Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
Maybe the Conservative MPs do not agree with you .Or at least the number required to trigger a leadership contest.
It does not trigger a contest. It triggers a vote of no confidence which she has to lose before a leadership contest could take place
Do you think she will continue if a vote of no confidence is forced on her ?
I cannot say and to be fair I am not for or against her going now - but would expect Boris would become favourite to succeed her if she stepped aside
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Not wanting to do down Roger's achievements, but in a way I think that is partly a reflection of the current era. Back then, Federer beat the best grass court player in the fourth round and then came up against the second best grass court player in the quarters (and then he'd have had to beat another grass court specialist in the semi final had he beaten Henman).
Today it tends to be the same players winning whatever the surface.
Surely, on the contrary, that enhances Federer's achievements not diminishes them? Sampras was peerless on grass, not much use on clay. Gustavo Kuerten was the other way around, while Agassi won one each on grass and clay but was most successful on hard courts.
Meanwhile while Nadal is something else on clay courts, he, Federer and Djokovic (and Murray to a lesser extent) can compete with pretty much anyone on any surface. That, to me, is a sign of just how brilliant they are, and if they are now to fade away and be replaced by others who will almost certainly whatever their qualities not be as good I will just count myself lucky that I was able to watch them at their truly phenomenal best.
Edit - and not only are they brilliant athletes and competitors but genuine role models and fine human beings too. Who could forget Djokovic's little speech after losing Wimbledon to Murray not offering any excuses and simply saying the better player won and he congratulated him?
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
One of the many points was that Tory MP's, partially due to their (usually) wealthier upbringing/backgrounds tended to live longer than Labour MP's who tended to be from poorer backgrounds.
Is this right ? It may have been true once when Labour did have a substantial number of MPs drawn from manual/labouring jobs.
Those times are long, long gone.
I doubt if there is any statistically significant difference in longevity of Tory versus Labour MPs elected since 1997.
There are have been more Labour by-elections because of death, but for most of the period since 1997, there have been more Labour MPs than Tories.
It was specifically referring to those who actually died in office so whilst many of the new recruits for sometime probably don't met the criteria or the stereotype of wealthier/poorer backgrounds or at least not to the same extent these were people who generally came into parliament a long time ago.
Also not 100% without checking but I think it took into account the different amounts of MP's.
The main thrust of my post was that it is another factor in favour of Corbyn's longevity rather than people from poorer backgrounds being somehow good and those from richer bad and that is reflected in the Conservatives and Labour. I care much more about views than background.
I honestly doubt if there is any statistical evidence to support your claim.
I think during the period 2000-2015, the average age of Labour MPs was greater than Tory MPs. This is probably because a Labour MP had typically entered the Commons in 1992 or 1997 at middle age, and had aged in Parliament.
By contrast, it was not till 2005 or 2010 that there were infusions of new Conservative MPs.
As the average age was greater, so there were more sitting Labour MPs who passed away.
I haven't checked, but I would now expect the average age of Tory MPs to exceed the average of Labour MPs, and so the pendulum swings the other way.
Your expectation is wrong. The average Labour MP is almost 2 years older than the average Conservative MP.
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
Maybe the Conservative MPs do not agree with you .Or at least the number required to trigger a leadership contest.
It does not trigger a contest. It triggers a vote of no confidence which she has to lose before a leadership contest could take place
Do you think she will continue if a vote of no confidence is forced on her ?
I cannot say and to be fair I am not for or against her going now - but would expect Boris would become favourite to succeed her if she stepped aside
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
Maybe the Conservative MPs do not agree with you .Or at least the number required to trigger a leadership contest.
It does not trigger a contest. It triggers a vote of no confidence which she has to lose before a leadership contest could take place
Do you think she will continue if a vote of no confidence is forced on her ?
I cannot say and to be fair I am not for or against her going now - but would expect Boris would become favourite to succeed her if she stepped aside
Any time Boris is favourite to succeed her is a very good argument for her staying,
Wasn't it Charles II who said to his brother when James upbraided him for his slackness in walking in public unescorted, 'Brother, no man in England will kill me to make you king?'
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
I would suggest only Bradman.
Ali: Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and of course our Henry.
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Not wanting to do down Roger's achievements, but in a way I think that is partly a reflection of the current era. Back then, Federer beat the best grass court player in the fourth round and then came up against the second best grass court player in the quarters (and then he'd have had to beat another grass court specialist in the semi final had he beaten Henman).
Today it tends to be the same players winning whatever the surface.
Surely, on the contrary, that enhances Federer's achievements not diminishes them? Sampras was peerless on grass, not much use on clay. Gustavo Kuerten was the other way around, while Agassi won one each on grass and clay but was most successful on hard courts.
Meanwhile while Nadal is something else on clay courts, he, Federer and Djokovic (and Murray to a lesser extent) can compete with pretty much anyone on any surface. That, to me, is a sign of just how brilliant they are, and if they are now to fade away and be replaced by others who will almost certainly whatever their qualities not be as good I will just count myself lucky that I was able to watch them at their truly phenomenal best.
Edit - and not only are they brilliant athletes and competitors but genuine role models and fine human beings too. Who could forget Djokovic's little speech after losing Wimbledon to Murray not offering any excuses and simply saying the better player won and he congratulated him?
