The other thing that caught my eye in the FT today was an article about a trade delegation in London from Rhode Island.
"I am very excited, Brexit will be great for trade with the US", one of them is quoted.
But the interesting bit was: Rhode Island can offer up to $7,500 in tax discounts per year per job, pay for research at local universities and repay up to $24,000 of graduate debt to those who work for tech companies for four years. The UK's regions can offer only a fraction of such largesse, since they must comply with EU state aid rules - for now at least.
I voted Remain, but if leaving the EU means we can provide some of the help obviously needed by the North to attract investment, that's a big plus.
So Trump basically calling a former beauty pageant contest fatty fatty bum bum is off limits, but didn't the same people write loads about fatty fatty bum bum Trump?
If Sarkozy could deliver an end to FOM, and the repatriation of powers over employment law, environmental law, social policy, to member States, I could live with still being in the EU. But, I don't think he can.
Everyone needs to read that Sarkozy story. Could change everything
It is, of course, what Boris predicted. The EU would return with a better deal.
If nothing else, it shows absolutely unpredictable this is. Entirely dynamic, chaotic. The EU is as divided as the UK.
Can't get behind FT paywall to see details, but I would take a LOT of convincing that this presages anything meaningful, and even more that the public could be persuaded to do a U-turn (let alone the very large Brexit faction within
Jesus I don't want to go back. We
I don't think that analogy quite works - it is very reasonable to go back if you left your coat behind.
It's also fair to go back if a depressing party with no music suddenly turns into a coke-fuelled orgy with lots of nice wine
Sarkozy might bring the coke, but Merkel will confine it to the bathroom, not off the hookers tits which is what we want.
The idea that the EU can be reformed is for the birds.
Probably, Eastern Europe may
The Eastern European countries are fairly desperate to keep Britain in the EU because 1. they like access to the UK economy and 2, they see Britain as a counter-weight to Berlin etc, and 3. they are terrified we will send home half their nationals, losing lots of remittances
I can't actually determine a single EU nation that wants Britain to leave, or who clearly benefits from Britain leaving. Luxembourg maybe?
This is why I still hope a fudge can be done. We won't leave the party but they will rename it an orgy and provide proper champagne this time, which we will drink in the wardrobe alone
The Eastern European nations want to keep us in as long as their citizens can stay in the UK, yes. Luxembourg and Belgium (home of Juncker and Verhofstadt respectively) are most hostile to the UK but that is because both nations have seen their influence and power increased hugely by being in the EU (Luxembourg home of the ECJ and Belgium the European Parliament and Commission) and are the most EU federalist nations in Europe. Eurosceptic parties have almost no presence in either country and they would be quite happy to lose the UK and the brake it provides on the EU project
No suprise, the SNP are way more corrupt that even scottish Labour.
When would the by-election be, assuming a conviction ?
For the laughs, I'd like to see an MP convicted and sentenced to less than 12 months, and follow the letter of the rules by not .
Also, I like how Glascow East is described as a 'key battleground' from 2015. SNP majority of 10000, if that's a battle it was one like Agincourt. Or Cannae.
Amazingly Labour had a 10k majority in 2010!
Could the Conservatives come second this time?
In Glasgow East ? If Kezia Dugdale selects the Labour candidate and Corbyn stays away they might.
Just checked past results in that Constituency (Glasgow East), conservatives in third place on 2,544 So not likely to overtake Lab in second place (13,729)
But the Con total in 2015 - 2,544 was up big from 2010 - 1,453 that 75.1% in 5 years, I don't know what was going on locally, but that's got to be one of the largest Proportional increases in the contrary?
It's a real test for May. It would be a failure of statecraft not to keep the door open to such an offer: here's the likely President of France saying, Yes, Britain, you CAN have your cake and eat it.
And yet the hardcore sceptics in her party will turn on her if she looks amenable.
Incidentally this blows out the water the idea the EU won't negotiate before A50 is triggered. You don't get a much bigger negotiation than the probable next president of France offering an entirely new EU after a new Treaty
I notice Theresa May has stopped claiming Brexit will be a success. Could she be looking for something to turn up? The profoundly stupid thing about the referendum is that Leave isn't an alternative to Remain. Leave isn't a policy; it's the absence of EU. There's no obvious better substitute for membership of the EU. Which is why they didn't propose one. Maybe this really is a policy the majority of voters could rally around. Theresa May would need to get most of her MPs to buy in. She would also risk splitting her party. However you spin it, this will look like a U turn
With all the talk of the ructions at the top of the Labour Party and in Parliament, the effect of leftist radicalisation on local government has been somewhat overlooked. It's entirely possible, perhaps likely, that Loony Left councils will be back before long and itching to pick fights with the Government. The litany of profligacy and of extremist and politically correct absurdities that will subsequently be revealed to a horrified wider public may help to increase the Con/Lab gap in the national opinion polls even further - not to mention offering Theresa May the chance to act tough and take a free swing at hapless amateur revolutionaries all over the Labour heartlands.
It looks like Labour is going to keep on eviscerating and slowly torturing itself to death for the whole of the rest of this Parliament. There may not be enough Champagne in the country to keep the needs of Tory HQ and the Local Associations supplied by the time this is all over.
I warned about this the other day. Shits and giggles if you're Tory HQ, but rather depressing if a bunch of Trots seize control of your local city council.
Thank sweet jesus for the coalition's education reforms.
