 when Iceland 'reversed' its actual austerity (compared with our bare austerity) as it also has in real terms. So where is Iceland's show of a different way?

 

Brilliant. Turns out Iceland has also run a surplus for the last 3 years, yet more claptrap nonsense from toddy

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You first.

 

Yes I need a van to work but it has to pay for it's self. If I only earn 35% of what the van costs me then I'm soon going to go bankrupt.

I’ve already demonstrated that I have applied critical thinking by questioning the figure used in your article.

 

Which you’ve evidently ignored because you’re still persisting with it, so what’s the point?

 

At the end of the day mate the time for discussing theories about what the government should have been doing these last seven years is over. We’ve got the evidence now. We know how unsuccessful it has been.

 

We know they’ve missed all of their targets on deficit reduction. We know they’ve missed all their targets on house building. We know they’ve missed all their targets on immigration. We know wage growth is the worst in the developed world. We know productivity is the worst in the developed world. We know our infrastructure is the worst in the developed world. We know the pound has been decimated. We know other countries have had massive successes reversing austerity. We know people of working age voted for an old hippy over the conservatives. We know you will never ever reconsider an opinion. We know you’re wrong. You know you’re wrong. You’re just too stubborn to admit it.

[Rogstanley]

6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Brilliant. Turns out Iceland has also run a surplus for the last 3 years, yet more claptrap nonsense from toddy

Where are your figures from?

 

My figures show a surplus this year. Excellent deficit reduction while generating double digit real wage growth and low unemployment as a consequence of not being cucked by the banks. It’s a great success story.

[Guest Kopfkino]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Where are your figures from?

 

My figures show a surplus this year. Excellent deficit reduction while generating double digit real wage growth and low unemployment as a consequence of not being cucked by the banks. It’s a great success story.

 

No you're right actually. I was being stupid, its not last 3 years, its 2016 and forecasts for this year and next. And 2014 was pretty much a balanced budget. 

The surplus figures are from here http://www.oecd.org/eco/outlook/economic-forecast-summary-iceland-oecd-economic-outlook-june-2017.pdf and thankfully it pretty much matches my spending changes which I had to work out from some site that gave quarterly spending. 

 

It is a great success story, that we can agree on. It's an interesting read because there are growing concerns for wage growth being too high. It's a great success story as a country in general given it should have a lot going against it. 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

I think it may be the way the EU has wrecked the Cornish fishing industry. Sponsoring a few art projects by the EU isn't going to alleviate that.

Despite what you may hear, the fishing industry is completely fine down here.  The only fishing businesses that struggle are the ones that are mismanaged.

 

Who mentioned art?  

 

Renewable energy, mental health, multi industry job training, Space research, Satellite technology.  These are the main beneficiaries that have been flourishing because of the EU money.  The government should gaurantee the funding for these projects to continue because as you rightly say, its OUR money so there is no reason not to do so.

 

There’s too much emphasis on London, Birmingham and Manchester.  All over the country there are dead areas that really need the assistance.

[Webbo]

32 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Despite what you may hear, the fishing industry is completely fine down here.  The only fishing businesses that struggle are the ones that are mismanaged.

 

Who mentioned art?  

 

Renewable energy, mental health, multi industry job training, Space research, Satellite technology.  These are the main beneficiaries that have been flourishing because of the EU money.  The government should gaurantee the funding for these projects to continue because as you rightly say, its OUR money so there is no reason not to do so.

 

There’s too much emphasis on London, Birmingham and Manchester.  All over the country there are dead areas that really need the assistance.

I wouldn't argue with your last sentence but we've been in the EU for 40 years and that hasn't changed. Spending our own money by people who are answerable to us can't be any worse.

[GaelicFox]

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I wouldn't argue with your last sentence but we've been in the EU for 40 years and that hasn't changed. Spending our own money by people who are answerable to us can't be any worse.

I guess it depends on whether you think London or the EU are more inclined to help these areas.

 

Given the industries mentioned and considering the attitude of multiple past UK governments of all stripes towards STEM in general, I can't say I'm 100% convinced Westminster will do a lot for them.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

I’ve already demonstrated that I have applied critical thinking by questioning the figure used in your article.

 

Which you’ve evidently ignored because you’re still persisting with it, so what’s the point?