Perhaps, I don't know. I've heard it said - by Michael Stich, I think - that had Nadal been playing in the 80s/90s, he wouldn't have got out of the first week of Wimbledon as the courts and balls were quicker and lower, and there were far more grass court specialists.
But that's why I think it's nice for Federer to have that win against Sampras. Ultimately they can only beat who's in front of them, I just think it would be nice if Wimbledon was a bit more like it used to be.
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
I would suggest only Bradman.
Ali: Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and of course our Henry.
Ali was better than Norton, Frazier and Foreman but not in a different class.
The batting average difference between Bradman and Hammon, Hutton and Headley was the equivalent of a successful test batsman. Bradman was more than 50% better than the next best not only in his own era but ever.
One of the many points was that Tory MP's, partially due to their (usually) wealthier upbringing/backgrounds tended to live longer than Labour MP's who tended to be from poorer backgrounds.
Is this right ? It may have been true once when Labour did have a substantial number of MPs drawn from manual/labouring jobs.
Those times are long, long gone.
I doubt if there is any statistically significant difference in longevity of Tory versus Labour MPs elected since 1997.
There are have been more Labour by-elections because of death, but for most of the period since 1997, there have been more Labour MPs than Tories.
It was specifically referring to those who actually died in office so whilst many of the new recruits for sometime probably don't met the criteria or the stereotype of wealthier/poorer backgrounds or at least not to the same extent these were people who generally came into parliament a long time ago.
Also not 100% without checking but I think it took into account the different amounts of MP's.
The main thrust of my post was that it is another factor in favour of Corbyn's longevity rather than people from poorer backgrounds being somehow good and those from richer bad and that is reflected in the Conservatives and Labour. I care much more about views than background.
I honestly doubt if there is any statistical evidence to support your claim.
I think during the period 2000-2015, the average age of Labour MPs was greater than Tory MPs. This is probably because a Labour MP had typically entered the Commons in 1992 or 1997 at middle age, and had aged in Parliament.
By contrast, it was not till 2005 or 2010 that there were infusions of new Conservative MPs.
As the average age was greater, so there were more sitting Labour MPs who passed away.
I haven't checked, but I would now expect the average age of Tory MPs to exceed the average of Labour MPs, and so the pendulum swings the other way.
Your expectation is wrong. The average Labour MP is almost 2 years older than the average Conservative MP.
Also, Labour has a much higher proportion of MPs over 60. Immediately after the election, 27% of their MPs were over 60 compared with 19% for the Conservatives. The only reason their average age is only 2 years higher than the Conservatives is that Labour have a lot of younger MPs - 20% of their MPs are below 40 compared to 14% for the Conservatives.
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Who would you replace her with
Hunt. With Gove as Chancellor.
Does anyone know what Hunt's views are on anything ?
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
I would suggest only Bradman.
Ali: Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and of course our Henry.
Ali was better than Norton, Frazier and Foreman but not in a different class.
The batting average difference between Bradman and Hammon, Hutton and Headley was the equivalent of a successful test batsman. Bradman was more than 50% better than the next best not only in his own era but ever.
I only know Bradman from the books. His record is of course incredible. But Ali dominated heavyweight boxing in an era of legends and I got to see most of it. Federer has done the same.
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Who would you replace her with
Hunt. With Gove as Chancellor.
Interesting - I could go with that
Unfortunately I don't think the Tory party would. They would go for Boris. Who would, imo, still be an improvement.
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Who would you replace her with
Hunt. With Gove as Chancellor.
Does anyone know what Hunt's views are on anything ?
You will if there is a leadership election - 24 / 7 coverage at the exclusion of everything else if I know out media
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
I would suggest only Bradman.
Ali: Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and of course our Henry.
Ali was better than Norton, Frazier and Foreman but not in a different class.
The batting average difference between Bradman and Hammon, Hutton and Headley was the equivalent of a successful test batsman. Bradman was more than 50% better than the next best not only in his own era but ever.
I only know Bradman from the books. His record is of course incredible. But Ali dominated heavyweight boxing in an era of legends and I got to see most of it. Federer has done the same.
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Who would you replace her with
Hunt. With Gove as Chancellor.
Interesting - I could go with that
Unfortunately I don't think the Tory party would. They would go for Boris. Who would, imo, still be an improvement.
With Gove as COE - that would set politics on fire
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Who would you replace her with
Hunt. With Gove as Chancellor.
Does anyone know what Hunt's views are on anything ?
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Who would you replace her with
Hunt. With Gove as Chancellor.
Does anyone know what Hunt's views are on anything ?
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Who would you replace her with
Hunt. With Gove as Chancellor.
Interesting - I could go with that
Unfortunately I don't think the Tory party would. They would go for Boris. Who would, imo, still be an improvement.
It would be hilarious if he gave the NHS all it needs and grabbed it's agenda
Off topic - someone I know has thankfully called the police on her abusive boyfriend. He showed up this weekend threatening her and it took over an hour for the police to turn up. Is that normal?
I'd agree with the general conclusion Corbyn will struggle to become PM, despite the Conservatives being one of the most ill-equipped governments taking on an impossible task. To see how he wins you have to ask yourself where he gets the voters to put him over the top - and he's probably the only thing keeping some economic and social liberals in the Tory camp, as the idea of him and McDonnell in charge horrified them as much as Brexiteer fantasists, meanwhile socially conservative pro-Brexit voters also find him a bad fit with his past.
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
I would suggest only Bradman.