This scenario would certainly present the Government with a moral dilemma: how long to leave the affected voters to suffer under the writ of incompetent Trots, before imposing direct rule to rescue them. On the one hand, desire to demonstrate to those who vote for Trots the error of their ways. On the other, the duty to protect.
Either way, the tabloids will enjoy years of field days, and you can't really see the Conservatives losing from it.
Jeremy Corbyn, tonight: “I’ve never said I want to bring back coal mines”
Jeremy Corbyn, August 8 2015: “Where you can re-open pits, yes… I think we can develop coal technology. Let’s do so… maybe they’ll be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”
Everyone needs to read that Sarkozy story. Could change everything
It is, of course, what Boris predicted. The EU would return with a better deal.
If nothing else, it shows absolutely unpredictable this is. Entirely dynamic, chaotic. The EU is as divided as the UK.
Can't get behind FT paywall to see details, but I would take a LOT of convincing that this presages anything meaningful, and even more that the public could be persuaded to do a U-turn (let alone the very large Brexit faction within
Jesus I don't want to go back. We
I don't think that analogy quite works - it is very reasonable to go back if you left your coat behind.
It's also fair to go back if a depressing party with no music suddenly turns into a coke-fuelled orgy with lots of nice wine
Sarkozy might bring the coke, but Merkel will confine it to the bathroom, not off the hookers tits which is what we want.
The idea that the EU can be reformed is for the birds.
Probably, Eastern Europe may
The Eastern European countries are fairly desperate to keep Britain in the EU because 1. they like access to the UK economy and 2, they see Britain as a counter-weight to Berlin etc, and 3. they are terrified we will send home half their nationals, losing lots of remittances
I can't actually determine a single EU nation that wants Britain to leave, or who clearly benefits from Britain leaving. Luxembourg maybe?
This is why I still hope a fudge can be done. We won't leave the party but they will rename it an orgy and provide proper champagne this time, which we will drink in the wardrobe alone
The Eastern European nations want to keep us in as long as their citizens can stay in the UK, yes. Luxembourg and Belgium (home of Juncker and Verhofstadt respectively) are most hostile to the UK but that is because both nations have seen their influence and power increased hugely by being in the EU (Luxembourg home of the ECJ and Belgium the European Parliament and Commission) and are the most EU federalist nations in Europe. Eurosceptic parties have almost no presence in either country and they would be quite happy to lose the UK and the brake it provides on the EU project
Belgium and Luxembourg, yes. But they are both rather small, and for them the EU is the only show in town.
No suprise, the SNP are way more corrupt that even scottish Labour.
When would the by-election be, assuming a conviction ?
For the laughs, I'd like to see an MP convicted and sentenced to less than 12 months, and follow the letter of the rules by not .
Also, I like how Glascow East is described as a 'key battleground' from 2015. SNP majority of 10000, if that's a battle it was one like Agincourt. Or Cannae.
Amazingly Labour had a 10k majority in 2010!
Could the Conservatives come second this time?
One wouldn't have thought so. Scottish Labour is badly crippled but not dead, and although the Tories are now a little way clear in second in the polls, their support is derived disproportionately from wealthier and more rural areas in Scotland, as much as it is in England.
It would be more interesting to see if the resignation of an (ex)SNP MP under such circumstances would lead to any material impact upon the level of support for the new SNP candidate. If they can win as big as before, it would demonstrate that the Nationalists are still Teflon-coated.
It's a real test for May. It would be a failure of statecraft not to keep the door open to such an offer: here's the likely President of France saying, Yes, Britain, you CAN have your cake and eat it.
And yet the hardcore sceptics in her party will turn on her if she looks amenable.
Incidentally this blows out the water the idea the EU won't negotiate before A50 is triggered. You don't get a much bigger negotiation than the probable next president of France offering an entirely new EU after a new Treaty
I notice Theresa May has stopped claiming Brexit will be a success. Could she be looking for something to turn up? The profoundly stupid thing about the referendum is that Leave isn't an alternative to Remain. Leave isn't a policy; it's the absence of EU. There's no obvious better substitute for membership of the EU. Which is why they didn't propose one. Maybe this really is a policy the majority of voters could rally around. Theresa May would need to get most of her MPs to buy in. She would also risk splitting her party. However you spin it, this will look like a U turn
Very tricky, for sure.
But one politician she might expect to have on her side is her Brexiteering Foreign Secretary, who predicted precisely this - a new, improved offer from Europe - indeed he gave it as one good reason to vote LEAVE
Somewhat undercut by celebrating the independence aspect as worth any price in the aftermath though.
Admittedly, all this is just political wonk talk and little more may be heard of this, in which case it's just going to be cruel on remainiacs and soft brexiters.
Jeremy Corbyn, tonight: “I’ve never said I want to bring back coal mines”
Jeremy Corbyn, August 8 2015: “Where you can re-open pits, yes… I think we can develop coal technology. Let’s do so… maybe they’ll be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”
Jahadi Jez, the Donald Trump of British politics.
Someone discovered that coal is no longer a useful energy resource.
Of course ex-miners should be retrained and their communities supported through the transition instead of being cast away.
Of course after the end of coal we might be at the beginning of the end of oil as a useful energy resource, in that case Aberdeen will be very hard hit and would need a comparative rescue program too.
I notice Theresa May has stopped claiming Brexit will be a success.
In fairness, she can't keep repeating the line "Brexit means Brexit, and we're going to make a success of it" ad infinitum. People were already starting to mock.