 

At the end of the day mate the time for discussing theories about what the government should have been doing these last seven years is over. We’ve got the evidence now. We know how unsuccessful it has been.

 

We know they’ve missed all of their targets on deficit reduction. We know they’ve missed all their targets on house building. We know they’ve missed all their targets on immigration. We know wage growth is the worst in the developed world. We know productivity is the worst in the developed world. We know our infrastructure is the worst in the developed world. We know the pound has been decimated. We know other countries have had massive successes reversing austerity. We know people of working age voted for an old hippy over the conservatives. We know you will never ever reconsider an opinion. We know you’re wrong. You know you’re wrong. You’re just too stubborn to admit it.

I think you'll find there's a difference between we know and what you think. If everybody of working age voted for that piss stained old twat then Corbyn would be PM. As usual you're exaggerating and using half truths.

 

Our infrastructure is the worse in the developed world? Worse than Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, you're ta!king bollox and you know it. You want to stop policies that have kept growth going against all predictions, reduced unemployment and swap it for a system that was failed everywhere its been tried. If borrowing and spending was a guaranteed success then why did the last Labour govt fail when that was its only economic policy?

 

You and toddybad seen to think that its all some plot, that you can just decide go have a successful economy and it will magically appear. You have to make hard choices, you to accept that life won't be perfect for everyone, you have to work for what you want. These simplistic solution might appeal to simpletons but anyone with any brains knows they won't work.

[Buce]

 

Senior Tories in budget backlash over NHS and social care cash:

 

Two former health secretaries and chair of select committee call for end to short-term thinking as crisis grows

 

Philip Hammond is facing a backlash from senior Tories after failing to provide any extra funds for social care in the budget and announcing only a “short-term fix” for the NHS.

With health bosses set to discuss rationing of services at a crunch meeting this week, two former Tory health secretaries and the Conservative chair of the Commons health committee said that it was time to tackle the long-term health and social care funding crisis, which remains unresolved.

The chancellor attempted to fend off a winter NHS crisis by handing the service an immediate £335m bailout and an extra £1.6bn next year. Analysts believe it amounts to about half of what the service requires to keep up with demand.

 

Furthermore, the Observer has learned that the government has confirmed to local authorities that it has dropped plans to impose a cap on care costs by 2020 – a measure proposed by Sir Andrew Dilnot’s review of social care and backed by David Cameron when he was prime minister. New draft plans dealing with the social care crisis are not now expected until next summer.

The former Conservative health secretary Stephen Dorrell, who is now the chair of the NHS Confederation, the membership body for health service care providers, said the budget boost did not resolve the “unsustainable” long-term levels of health and social care funding.

“It is extremely important that the two words ‘social care’ didn’t pass the chancellor’s lips on budget day,” Dorrell said. “Having relieved short-term pressure, what we are now committed to is a set of budget numbers that, by the chancellor’s own implicit admission, will lead to a rebuilding of the pressure that he recognised in the spring was unsustainable.

“We know that, looking at the sector as a whole, no one thinks this is sustainable in anything other than the short term, and the short term is running out again. Will this [money in the budget] reverse the trends on waiting times? Clearly it doesn’t. The level of demand continues to grow. That can only lead to added demand going unmet.”

Andrew Lansley, health secretary under Cameron, said the short-term funds were welcome, but added that a long-term solution and further efficiencies in the system were now crucial.

 

“For the later part of this parliament, the government must plan, in my view, for year-on-year 4% cash increases in the NHS budget and to implement the Dilnot recommendations from 2020, with funding ... if the service is to be sustained and outcomes improve – as they have largely done in recent years.”

A crucial NHS board meeting this week will be used to make clear that the level of funding will lead to difficult decisions about greater rationing and longer waiting times. It means that the chancellor could be engaged with a public spat with NHS chiefs just days after his autumn budget.

Nigel Edwards, head of the Nuffield Trust thinktank, said: “Before this budget, the NHS was heading for a crunch year, with the amount pledged not set to keep pace with what patients need. The chancellor’s announcements have provided some welcome but temporary respite … meaning the NHS has dodged the bullet for now.

“But the new money levels off fast: we may find ourselves staring down the barrel once again the year after next, when spending increases look set to fall well short of what’s needed.”

Sarah Wollaston, the Tory chair of the Commons health select committee, said that the extra money announced in the budget had to be seen in the context of “seven years of 1.1% increases when the long-term average is closer to 4%”.