Ali: Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and of course our Henry.
Ali was better than Norton, Frazier and Foreman but not in a different class.
The batting average difference between Bradman and Hammon, Hutton and Headley was the equivalent of a successful test batsman. Bradman was more than 50% better than the next best not only in his own era but ever.
I only know Bradman from the books. His record is of course incredible. But Ali dominated heavyweight boxing in an era of legends and I got to see most of it. Federer has done the same.
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
I would suggest only Bradman.
Ali: Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and of course our Henry.
Ali was better than Norton, Frazier and Foreman but not in a different class.
The batting average difference between Bradman and Hammon, Hutton and Headley was the equivalent of a successful test batsman. Bradman was more than 50% better than the next best not only in his own era but ever.
I only know Bradman from the books. His record is of course incredible. But Ali dominated heavyweight boxing in an era of legends and I got to see most of it. Federer has done the same.
Bradman had the following contemporary competition:
Hammond Hobbs Sutcliffe Hutton Headley Paynter
Two of those averaged over 60 and all of them averaged more than any modern batsman except Smith (and Voges, I suppose).
Yet Bradman's average was over 50% higher than the next best. Even in his worst series his average compared with their career averages.
I'd agree with the general conclusion Corbyn will struggle to become PM, despite the Conservatives being one of the most ill-equipped governments taking on an impossible task. To see how he wins you have to ask yourself where he gets the voters to put him over the top - and he's probably the only thing keeping some economic and social liberals in the Tory camp, as the idea of him and McDonnell in charge horrified them as much as Brexiteer fantasists, meanwhile socially conservative pro-Brexit voters also find him a bad fit with his past.
His idea of buying 9,000 houses and giving them to the homeless is intellectually bankrupt. How many tens of thousand more homeless would there be on a promise of housing, especially in London
Has anyone got any serious argument for Boris as PM, beyond some idea that he would apparently improve the chances of the Tories winning the next election.
What record beyond pretty manifest incompetence has he got in any political role he has been engaged in? The fact that he apparently has the same political 'qualities' as Trump is hardly something that will commend him to people.
Has anyone got any serious argument for Boris as PM, beyond some idea that he would apparently improve the chances of the Tories winning the next election.
What record beyond pretty manifest incompetence has he got in any political role he has been engaged in? The fact that he apparently has the same political 'qualities' as Trump is hardly something that will commend him to people.
He is more intelligent than Corbyn.
Admittedly that sometimes feels like saying someone is less psychotic than Mao.
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
I would suggest only Bradman.
Ali: Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and of course our Henry.
Ali was better than Norton, Frazier and Foreman but not in a different class.
The batting average difference between Bradman and Hammon, Hutton and Headley was the equivalent of a successful test batsman. Bradman was more than 50% better than the next best not only in his own era but ever.
I only know Bradman from the books. His record is of course incredible. But Ali dominated heavyweight boxing in an era of legends and I got to see most of it. Federer has done the same.
Bradman had the following contemporary competition:
Hammond Hobbs Sutcliffe Hutton Headley Paynter
Two of those averaged over 60 and all of them averaged more than any modern batsman except Smith (and Voges, I suppose).
Yet Bradman's average was over 50% higher than the next best. Even in his worst series his average compared with their career averages.
I'd agree with the general conclusion Corbyn will struggle to become PM, despite the Conservatives being one of the most ill-equipped governments taking on an impossible task. To see how he wins you have to ask yourself where he gets the voters to put him over the top - and he's probably the only thing keeping some economic and social liberals in the Tory camp, as the idea of him and McDonnell in charge horrified them as much as Brexiteer fantasists, meanwhile socially conservative pro-Brexit voters also find him a bad fit with his past.
His idea of buying 9,000 houses and giving them to the homeless is intellectually bankrupt. How many tens of thousand more homeless would there be on a promise of housing, especially in London
There is also something of a wilful misunderstanding of homelessness statistics. The official homelessness figures go way beyond the 5000 or so rough sleepers who are reported. Rough sleepers are those who are classified as 'intentionally homeless', not qualified as "priorities" for housing, or for some reason choosing not to take up local authority support.
Given that there are large numbers of "non rough sleeper homeless" on waiting lists for Housing, put up in B&Bs or other temporary hostel accommodation, it would be strange if houses were bought up so that rough sleepers would jump the queue above them.
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
I would suggest only Bradman.
Ali: Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and of course our Henry.
Ali was better than Norton, Frazier and Foreman but not in a different class.
The batting average difference between Bradman and Hammon, Hutton and Headley was the equivalent of a successful test batsman. Bradman was more than 50% better than the next best not only in his own era but ever.
I only know Bradman from the books. His record is of course incredible. But Ali dominated heavyweight boxing in an era of legends and I got to see most of it. Federer has done the same.
Bradman had the following contemporary competition:
Hammond Hobbs Sutcliffe Hutton Headley Paynter
Two of those averaged over 60 and all of them averaged more than any modern batsman except Smith (and Voges, I suppose).
Yet Bradman's average was over 50% higher than the next best. Even in his worst series his average compared with their career averages.
That is true dominance.
A batting average of 99.94 is simply bizarre.
It's even more striking in that although there were weak teams to play against (South Africa and India) that could have bolstered his average, 42 of his 52 tests were against England or West Indies, who had very fine bowling attacks. Yet even against West Indies he averaged 74, almost 25% higher than he next best average over a completed career (Voges, 61).