Whoever thought asking the internet would be a good idea. Just watch how they avoid all the most-asked questions!
Oh, 'how would you ensure the second amendment is protected?' seems like too good a question for political sparks to fly to avoid.
Also, I know it's just a standard typing error to miss a word now and then, but it's still funny when it happens, so I hope this one is asked.
Are you willing to defend the rights of Americans as granted to them by the constitution as written? We to know the intentions of our candidates with regards to our rights as Americans
M. Sarkozy seems to have lost his marbles. He sounds more like Donald Trump than a serious European politician:
And don’t tell me this treaty would be complicated to negotiate. I have a lot of experience negotiating treaties.
When I was talking to the French ambassador* (not the current one, the previous one who was very close to Sarkozy), he was dismissive of British Euroscepticism and thought Cameron would easily be able to shrug it off. "Just a few backbenchers". I tried to explain that it wasn't quite as straightforward as that, but he wasn't having it. Now Sarkozy seems to have become completely unrealistic in the other direction, unless of course it's just a cynical grab for attention.
Either way, he's talking through his hat. The idea of getting 27 countries unanimously to agree to massive reforms and a unique special status for the UK - when they didn't even agree to Cameron's modest and eminently sensible Bloomberg suggestions for reform - is out with the fairies.
It's a real test for May. It would be a failure of statecraft not to keep the door open to such an offer: here's the likely President of France saying, Yes, Britain, you CAN have your cake and eat it.
And yet the hardcore sceptics in her party will turn on her if she looks amenable.
Incidentally this blows out the water the idea the EU won't negotiate before A50 is triggered. You don't get a much bigger negotiation than the probable next president of France offering an entirely new EU after a new Treaty
I notice Theresa May has stopped claiming Brexit will be a success. Could she be looking for something to turn up? The profoundly stupid thing about the referendum is that Leave isn't an alternative to Remain. Leave isn't a policy; it's the absence of EU. There's no obvious better substitute for membership of the EU. Which is why they didn't propose one. Maybe this really is a policy the majority of voters could rally around. Theresa May would need to get most of her MPs to buy in. She would also risk splitting her party. However you spin it, this will look like a U turn
Not being part of an organisation that practises endless mission creep is a definite improvement on being part of it, whatever administrative inconvenience may ensue.
For Sarkozy's plan to work, he has to end the mission creep.
Everyone needs to read that Sarkozy story. Could change everything
It is, of course, what Boris predicted. The EU would return with a better deal.
If nothing else, it shows absolutely unpredictable this is. Entirely dynamic, chaotic. The EU is as divided as the UK.
Can't get behind FT paywall to see details, but I would take a LOT of convincing that this presages anything meaningful, and even more that the public could be persuaded to do a U-turn (let alone the very large Brexit faction within
Jesus I don't want to go back. We
I don't think that analogy quite works - it is very reasonable to go back if you left your coat behind.
It's also fair to go back if a depressing party with no music suddenly turns into a coke-fuelled orgy with lots of nice wine
Sarkozy might bring the coke, but Merkel will confine it to the bathroom, not off the hookers tits which is what we want.
The idea that the EU can be reformed is for the birds.
Probably, Eastern Europe may
The Eastern European countries are fairly desperate to keep Britain in the EU because 1. they like access to the UK economy and 2, they see Britain as a counter-weight to Berlin etc, and 3. they are terrified we will send home half their nationals, losing lots of remittances
I can't actually determine a single EU nation that wants Britain to leave, or who clearly benefits from Britain leaving. Luxembourg maybe?
This is why I still hope a fudge can be done. We won't leave the party but they will rename it an orgy and provide proper champagne this time, which we will drink in the wardrobe alone
The Eastern European nations want to keep us in as long as their citizens can stay in the UK, yes. Luxembourg and Belgium (home of Juncker and Verhofstadt respectively) are most hostile to the UK but that is because both nations have seen their influence and power increased hugely by being in the EU (Luxembourg home of the ECJ and Belgium the European Parliament and Commission) and are the most EU federalist nations in Europe. Eurosceptic parties have almost no presence in either country and they would be quite happy to lose the UK and the brake it provides on the EU project
Belgium and Luxembourg, yes. But they are both rather small, and for them the EU is the only show in town.
They can be leaned on and bought off.
They can be outvoted yes and overruled but both will always put commitment to the EU project ahead of the needs of the UK
Yes, and this is why their are higher stakes to play for than 'soft-Brexit'. We have a chance to be the catalyst to true reform of the EU itself, and should aim for this as the best case outcome of the vote to abandon the status quo.
I would happily vote REMAIN if it was a truly reformed Europe. Freedom of Movement would have to be qualified. Brussels' powers restricted.
Can Sarko really deliver that?
If he can, he could save the continent. Quite a prize.
Yes, and this is why their are higher stakes to play for than 'soft-Brexit'. We have a chance to be the catalyst to true reform of the EU itself, and should aim for this as the best case outcome of the vote to abandon the status quo.
I would happily vote REMAIN if it was a truly reformed Europe. Freedom of Movement would have to be qualified. Brussels' powers restricted.
Can Sarko really deliver that?
If he can, he could save the continent. Quite a prize.
Mentally the UK has checked out of the EU and simply won't believe any promise of reform. Also it would split the Tory party as the Leadbangers can smell freedom and won't give that up. May is not going to lose her leadership on the off chance that Sarkozy might be doing anything more than just posturing for French political advantage.