“We are failing to take the long view and see how serious the situation is,” she said. “Health and social care is like a balloon – if you squeeze one part, another part pops out. The idea that you can fix the system in this way is nonsense. Let’s actually be realistic about the scale in increase and demand and how we will fund it. There has been a big push to look at this across party boundaries and I’m disappointed that the government hasn’t taken that opportunity.”

Izzi Seccombe, chair of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, said the budget was “hugely disappointing” on social care: “The government needs to put this right in the local government finance settlement or else risk failing the ambition to support people’s independence and wellbeing with quality care and support,” she said.

“If government wants to reduce the pressures on the health service and keep people out of hospital in the first place, then it needs to tackle the chronic underfunding of care and support services in the community, which are at a tipping point.”

A government spokesman said: “We are committed to publishing a green paper on the future of social care – this will include proposals to place a limit on the care costs individuals face. Details will be set out when it is published.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/25/budget-backlash-tories-nhs-social-care-cash

[Rogstanley]

37 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I think you'll find there's a difference between we know and what you think. If everybody of working age voted for that piss stained old twat then Corbyn would be PM. As usual you're exaggerating and using half truths.

 

Our infrastructure is the worse in the developed world? Worse than Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, you're ta!king bollox and you know it. You want to stop policies that have kept growth going against all predictions, reduced unemployment and swap it for a system that was failed everywhere its been tried. If borrowing and spending was a guaranteed success then why did the last Labour govt fail when that was its only economic policy?

 

You and toddybad seen to think that its all some plot, that you can just decide go have a successful economy and it will magically appear. You have to make hard choices, you to accept that life won't be perfect for everyone, you have to work for what you want. These simplistic solution might appeal to simpletons but anyone with any brains knows they won't work.

 

We’ve discussed the Nordics, Portugal and Iceland and shown how they’ve implemented significantly different approaches to the uk and achieved a much higher degree of success. 

 

I get the feeling you’ve defaulted back to droning on about socialism for some reason - I thought we’d established that nobody is actually advocating full blown socialism? 

 

Not sure if you’re aware but even your own beloved dear leader Tories have advocated loosening the purse strings a bit.

 

Weird post overall mate. What with the childish insult about Corbyn, shifting the argument towards socialism for no reason, and signing off by calling everyone who doesn’t agree with you simpletons, can’t help but think you know you’ve lost. And make no mistake - you’ve lost.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Brilliant. Turns out Iceland has also run a surplus for the last 3 years, yet more claptrap nonsense from toddy

Iceland's GDP has more than doubled in 7 years. They're in the position to.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Senior Tories in budget backlash over NHS and social care cash:

 

Two former health secretaries and chair of select committee call for end to short-term thinking as crisis grows

 

Philip Hammond is facing a backlash from senior Tories after failing to provide any extra funds for social care in the budget and announcing only a “short-term fix” for the NHS.

With health bosses set to discuss rationing of services at a crunch meeting this week, two former Tory health secretaries and the Conservative chair of the Commons health committee said that it was time to tackle the long-term health and social care funding crisis, which remains unresolved.

The chancellor attempted to fend off a winter NHS crisis by handing the service an immediate £335m bailout and an extra £1.6bn next year. Analysts believe it amounts to about half of what the service requires to keep up with demand.

 

Furthermore, the Observer has learned that the government has confirmed to local authorities that it has dropped plans to impose a cap on care costs by 2020 – a measure proposed by Sir Andrew Dilnot’s review of social care and backed by David Cameron when he was prime minister. New draft plans dealing with the social care crisis are not now expected until next summer.

The former Conservative health secretary Stephen Dorrell, who is now the chair of the NHS Confederation, the membership body for health service care providers, said the budget boost did not resolve the “unsustainable” long-term levels of health and social care funding.

“It is extremely important that the two words ‘social care’ didn’t pass the chancellor’s lips on budget day,” Dorrell said. “Having relieved short-term pressure, what we are now committed to is a set of budget numbers that, by the chancellor’s own implicit admission, will lead to a rebuilding of the pressure that he recognised in the spring was unsustainable.

“We know that, looking at the sector as a whole, no one thinks this is sustainable in anything other than the short term, and the short term is running out again. Will this [money in the budget] reverse the trends on waiting times? Clearly it doesn’t. The level of demand continues to grow. That can only lead to added demand going unmet.”