Has anyone got any serious argument for Boris as PM, beyond some idea that he would apparently improve the chances of the Tories winning the next election.
What record beyond pretty manifest incompetence has he got in any political role he has been engaged in? The fact that he apparently has the same political 'qualities' as Trump is hardly something that will commend him to people.
He is more intelligent than Corbyn.
Admittedly that sometimes feels like saying someone is less psychotic than Mao.
That is an argument for (very reluctantly) voting for him over Corbyn in a General Election. It is not an argument for the Tories inflicting him on the country in the first place.
In fact given his record of spending large amounts of money on vanity projects, he might even compete with Corbyn on the 'blow up the economy' stakes.
Has anyone got any serious argument for Boris as PM, beyond some idea that he would apparently improve the chances of the Tories winning the next election.
What record beyond pretty manifest incompetence has he got in any political role he has been engaged in? The fact that he apparently has the same political 'qualities' as Trump is hardly something that will commend him to people.
He is more intelligent than Corbyn.
Admittedly that sometimes feels like saying someone is less psychotic than Mao.
That is an argument for (very reluctantly) voting for him over Corbyn in a General Election. It is not an argument for the Tories inflicting him on the country in the first place.
I wholeheartedly agree. It was however the only argument I could think of.
I would still like to know what the Labour MPs were smoking when they put Corbyn forward as well.
I think some of the gloss is starting to wear off Corbyn.
His refusal to suggest a policy in any way different to the cake-ists on Brexit is now sinking in beyond the chatterati and is being noticed by the kids.
What this means for the Tory leadership shenanigans, I do not know.
His idea of buying 9,000 houses and giving them to the homeless is intellectually bankrupt. How many tens of thousand more homeless would there be on a promise of housing, especially in London
Homelessness has always existed in London and you only have to see the queues trying to get into hostels around Leicester Square late at night to see how much some want a roof over their heads.
That isn't true of all "rough sleepers" and I'd differentiate between those who don't want to be homeless or sleep rough and oddly enough those who do. The latter see four walls and a roof as a constraint on their freedom and their lives and may appreciate help but not a home.
Those who want and need a roof over their heads and particularly those with mental health issues should be the priority along with the young and for those with mental health issues a house may not be the solution and won't be in isolation.
There is and remains an issue with migrants who end up sleeping rough because whatever was promised in terms of a job or place to live was a fraud. Even so, it's my experience given a choice between a free ticket home and staying around London and rough sleeping most choose the latter.
The other aspect of the housing problem is or are the new slums - the converted suburban semi and terraced houses sleeping 15 or more which exist all over suburban London.
Sauli Niinistö wins the Finnish presidential elections with 63% of the vote on a 70% turnout in bad weather. His press conference was conducted in four languages – Finnish, Swedish, English and Russian.
No - you can be in the Lords, and in theory you don't even have to be that, I think. Not sure if you have to be British. Barnier would be an amusing choice if the Queen is feeling whimsical.
EDIT: If you want to see just how remarkable Federer is, have a look at his win against Sampras at Wimbledon 2001. It's something that - due to age, I admit - Nadal and Djokovic don't have in their record.
On the other hand, he is also the only one of those three to have been beaten by Tim Henman
Even the tennis gods have their off days...
But has any other sportsman risen above opponents of comparable quality to Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic over so extended a period ?
I would suggest only Bradman.
Ali: Norton, Liston, Frazier, Foreman and of course our Henry.
Ali was better than Norton, Frazier and Foreman but not in a different class.
The batting average difference between Bradman and Hammon, Hutton and Headley was the equivalent of a successful test batsman. Bradman was more than 50% better than the next best not only in his own era but ever.
I only know Bradman from the books. His record is of course incredible. But Ali dominated heavyweight boxing in an era of legends and I got to see most of it. Federer has done the same.
Arkle blows all these puny humans away.
Frankel
There is a debate on the flat between Frankel and Secretariat, the same with Sugar Ray Robinson/Mohammed Ali for boxing. Bradman, Federer, Arkle, Merckx - there isn't a debate over those for batting, men's tennis, jumps, road cycling.
Off topic - someone I know has thankfully called the police on her abusive boyfriend. He showed up this weekend threatening her and it took over an hour for the police to turn up. Is that normal?
No, apparently it's currently 40 minutes, in London (probably more outside?).
It must depend on the reported urgency - screams for help compared with expressions of long-term concern must make them differentiate. But it seems appallingly long when there's violence threatened.
Pretty dull round of the FA Cup. All the big boys going through as you would expect, United, City, Chelsea, West Brom.
Think I might screenshot this and put a frame on it!
BaggiesBaggiesBaggies
Happy to oblige.
6 O'clock news not great for May. And I have to say that the clip from David Lidington once again made me think that he is so far over promoted that planet earth is out of sight.
It is interesting that those of us who follow politics are quite often out of step with public
If TM depends on the news media for popularity she should have been holed below the waterline but I am increasingly of the opinion the public are fairer to her than many would think
To hear the politico's constantly talking about her disastrous conference speech while surveys of the public are much fairer recognising a loss of voice can happen to anyone and that she persists and does not give in
She is at 38% approval with no other conservative near. A leadership race gives no certainty anyone else would fair better. For now she needs to stay in place
It is undeniably the case that nearly all of the faux pas, misspeaks, plain stupidity and blatant errors that we get excited about on here do not register with the public at all. They just don't care. It is also true that we put way too much emphasis on governments that actually do things. Most people would rather they didn't.