If May has any sense, she'll be on the phone to Sarko now.
It's called statesmanship.
Does statesmanship trump party management and the ultra brigade?
Yes. When they write the history books, no-one says that a PM may have missed a strategic opportunity for the nation but keeping Joe Headbanger on board puts them up with the greats.
How Boris was slated by remainiacs for suggesting exactly something like this would happen in February lol.
I thought that Sarkozy was unlikely to return to the Presidency.
Either way, he's talking through his hat. The idea of getting 27 countries unanimously to agree to massive reforms and a unique special status for the UK - when they didn't even agree to Cameron's modest and eminently sensible Bloomberg suggestions for reform - is out with the fairies.
It is, although in slight defence of the idea, things have changed since them - I think it more probable the EU could be convinced to some reform now (albeit not such extreme ones in order to keep us in, particular as we'd likely vote to reject it anyway so why take the chance) than it ever could pre-Brexit vote, because prior to the vote they clearly didn't think there was a need to reform, only the occasional need to look like they thought reform was needed. The majority may still think that, but more may be genuine in that belief now.
No suprise, the SNP are way more corrupt that even scottish Labour.
When would the by-election be, assuming a conviction ?
For the laughs, I'd like to see an MP convicted and sentenced to less than 12 months, and follow the letter of the rules by not .
Also, I like how Glascow East is described as a 'key battleground' from 2015. SNP majority of 10000, if that's a battle it was one like Agincourt. Or Cannae.
Amazingly Labour had a 10k majority in 2010!
Could the Conservatives come second this time?
In Glasgow East ? If Kezia Dugdale selects the Labour candidate and Corbyn stays away they might.
Just checked past results in that Constituency (Glasgow East), conservatives in third place on 2,544 So not likely to overtake Lab in second place (13,729)
But the Con total in 2015 - 2,544 was up big from 2010 - 1,453 that 75.1% in 5 years, I don't know what was going on locally, but that's got to be one of the largest Proportional increases in the contrary?
I doubt it very much. Ukip must've increased its vote by several hundred percent in seats all over the country. But huge proportional increases in the vote are bound to be more common when you are starting from a very low base.
It's perhaps more representative of the situation to say that the Tories only managed to pick up a thousand votes in five years. At that steady rate of progress, they might find themselves in a position to capture Glasgow East in about another century.
Yes, and this is why their are higher stakes to play for than 'soft-Brexit'. We have a chance to be the catalyst to true reform of the EU itself, and should aim for this as the best case outcome of the vote to abandon the status quo.
I would happily vote REMAIN if it was a truly reformed Europe. Freedom of Movement would have to be qualified. Brussels' powers restricted.
Can Sarko really deliver that?
If he can, he could save the continent. Quite a prize.
Yes, and this is why their are higher stakes to play for than 'soft-Brexit'. We have a chance to be the catalyst to true reform of the EU itself, and should aim for this as the best case outcome of the vote to abandon the status quo.
I would happily vote REMAIN if it was a truly reformed Europe. Freedom of Movement would have to be qualified. Brussels' powers restricted.
Can Sarko really deliver that?
If he can, he could save the continent. Quite a prize.
Mentally the UK has checked out of the EU and simp
If May has any sense, she'll be on the phone to Sarko now.
It's called statesmanship.
Does statesmanship trump party management and the ultra brigade?
Yes. When they write the history books, no-one says that a PM may have missed a strategic opportunity for the nation but keeping Joe Headbanger on board puts them up with the greats.
How Boris was slated by remainiacs for suggesting exactly something like this would happen in February lol.
I thought that Sarkozy was unlikely to return to the Presidency.
If he wins the LRs nomination in November he is the favourite to be the next French President
Either way, he's talking through his hat. The idea of getting 27 countries unanimously to agree to massive reforms and a unique special status for the UK - when they didn't even agree to Cameron's modest and eminently sensible Bloomberg suggestions for reform - is out with the fairies.
So Trump basically calling a former beauty pageant contest fatty fatty bum bum is off limits, but didn't the same people write loads about fatty fatty bum bum Trump?
No surprise that Katty Kay is touchy about body fat. My guts shrivel whenever she appears on yank TV to give the Brit perspective.
It's a real test for May. It would be a failure of statecraft not to keep the door open to such an offer: here's the likely President of France saying, Yes, Britain, you CAN have your cake and eat it.
And yet the hardcore sceptics in her party will turn on her if she looks amenable.
Incidentally this blows out the water the idea the EU won't negotiate before A50 is triggered. You don't get a much bigger negotiation than the probable next president of France offering an entirely new EU after a new Treaty
I notice Theresa May has stopped claiming Brexit will be a success. Could she be looking for something to turn up? The profoundly stupid thing about the referendum is that Leave isn't an alternative to Remain. Leave isn't a policy; it's the absence of EU. There's no obvious better substitute for membership of the EU. Which is why they didn't propose one. Maybe this really is a policy the majority of voters could rally around. Theresa May would need to get most of her MPs to buy in. She would also risk splitting her party. However you spin it, this will look like a U turn
Very tricky, for sure.