Andrew Lansley, health secretary under Cameron, said the short-term funds were welcome, but added that a long-term solution and further efficiencies in the system were now crucial.

 

“For the later part of this parliament, the government must plan, in my view, for year-on-year 4% cash increases in the NHS budget and to implement the Dilnot recommendations from 2020, with funding ... if the service is to be sustained and outcomes improve – as they have largely done in recent years.”

A crucial NHS board meeting this week will be used to make clear that the level of funding will lead to difficult decisions about greater rationing and longer waiting times. It means that the chancellor could be engaged with a public spat with NHS chiefs just days after his autumn budget.

Nigel Edwards, head of the Nuffield Trust thinktank, said: “Before this budget, the NHS was heading for a crunch year, with the amount pledged not set to keep pace with what patients need. The chancellor’s announcements have provided some welcome but temporary respite … meaning the NHS has dodged the bullet for now.

“But the new money levels off fast: we may find ourselves staring down the barrel once again the year after next, when spending increases look set to fall well short of what’s needed.”

Sarah Wollaston, the Tory chair of the Commons health select committee, said that the extra money announced in the budget had to be seen in the context of “seven years of 1.1% increases when the long-term average is closer to 4%”.

“We are failing to take the long view and see how serious the situation is,” she said. “Health and social care is like a balloon – if you squeeze one part, another part pops out. The idea that you can fix the system in this way is nonsense. Let’s actually be realistic about the scale in increase and demand and how we will fund it. There has been a big push to look at this across party boundaries and I’m disappointed that the government hasn’t taken that opportunity.”

Izzi Seccombe, chair of the Local Government Association’s community wellbeing board, said the budget was “hugely disappointing” on social care: “The government needs to put this right in the local government finance settlement or else risk failing the ambition to support people’s independence and wellbeing with quality care and support,” she said.

“If government wants to reduce the pressures on the health service and keep people out of hospital in the first place, then it needs to tackle the chronic underfunding of care and support services in the community, which are at a tipping point.”

A government spokesman said: “We are committed to publishing a green paper on the future of social care – this will include proposals to place a limit on the care costs individuals face. Details will be set out when it is published.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/25/budget-backlash-tories-nhs-social-care-cash

Bloody hell what are they thinking? Somebody send webbo in to have a word before the pound collapses and we're all in the gulags.

Edited 25 November 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I think you'll find there's a difference between we know and what you think. If everybody of working age voted for that piss stained old twat then Corbyn would be PM. As usual you're exaggerating and using half truths.

 

Our infrastructure is the worse in the developed world? Worse than Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, you're ta!king bollox and you know it. You want to stop policies that have kept growth going against all predictions, reduced unemployment and swap it for a system that was failed everywhere its been tried. If borrowing and spending was a guaranteed success then why did the last Labour govt fail when that was its only economic policy?

 

You and toddybad seen to think that its all some plot, that you can just decide go have a successful economy and it will magically appear. You have to make hard choices, you to accept that life won't be perfect for everyone, you have to work for what you want. These simplistic solution might appeal to simpletons but anyone with any brains knows they won't work.

Trouble is, until the financial crisis - which everybody on the planet besides you and fox know was a global problem - the labour government had probably been the most successful government for decades. I'll wages that your earnings and capital worth increased more in those years than at any other time.

Their mistakes were Iraq and PPI but they'd have stayed in government for years if American banks hadn't fallen first.

[leicsmac]

27 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

We’ve discussed the Nordics, Portugal and Iceland and shown how they’ve implemented significantly different approaches to the uk and achieved a much higher degree of success. 

 

I get the feeling you’ve defaulted back to droning on about socialism for some reason - I thought we’d established that nobody is actually advocating full blown socialism? 

 

Not sure if you’re aware but even your own beloved dear leader Tories have advocated loosening the purse strings a bit.

 

Weird post overall mate. What with the childish insult about Corbyn, shifting the argument towards socialism for no reason, and signing off by calling everyone who doesn’t agree with you simpletons, can’t help but think you know you’ve lost. And make no mistake - you’ve lost.

 

I lean leftie but don't get the obsession with winning and losing here. Leave that to the social Darwinists - life isn't a game that can be won or lost, everyone ends up with the same score anyway.