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Who would you replace her with
Hunt. With Gove as Chancellor.
Interesting - I could go with that
Unfortunately I don't think the Tory party would. They would go for Boris. Who would, imo, still be an improvement.
With Gove as COE - that would set politics on fire
I tend to agree with others that it’s all talk and no trousers - for the moment.
There appear to be several dynamics:
1. Rees Mogg and the ERG losing patience with the Brexit policy
2. A widespread feeling that May botched the reshuffle and can no longer be trusted to hand over to a viable candidate before 2020.
3. A view, voiced with increasing regularity by Boris, that May is compromising Brexit by failing to paint a vision of the future.
4. General jostling amongst the potential replacements: notably, Williamson, Johnson and Hammond this week.
Each dynamic alone would not be enough to topple her. It’s the interaction between them that makes it hard to read.
The locals are in May. I cannot see the Tories doing well, and I’m not sure how May survives if the performance is very poor.
May seems a long way away right now. So does April tbh. If DD is correct that the transition deal is going to be sorted out by the end of March it will be a question of whether a consensus can be reached on that. If it can't she's toast.
I tend to agree with others that it’s all talk and no trousers - for the moment.
There appear to be several dynamics:
1. Rees Mogg and the ERG losing patience with the Brexit policy
2. A widespread feeling that May botched the reshuffle and can no longer be trusted to hand over to a viable candidate before 2020.
3. A view, voiced with increasing regularity by Boris, that May is compromising Brexit by failing to paint a vision of the future.
4. General jostling amongst the potential replacements: notably, Williamson, Johnson and Hammond this week.
Each dynamic alone would not be enough to topple her. It’s the interaction between them that makes it hard to read.
The locals are in May. I cannot see the Tories doing well, and I’m not sure how May survives if the performance is very poor.
I think this week will be fast moving. The common argument is who takes over - but to be honest, May has been such a poor leader someone else musy be able to articulate a vision / be more competent.
I would still like to know what the Labour MPs were smoking when they put Corbyn forward as well.
They conceded that members might like to have the option of a leader who stood for something - public services, less inequality, don't start any wars, third world solidarity. I know you disagree with what he stands for, but leaving that aside, it's quite rare these days to have a broad view. Never mind Boris, who obviously is only about himself, what does Hunt stand for? Or Rudd? Or Williamson? Rees-Mogg is popular with Tory members because he does seem to stand for a general concept (social conservatism). Most other leading politicians have one or two personal themes (as I've said, Gove is good on the environment) but no kind of general approach.
Now if one feels that things are in general going quite well, and we just need some stability and a few tweaks, then that wouldn't matter, and someone like May would be perfectly adequate. But if one's a bit unhappy with Britain's current state (as most people who bother to join a party are), then "steady as she goes and vote for ME" isn't appealing.
Off topic - someone I know has thankfully called the police on her abusive boyfriend. He showed up this weekend threatening her and it took over an hour for the police to turn up. Is that normal?
No, apparently it's currently 40 minutes, in London (probably more outside?).
It must depend on the reported urgency - screams for help compared with expressions of long-term concern must make them differentiate. But it seems appallingly long when there's violence threatened.
Outside London. I wasn’t there - but our mutual friend suspects she may not have fully reflected the danger of the situation when she called 999.
It's almost like her blatant triangulation speech and then total invisibility during the Referendum campaign where a massive an obvious red flag that even the terminally stupid could spot but apparently not.
I would still like to know what the Labour MPs were smoking when they put Corbyn forward as well.
They conceded that members might like to have the option of a leader who stood for something - public services, less inequality, don't start any wars, third world solidarity. I know you disagree with what he stands for, but leaving that aside, it's quite rare these days to have a broad view. Never mind Boris, who obviously is only about himself, what does Hunt stand for? Or Rudd? Or Williamson? Rees-Mogg is popular with Tory members because he does seem to stand for a general concept (social conservatism). Most other leading politicians have one or two personal themes (as I've said, Gove is good on the environment) but no kind of general approach.
Now if one feels that things are in general going quite well, and we just need some stability and a few tweaks, then that wouldn't matter, and someone like May would be perfectly adequate. But if one's a bit unhappy with Britain's current state (as most people who bother to join a party are), then "steady as she goes and vote for ME" isn't appealing.
Does he stand for things? Or does he *say* he stands for things?
I know you see it differently and of course you know him personally which I don't. But I see a man who will say whatever he thinks will play well with his base - it is just his base is different from those most people honk of politicians appealing too. In 1983 anti-EU, in 2016 for it, in 2003, anti-Iraq war after years of supportingHamas, in 1985 pro miners, in 1985 again pro-IRA, in 2001 anti-Blair, in 2017 anti-tuition fees.
Perhaps I see him too crudely, but I don't see a man of principle when I look at Corbyn. In fact, in many ways he comes across as just as cynical as Cameron but much less intelligent.
I have often agreed with him, in fact, cf Iraq, which I continue to think was the greatest unforced error in foreign policy since the Hundred Days, and I have no love for tuition fees. But I do consider him very slippery, and I would not trust him. Added to his inexperience and self-professed lack of intelligence, he was not a good candidate.