But one politician she might expect to have on her side is her Brexiteering Foreign Secretary, who predicted precisely this - a new, improved offer from Europe - indeed he gave it as one good reason to vote LEAVE
If this or a similar plan is a go-er, I think we can expect some serious spin from the government about how difficult Brexit will be. One ally could be rural Tory MPs. Farmers benefit from generous EU negotiated WTO tariff quotas that effectively mean UK farmers sell their meat, milk and grain at twice the world prices. Our WTO schedules are up for negotiation when we leave the EU. It's not difficult to predict agricultural exporting countries, already safely in the WTO system, will not cut us any slack on those tariff quotas. Farmers who face their gate prices being cut in half and ruin will no doubt be on at their MPs, whom they know very well about what they are going to do about it.
The idea of getting 27 countries unanimously to agree to massive reforms
What they have to do is get 27 to agree to negotiate away the existing arrangement - not reach a new one.
That'd be good for them, but to have a chance of drawing us back something concrete would need to be on the table, not 'oh, we've decided to negotiate key aspects of the EU, fancy holding off and waiting to see if we come up with something you'd like?'
But Trump will still have the same problem with Hillary, the Moderator and with himself, that cost him defeat in the first debate.
My advise back in the summer is still the wisest for Trump about preparing for the debates.
1.Build a mock up TV studio.
2.Have an experienced female lawyer play Hillary (she is a lawyer after all), have Bill O'Reily play the biased anti-Trump moderator (he is biased anyway).
3.Have Frank Luntz's focus group as the audience with one of those worms in a monitor in front of Trump to see the live reaction to his talk (after all Luntz is one of those who declare the winner).
And never forget softly softly wins the general election not screamy screamy.
Either way, he's talking through his hat. The idea of getting 27 countries unanimously to agree to massive reforms and a unique special status for the UK - when they didn't even agree to Cameron's modest and eminently sensible Bloomberg suggestions for reform - is out with the fairies.
It is, although in slight defence of the idea, things have changed since them - I think it more probable the EU could be convinced to some reform now (albeit not such extreme ones in order to keep us in, particular as we'd likely vote to reject it anyway so why take the chance) than it ever could pre-Brexit vote, because prior to the vote they clearly didn't think there was a need to reform, only the occasional need to look like they thought reform was needed. The majority may still think that, but more may be genuine in that belief now.
Sarkozy is proposing this because he wants it, not to keep the Brits onside. As he should do.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
Honestly, Richard, the evidence doesn't support that assertion. It seems more planning went into project fear and the remain campaign than went into the EU negotiation. It was absolute rubbish and had no legal standing given there was no chance of treaty change to incorporate it. Still, no use in crying over split milk and all that.
Telegraph saying their people met with Big Sam on the 19th August and the 22nd September. I believe we have only seen the video from the one of those meetings.
The idea of getting 27 countries unanimously to agree to massive reforms
What they have to do is get 27 to agree to negotiate away the existing arrangement - not reach a new one.
That'd be good for them, but to have a chance of drawing us back something concrete would need to be on the table, not 'oh, we've decided to negotiate key aspects of the EU, fancy holding off and waiting to see if we come up with something you'd like?'
There's little chance that they will agree to negotiate away the existing deal - too many make too much money out of it and they are carrying too high a risk.
Tariffs on Danish pork, Irish livestock, German engineering: UK withdraws from club med property market, the French lose their fishing rights etc etc.
The bottom line is that we are a net contributor and net customer.
Telegraph saying their people met with Big Sam on the 19th August and the 22nd September. I believe we have only seen the video from the one of those meetings.
Well Naughty Sam has been up to a lot of naughty things over the years, the reason he was sacked from Bolton was a perfect example.
Telegraph saying their people met with Big Sam on the 19th August and the 22nd September. I believe we have only seen the video from the one of those meetings.
Well Naughty Sam has been up to a lot of naughty things over the years, the reason he was sacked from Bolton was a perfect example.
Luckily for him, I don't believe his son is in the agent game anymore.
Those piccies showed something well: interior spaces seem bigger than outside spaces. I used to do some work in a chemical plant (RIP), and when you go inside a tank it seems much bigger than it does from the outside. The same way a house's foundations seem tiny, but the interior of the final house seems larger.
But it should be remembered that the COPV tanks have been implicated in SpaceX's launch failures last year and a few weeks ago. These are carbon-fibre tanks with metal lining. Lockheed's X33 failed due to carbon-fibre liquid oxygen tanks.
They're talking about pressurised unlined carbon-fibre tanks. There's going to be a severe learning curve.
Gareth Southgate to take charge for next four matches
Come back dodgy Big Sam all is forgiven...
Saw Gareth Southgate at a charity football match a few weeks ago, he seemed very pleasant and as squeeky clean as footballers come which is why the FA appointed him. Will see how he does, he took the England U21s to the finals of the 2015 European Championships so is not completely without managerial talent
Gareth Southgate to take charge for next four matches
Come back dodgy Big Sam all is forgiven...
Saw Gareth Southgate at a charity football match a few weeks ago, he seemed very pleasant and as squeeky clean as footballers come which is why the FA appointed him. Will see how he does
I actually stayed at the same holiday resort during the Euros in Portugal. So saw him every day over the course of 2 weeks. Very pleasant chap, great with his kids. There were a number of other footballers staying there and he was by far the most normal / nicest of them...but he is terrible football manager.
Those piccies showed something well: interior spaces seem bigger than outside spaces. I used to do some work in a chemical plant (RIP), and when you go inside a tank it seems much bigger than it does from the outside. The same way a house's foundations seem tiny, but the interior of the final house seems larger.
But it should be remembered that the COPV tanks have been implicated in SpaceX's launch failures last year and a few weeks ago. These are carbon-fibre tanks with metal lining. Lockheed's X33 failed due to carbon-fibre liquid oxygen tanks.