I would still like to know what the Labour MPs were smoking when they put Corbyn forward as well.
They conceded that members might like to have the option of a leader who stood for something - public services, less inequality, don't start any wars, third world solidarity. I know you disagree with what he stands for, but leaving that aside, it's quite rare these days to have a broad view. Never mind Boris, who obviously is only about himself, what does Hunt stand for? Or Rudd? Or Williamson? Rees-Mogg is popular with Tory members because he does seem to stand for a general concept (social conservatism). Most other leading politicians have one or two personal themes (as I've said, Gove is good on the environment) but no kind of general approach.
Now if one feels that things are in general going quite well, and we just need some stability and a few tweaks, then that wouldn't matter, and someone like May would be perfectly adequate. But if one's a bit unhappy with Britain's current state (as most people who bother to join a party are), then "steady as she goes and vote for ME" isn't appealing.
Standing for something is different to being able to deliver something. And the idea that Corbyn is exceptional in that it's not about personality doesn't match the facts.
I'd agree with the general conclusion Corbyn will struggle to become PM, despite the Conservatives being one of the most ill-equipped governments taking on an impossible task. To see how he wins you have to ask yourself where he gets the voters to put him over the top - and he's probably the only thing keeping some economic and social liberals in the Tory camp, as the idea of him and McDonnell in charge horrified them as much as Brexiteer fantasists, meanwhile socially conservative pro-Brexit voters also find him a bad fit with his past.
His idea of buying 9,000 houses and giving them to the homeless is intellectually bankrupt. How many tens of thousand more homeless would there be on a promise of housing, especially in London
Utah have done exactly that in Salt Lake City to solve their chronic homelessness problem.
No - you can be in the Lords, and in theory you don't even have to be that, I think. Not sure if you have to be British. Barnier would be an amusing choice if the Queen is feeling whimsical.
Does he stand for things? Or does he *say* he stands for things?
I know you see it differently and of course you know him personally which I don't. But I see a man who will say whatever he thinks will play well with his base - it is just his base is different from those most people honk of politicians appealing too. In 1983 anti-EU, in 2016 for it, in 2003, anti-Iraq war after years of supportingHamas, in 1985 pro miners, in 1985 again pro-IRA, in 2001 anti-Blair, in 2017 anti-tuition fees.
Perhaps I see him too crudely, but I don't see a man of principle when I look at Corbyn. In fact, in many ways he comes across as just as cynical as Cameron but much less intelligent.
I have often agreed with him, in fact, cf Iraq, which I continue to think was the greatest unforced error in foreign policy since the Hundred Days, and I have no love for tuition fees. But I do consider him very slippery, and I would not trust him. Added to his inexperience and self-professed lack of intelligence, he was not a good candidate.
That's an unusual view - he's more often accused of sticking too rigidly to thoughts developed decades ago. He's compromised on Trident and the monarchy, but not by pretending to change his mind - he's merely said that the majority disagree with him so he accepts it. He's always been critical of the EU, but I don't recall him ever calling for withdrawal since the 1983 manifeot (which even Blair sotod on), and his "7 out of 10" reflects what he's told me is his private view, and I don't see a reason to doubt it. He had interestingly differentiated views on European politicians - e.g. he thought Renzi would be centrist but charismatic and intriguing, like Blair, but found him disappointingly bland, while he got on well with the French and German social democrats.
If he suddenly embraced the special relationship, for instance, or joined Trump in a war, I wouldn't just be shocked, I'd be astonished. Wouldn't you? By contrast, do you feel confident that Boris wouldn't do exactly that, if he thought it'd be popular?
I've got to do something else for an hour or two so will have to leave it there for now - silence won't mean I've huffed off!
If he suddenly embraced the special relationship, for instance, or joined Trump in a war, I wouldn't just be shocked, I'd be astonished. Wouldn't you? By contrast, do you feel confident that Boris wouldn't do exactly that, if he thought it'd be popular?
Frankly, the answer to your first question is no, if he thought it would be popular. Just one question to ponder. In 2015 he opposed welfare cuts and said the wealthy should be taxed more. In 2017 he supported welfare cuts to pay for free university tuition for millionaires. Is that the action of a man of principle?
The key differences between Corbyn and Boris that I can see is that one has blond hair and a university degree. Otherwise I see two birds of the same feather and am not enamoured of either,
I'd agree with the general conclusion Corbyn will struggle to become PM, despite the Conservatives being one of the most ill-equipped governments taking on an impossible task. To see how he wins you have to ask yourself where he gets the voters to put him over the top - and he's probably the only thing keeping some economic and social liberals in the Tory camp, as the idea of him and McDonnell in charge horrified them as much as Brexiteer fantasists, meanwhile socially conservative pro-Brexit voters also find him a bad fit with his past.
His idea of buying 9,000 houses and giving them to the homeless is intellectually bankrupt. How many tens of thousand more homeless would there be on a promise of housing, especially in London
Utah have done exactly that in Salt Lake City to solve their chronic homelessness problem.
It hasn't created a new wave of homeless people.
Corbyn's 'idea' has nothing to do with a real solution. It is a piece of cheap political populism of the most infantile kind.
Yes, rough sleepers are a serious issue. But the big problem is in the many, many more who are vulnerably housed. And his attempt at a stunt today does bugger all to help those.