They're talking about pressurised unlined carbon-fibre tanks. There's going to be a severe learning curve.
I'm pretty sure that carbon plus oxygen equals fire. And in a pure oxygen environment even more so the risk of spontaneous ignition.
But as I said Musk is always aiming at Wall St. not nature, but nature can not be fooled as much as a Wall St. investor (to paraphrase a famous quote from the Challenger disaster investigation).
I predict plenty of dead astronauts and lots of money for Musk.
So Trump basically calling a former beauty pageant contest fatty fatty bum bum is off limits, but didn't the same people write loads about fatty fatty bum bum Trump?
No surprise that Katty Kay is touchy about body fat. My guts shrivel whenever she appears on yank TV to give the Brit perspective.
Katty Kay, BBC News - another example of BBC impartiality. Katty by name, catty by nature.
Jesus H Christ. We are talking about how many leavers were concerned about immigration. That tweet is about how many people concerned about immigration were leavers. Do you genuinely not see any material difference between the two?
I am aware of the difference.
I think BES studies will provide the definitive answer on why people voted the way they did.
I'm hopeful they'll publish their findings from their polling series before Christmas.
Must have been a different Ishmael who mocked Lord Ashcroft polling a while ago, I believe the phrase was 'laughing stock'
Gareth Southgate to take charge for next four matches
Come back dodgy Big Sam all is forgiven...
Saw Gareth Southgate at a charity football match a few weeks ago, he seemed very pleasant and as squeeky clean as footballers come which is why the FA appointed him. Will see how he does
I actually stayed at the same holiday resort during the Euros in Portugal. So saw him every day over the course of 2 weeks. Very pleasant chap, great with his kids. There were a number of other footballers staying there and he was by far the most normal / nicest of them...but he is terrible football manager.
I wouldn't say he was terrible, Middlesborough normally made the top 10 in the Premier League when he was manager. However it is true that rogues often make the best England managers, Terry Venables being a case in point, Allerdyce too won his first game, so if you do not want the rogues you may not always get the results either
Elon Musk talking about the problems caused by immigration restrictions.
You want a job there?
I've got a short-circuited brain atm. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't be good enough.
I was thinking about Mrs J, who as a non-Brit born has her job market in the UK rather restricted - no military work for her. (cough) holographic radar (cough).
As for these questions: Jesus. Can we have some *sensible* questions?
I wouldn't say he was terrible, Middlesborough normally made the top 10 in the Premier League when he was manager. However it is true that rogues often make the best England managers, Terry Venables being a case in point, Allerdyce too won his first game, so if you do not want the rogues you may not always get the results either
The best England manager of modern times, Sir Bobby Robson, was certainly no rogue.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
Jesus H Christ. We are talking about how many leavers were concerned about immigration. That tweet is about how many people concerned about immigration were leavers. Do you genuinely not see any material difference between the two?
I am aware of the difference.
I think BES studies will provide the definitive answer on why people voted the way they did.
I'm hopeful they'll publish their findings from their polling series before Christmas.
Must have been a different Ishmael who mocked Lord Ashcroft polling a while ago, I believe the phrase was 'laughing stock'
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
Jesus H Christ. We are talking about how many leavers were concerned about immigration. That tweet is about how many people concerned about immigration were leavers. Do you genuinely not see any material difference between the two?
I am aware of the difference.
I think BES studies will provide the definitive answer on why people voted the way they did.
I'm hopeful they'll publish their findings from their polling series before Christmas.
Must have been a different Ishmael who mocked Lord Ashcroft polling a while ago, I believe the phrase was 'laughing stock'
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
How different it would have been had he campaigned for out.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
It failed on immigration.
Everything else was a good deal.
Although I appreciate that is like saying if the horse hadn't fallen at the last it would have won the race.
Edit: @kle4 I haven't workshopped the applicability of the analogy.
Elon Musk talking about the problems caused by immigration restrictions.
You want a job there?
I've got a short-circuited brain atm. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't be good enough.
I was thinking about Mrs J, who as a non-Brit born has her job market in the UK rather restricted - no military work for her. (cough) holographic radar (cough).
As for these questions: Jesus. Can we have some *sensible* questions?
Yes, it's rather restricted, as Musk said, when governments classify your operation as military in nature, requiring security clearances, special visas etc. The scale of this operation will likely need a lot of outscorcing though, maybe there's a chance of getting rules changed in certain areas e.g. the Brits are good with carbon fibre thanks to the motorsport industry there.
Hope you're on the road to recovery yourself, I switched off the crap questions now as have an early alarm call in the morning. Laters.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
You play the hands you are dealt - clearly he was not willing to wait, not willing to try again (presumably feeling anti-EU feeling was only going to keep increasing and he needed it out the way quickly), so he tried to sell it.
Plus it's instinctive for politicians to claim their policy/deal is amazing even when its middling at best.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
How different it would have been had he campaigned for out.
Who knows? Would have been nothing in it for Boris jumping to out, then - indeed Boris might have led remain. He had the other article already written, after all.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
It failed on immigration.
Everything else was a good deal.
Although I appreciate that is like saying if the horse hadn't fallen at the last it would have won the race.
Edit: @kle4 I haven't workshopped the applicability of the analogy.
If it hadn't fallen at the last it would have been a good race up to then might work?
Sadly despite my insistence, I've been known to switch metaphors mid stream and try to kill two birds with one stone quite often.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
How different it would have been had he campaigned for out.
Who knows? Would have been nothing in it for Boris jumping to out, then - indeed Boris might have led remain. He had the other article already written, after all.
I think alot of the first people heading to Mars may well be still physically fit 80ish year old widow/(ers) with some engineering or construction background.
People who will have
a) The assets necessary for the trip b) Won't overly worry about death c) Will have alot of experience and knowledge.
Elon Musk talking about the problems caused by immigration restrictions.
You want a job there?
I've got a short-circuited brain atm. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't be good enough.
I was thinking about Mrs J, who as a non-Brit born has her job market in the UK rather restricted - no military work for her. (cough) holographic radar (cough).
As for these questions: Jesus. Can we have some *sensible* questions?
Yes, it's rather restricted, as Musk said, when governments classify your operation as military in nature, requiring security clearances, special visas etc. The scale of this operation will likely need a lot of outscorcing though, maybe there's a chance of getting rules changed in certain areas e.g. the Brits are good with carbon fibre thanks to the motorsport industry there.
Hope you're on the road to recovery yourself, I switched off the crap questions now as have an early alarm call in the morning. Laters.
Thanks. I just wonder what size autoclave they have to fire that carbon-fibre tank. Unless the technology's progressed?
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
How different it would have been had he campaigned for out.
Who knows? Would have been nothing in it for Boris jumping to out, then - indeed Boris might have led remain. He had the other article already written, after all.
Did he?
Yes, he wrote both remain and leave articles for the telegraph, before making his last minute decision which to back. According to Cammo's account he released the leave one less than 15 minutes after suggesting he would stick with remain.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
No. There are too many insider reports of Cameron loftily chortling with his EU mates and saying "Don't worry, I will win this by a mile".
That's one of the reasons they dismissed the referendum as a sideshow for so long, they didn't believe Cameron could lose it, because that's what he told them.
So they gave him nothing, because he asked for nothing. And they knew whatever he got, he would campaign for REMAIN
If he'd bothered to read PB comments, he'd have seen the writing on the wall (as it were).
Erstwhile supporters moving over to leave, and calling all the bad points.
Hmm. Maybe he did read it and just didn't (want to) believe it.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
How different it would have been had he campaigned for out.
That might have been Remain's best chance. It certainly would have given Labour voters a reason to vote in.
Although I agree it seems unlikely, unfair to bring up Cameron's failure to deliver on Bloomberg.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Rubbish. He worked really hard on it.
You do realise that if this is true (which I doubt) that makes it even worse. Cameron did his best, and strained every sinew, to produce a "deal" so miserable that he never mentioned it again, during the entire campaign?
He really is shit at politics.
I read the other day that when Cameron first delivered the "deal" to his Cabinet, there was total stony silence, even from his friends and supporters. They knew it was a dud. We knew it was a dud.
Cameron was a dud.
I'm still inclined to bevel that even if his own shortcomings were a significant part of why that deal was so poor, it was also true that a good deal was in fact impossible from the EU at that stage (and of course likely still is) - they did not truly think they needed to offer anything, in fact some reported they felt they offered too much to Cameron. Therefore, odds are no one could have gotten a good deal, even if a better one than we got was possible.
I agree, no one could have got a good deal.
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
You play the hands you are dealt - clearly he was not willing to wait, not willing to try again (presumably feeling anti-EU feeling was only going to keep increasing and he needed it out the way quickly), so he tried to sell it.
Plus it's instinctive for politicians to claim their policy/deal is amazing even when its middling at best.
My response would have been to say to the voters "They offered very little. Decide if you want to stay in the EU on these terms."
I wouldn't say he was terrible, Middlesborough normally made the top 10 in the Premier League when he was manager. However it is true that rogues often make the best England managers, Terry Venables being a case in point, Allerdyce too won his first game, so if you do not want the rogues you may not always get the results either
The best England manager of modern times, Sir Bobby Robson, was certainly no rogue.
Well there may be hope for Southgate (or who ever takes the job longer term) yet!
Comments
F*ck.
Make the Saturn V look puny.
They cannot do this, can they?
"I am very excited, Brexit will be great for trade with the US", one of them is quoted.
But the interesting bit was:
Rhode Island can offer up to $7,500 in tax discounts per year per job, pay for research at local universities and repay up to $24,000 of graduate debt to those who work for tech companies for four years. The UK's regions can offer only a fraction of such largesse, since they must comply with EU state aid rules - for now at least.
I voted Remain, but if leaving the EU means we can provide some of the help obviously needed by the North to attract investment, that's a big plus.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37486320
So Trump basically calling a former beauty pageant contest fatty fatty bum bum is off limits, but didn't the same people write loads about fatty fatty bum bum Trump?
But the Con total in 2015 - 2,544 was up big from 2010 - 1,453 that 75.1% in 5 years, I don't know what was going on locally, but that's got to be one of the largest Proportional increases in the contrary?
Either way, the tabloids will enjoy years of field days, and you can't really see the Conservatives losing from it.
Jeremy Corbyn, August 8 2015: “Where you can re-open pits, yes… I think we can develop coal technology. Let’s do so… maybe they’ll be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”
Jahadi Jez, the Donald Trump of British politics.
But they are both rather small, and for them the EU is the only show in town.
They can be leaned on and bought off.