Rough sleepers need help of a far more complex and tailored kind than simply being given a free house. They each have complicated needs that have created the situation where they are sleeping on the streets and they will not be helped by giving them a house each.
Corbyn's simplistic populism will do nothing to address the real issues surrounding housing inequality. And it shows the limited level of thinking to which he aspires.
It is as laughable as Williamson's assertion on QT on Thursday.
I'd agree with the general conclusion Corbyn will struggle to become PM, despite the Conservatives being one of the most ill-equipped governments taking on an impossible task. To see how he wins you have to ask yourself where he gets the voters to put him over the top - and he's probably the only thing keeping some economic and social liberals in the Tory camp, as the idea of him and McDonnell in charge horrified them as much as Brexiteer fantasists, meanwhile socially conservative pro-Brexit voters also find him a bad fit with his past.
His idea of buying 9,000 houses and giving them to the homeless is intellectually bankrupt. How many tens of thousand more homeless would there be on a promise of housing, especially in London
I'm surprised at you Big_G. You can't seriously think there's any but a very small proportion of rough sleepers who choose to do so? And where would the "tens of thousand more homeless" come from? If they're not homeless at the moment you're suggesting they'd make themselves homeless for a promise of... being housed!?
PS As I understand it there's no question of "giving them to the homeless" - they'd be rented.
How to win a political argument with satirical humour. Case study: “Tabàrnia” in Catalonia. Tabàrnia (= mashup of Tarragona and Barcelona) is a hypothetical statelet comprising those comarques that voted for anti-separatist parties in the last election.
Catalan separatists have no answers as their opponents turn their arguments for leaving Spain against them, arguing for Tabàrnia's independence from Catalonia.
The locals are in May. I cannot see the Tories doing well, and I’m not sure how May survives if the performance is very poor.
There is the decent curveball that UKIP are defending 156 seats. That SHOULD flatter the Tory numbers slightly..
Where are these 156? Putting them in the Tory column would be a brave call.
I agree they won't all be tory gains by any means but if they get half that's 78 seats they can lose without suffering a net loss. It's a good point and it seems likely to give May or her successor some succour. It's certainly something to think about very carefully before betting on Tory losses.
How to win a political argument with satirical humour. Case study: “Tabàrnia” in Catalonia. Tabàrnia (= mashup of Tarragona and Barcelona) is a hypothetical statelet comprising those comarques that voted for anti-separatist parties in the last election.
Catalan separatists have no answers as their opponents turn their arguments for leaving Spain against them, arguing for Tabàrnia's independence from Catalonia.
It's all about where you draw the line really isn't it? Most Leavers I know think it's right and indeed essential for Britain to assert its independence from Europe... but put to the them the idea that Scotland might want to do the same re the UK and their reaction is very different!
How to win a political argument with satirical humour. Case study: “Tabàrnia” in Catalonia. Tabàrnia (= mashup of Tarragona and Barcelona) is a hypothetical statelet comprising those comarques that voted for anti-separatist parties in the last election.
Catalan separatists have no answers as their opponents turn their arguments for leaving Spain against them, arguing for Tabàrnia's independence from Catalonia.
It's all about where you draw the line really isn't it? Most Leavers I know think it's right and indeed essential for Britain to assert its independence from Europe... but put to the them the idea that Scotland might want to do the same re the UK and their reaction is very different!
I would have thought most people would say it’s their choice whether they do that?
If he suddenly embraced the special relationship, for instance, or joined Trump in a war, I wouldn't just be shocked, I'd be astonished. Wouldn't you? By contrast, do you feel confident that Boris wouldn't do exactly that, if he thought it'd be popular?
Frankly, the answer to your first question is no, if he thought it would be popular. Just one question to ponder. In 2015 he opposed welfare cuts and said the wealthy should be taxed more. In 2017 he supported welfare cuts to pay for free university tuition for millionaires. Is that the action of a man of principle?
The key differences between Corbyn and Boris that I can see is that one has blond hair and a university degree. Otherwise I see two birds of the same feather and am not enamoured of either,
To be fair, Corbyn spent most of is life on the back benches pursuing his ideological extremism with a small group of fellow travellers. Horrible man, but he didn’t deviate for careerist reasons. It’s only now, in the limelight, that the temptation to obfuscate (if not lie) is too great.
Johnson on the other hand has shown himself time and time again to be utterly self-absorbed, coasting on his wit and connections.
They are both shits, but shits of a different kind.
How to win a political argument with satirical humour. Case study: “Tabàrnia” in Catalonia. Tabàrnia (= mashup of Tarragona and Barcelona) is a hypothetical statelet comprising those comarques that voted for anti-separatist parties in the last election.
Catalan separatists have no answers as their opponents turn their arguments for leaving Spain against them, arguing for Tabàrnia's independence from Catalonia.
It's all about where you draw the line really isn't it? Most Leavers I know think it's right and indeed essential for Britain to assert its independence from Europe... but put to the them the idea that Scotland might want to do the same re the UK and their reaction is very different!
I would have thought most people would say it’s their choice whether they do that?
So... if she's gone by the end of the week, who becomes PM?
If she resigns, the cabinet votes for a name to give to HM. An elder statesman, ideally not in the race. Since their are no elder statesmen.
Tricky. Gove or Hunt.
Surely if she resigns, she agrees to continue until a successor is selected?
Yeh, that would be pretty normal.
To be honest, if she is dumped like that, I can see her walking away completely. The behaviour of her parliamentary party has been (and continues to be) appalling.