Internet submitted and voted on questions. Have a look at the current most popular.
https://presidentialopenquestions.com/?sort=-votes
It would be more interesting to see if the resignation of an (ex)SNP MP under such circumstances would lead to any material impact upon the level of support for the new SNP candidate. If they can win as big as before, it would demonstrate that the Nationalists are still Teflon-coated.
Admittedly, all this is just political wonk talk and little more may be heard of this, in which case it's just going to be cruel on remainiacs and soft brexiters.
Of course ex-miners should be retrained and their communities supported through the transition instead of being cast away.
Of course after the end of coal we might be at the beginning of the end of oil as a useful energy resource, in that case Aberdeen will be very hard hit and would need a comparative rescue program too.
Also, I know it's just a standard typing error to miss a word now and then, but it's still funny when it happens, so I hope this one is asked.
Are you willing to defend the rights of Americans as granted to them by the constitution as written? We to know the intentions of our candidates with regards to our rights as Americans
And don’t tell me this treaty would be complicated to negotiate. I have a lot of experience negotiating treaties.
When I was talking to the French ambassador* (not the current one, the previous one who was very close to Sarkozy), he was dismissive of British Euroscepticism and thought Cameron would easily be able to shrug it off. "Just a few backbenchers". I tried to explain that it wasn't quite as straightforward as that, but he wasn't having it. Now Sarkozy seems to have become completely unrealistic in the other direction, unless of course it's just a cynical grab for attention.
Either way, he's talking through his hat. The idea of getting 27 countries unanimously to agree to massive reforms and a unique special status for the UK - when they didn't even agree to Cameron's modest and eminently sensible Bloomberg suggestions for reform - is out with the fairies.
" (Apologies for going into @Charles mode)
For Sarkozy's plan to work, he has to end the mission creep.
But that's more weight to Mars than the entire weight of the International Space Station. In one flight.
We can do this, as a species. We should.
Edit: but I hope my underpants are safe.
It's perhaps more representative of the situation to say that the Tories only managed to pick up a thousand votes in five years. At that steady rate of progress, they might find themselves in a position to capture Glasgow East in about another century.
He didn't even bother, the lazy twat.
Watch his first acceptance (or conference) speech. Bullseye perception.
Rather, he seems to have rushed it, asked for very little, and expected even less back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33
Mrs May will need to play this long in that case.
Come back dodgy Big Sam all is forgiven...
My advise back in the summer is still the wisest for Trump about preparing for the debates.
1.Build a mock up TV studio.
2.Have an experienced female lawyer play Hillary (she is a lawyer after all), have Bill O'Reily play the biased anti-Trump moderator (he is biased anyway).
3.Have Frank Luntz's focus group as the audience with one of those worms in a monitor in front of Trump to see the live reaction to his talk (after all Luntz is one of those who declare the winner).
And never forget softly softly wins the general election not screamy screamy.
I still wouldn't travel on one though.
Tariffs on Danish pork, Irish livestock, German engineering: UK withdraws from club med property market, the French lose their fishing rights etc etc.
The bottom line is that we are a net contributor and net customer.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/i-pray-for-snap-election-to-end-corbyn-disaster-says-mandelson-s70tbnnxj
But it should be remembered that the COPV tanks have been implicated in SpaceX's launch failures last year and a few weeks ago. These are carbon-fibre tanks with metal lining. Lockheed's X33 failed due to carbon-fibre liquid oxygen tanks.
They're talking about pressurised unlined carbon-fibre tanks. There's going to be a severe learning curve.
And in a pure oxygen environment even more so the risk of spontaneous ignition.
But as I said Musk is always aiming at Wall St. not nature, but nature can not be fooled as much as a Wall St. investor (to paraphrase a famous quote from the Challenger disaster investigation).
I predict plenty of dead astronauts and lots of money for Musk.
Interesting times. And I got Ed Balls book Speaking Out for my birthday. Really looking forward to it.
I've got a short-circuited brain atm. Even if I didn't, I wouldn't be good enough.
I was thinking about Mrs J, who as a non-Brit born has her job market in the UK rather restricted - no military work for her. (cough) holographic radar (cough).
As for these questions: Jesus. Can we have some *sensible* questions?
Although we can save countless of lives if Musk is the first to try his own spaceship.
Jesus. Don't you even know HHGTTG?
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Heart_of_Gold
Minus 1,000,000 Geek points for you.
Not auto-correct?
But, why try to sell a poor deal as a good deal?
Time to draw a line and move on.
Life without some risk is no life. We all take calculated (and uncalculated) risks: sometimes these risks are how the world progresses.
Avoiding risks means stagnation; doubly so for a society.
Everything else was a good deal.
Although I appreciate that is like saying if the horse hadn't fallen at the last it would have won the race.
Edit: @kle4 I haven't workshopped the applicability of the analogy.
Hope you're on the road to recovery yourself, I switched off the crap questions now as have an early alarm call in the morning. Laters.
Plus it's instinctive for politicians to claim their policy/deal is amazing even when its middling at best.
Sadly despite my insistence, I've been known to switch metaphors mid stream and try to kill two birds with one stone quite often.
People who will have
a) The assets necessary for the trip
b) Won't overly worry about death
c) Will have alot of experience and knowledge.
Have a good night.
If he'd bothered to read PB comments, he'd have seen the writing on the wall (as it were).
Erstwhile supporters moving over to leave, and calling all the bad points.
Hmm. Maybe he did read it and just didn't (want to) believe it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/27/exclusive-eight-premier-league-managers-took-transfer-bungs-clai/