So... if she's gone by the end of the week, who becomes PM?
If she resigns, the cabinet votes for a name to give to HM. An elder statesman, ideally not in the race. Since their are no elder statesmen.
Tricky. Gove or Hunt.
Gove is currently wasted at Environment (even though he is doing a good job of shaping the post-Brexit policy there)
I have long rated him as a thoughtful reformer - even though he does lack warmth and empathy.
He does know his mind and what he wants - with the right team around him, he could deliver
He's clever, innovative, analytical and driven. None of these attributes are exactly common in modern politics and he is an unusual combination. But he is also an iconoclast, pig headed and very reluctant to admit that he is wrong or to listen to advice once he has made his mind up about something. I think, properly marshalled, he could be an excellent number 2. Certainly no government in which he has a major role will be short of ideas. I find the idea of him being the leader more than a bit scary and I'm a fan.
So... if she's gone by the end of the week, who becomes PM?
If she resigns, the cabinet votes for a name to give to HM. An elder statesman, ideally not in the race. Since their are no elder statesmen.
Tricky. Gove or Hunt.
Surely if she resigns, she agrees to continue until a successor is selected?
Yeh, that would be pretty normal.
To be honest, if she is dumped like that, I can see her walking away completely. The behaviour of her parliamentary party has been (and continues to be) appalling.
Tough.
In retrospect, the reshuffle will be seen as critical. She had the opportunity to chasten Johnson and probably remove Hammond. She had the chance to promote the young Turks.
By failing to do any of this, she’s letting Johnson position himself as the voice of the hungry younger generation of Tory MPs.
So... if she's gone by the end of the week, who becomes PM?
If she resigns, the cabinet votes for a name to give to HM. An elder statesman, ideally not in the race. Since their are no elder statesmen.
Tricky. Gove or Hunt.
Surely if she resigns, she agrees to continue until a successor is selected?
Yeh, that would be pretty normal.
To be honest, if she is dumped like that, I can see her walking away completely. The behaviour of her parliamentary party has been (and continues to be) appalling.
It isn't good, no.
If she walked, Hague, Howard or (at a push) Liddington could maybe stand in? But I'd be very surprised.
Comments
But even so. May is a decent sort with a sense of duty, a good sense of right and wrong, not much judgment, trying her best under difficult circumstances. What she is not is any kind of leader or PM. I wish she had gone at the election. I would like her to go now.
Meanwhile while Nadal is something else on clay courts, he, Federer and Djokovic (and Murray to a lesser extent) can compete with pretty much anyone on any surface. That, to me, is a sign of just how brilliant they are, and if they are now to fade away and be replaced by others who will almost certainly whatever their qualities not be as good I will just count myself lucky that I was able to watch them at their truly phenomenal best.
Edit - and not only are they brilliant athletes and competitors but genuine role models and fine human beings too. Who could forget Djokovic's little speech after losing Wimbledon to Murray not offering any excuses and simply saying the better player won and he congratulated him?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sWIj6EdEErCbj9VEnCkBR3D7sJySRqQ_n1bTQjN8qb0/edit?usp=sharing
Essentially on parity the effective forces of the left put Corbyn into Government even if he is behind on seats.
Wasn't it Charles II who said to his brother when James upbraided him for his slackness in walking in public unescorted, 'Brother, no man in England will kill me to make you king?'
But that's why I think it's nice for Federer to have that win against Sampras. Ultimately they can only beat who's in front of them, I just think it would be nice if Wimbledon was a bit more like it used to be.
The batting average difference between Bradman and Hammon, Hutton and Headley was the equivalent of a successful test batsman. Bradman was more than 50% better than the next best not only in his own era but ever.
Not even once you're PM in fact.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/28/theresa-may-faces-mounting-calls-sack-philip-hammond-amid-tory/
That tells me this is really media hype. The best they could come up with to criticise her were Shapps, Halfon and Villiers.
He showed up this weekend threatening her and it took over an hour for the police to turn up.
Is that normal?
Hammond
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Hutton
Headley
Paynter
Two of those averaged over 60 and all of them averaged more than any modern batsman except Smith (and Voges, I suppose).
Yet Bradman's average was over 50% higher than the next best. Even in his worst series his average compared with their career averages.
That is true dominance.
What record beyond pretty manifest incompetence has he got in any political role he has been engaged in? The fact that he apparently has the same political 'qualities' as Trump is hardly something that will commend him to people.
Admittedly that sometimes feels like saying someone is less psychotic than Mao.
Given that there are large numbers of "non rough sleeper homeless" on waiting lists for Housing, put up in B&Bs or other temporary hostel accommodation, it would be strange if houses were bought up so that rough sleepers would jump the queue above them.
Babe Ruth's statistics put him - I believe - even more SDs away from the mean than Bradman.
In fact given his record of spending large amounts of money on vanity projects, he might even compete with Corbyn on the 'blow up the economy' stakes.
I would still like to know what the Labour MPs were smoking when they put Corbyn forward as well.
His refusal to suggest a policy in any way different to the cake-ists on Brexit is now sinking in beyond the chatterati and is being noticed by the kids.
What this means for the Tory leadership shenanigans, I do not know.
That isn't true of all "rough sleepers" and I'd differentiate between those who don't want to be homeless or sleep rough and oddly enough those who do. The latter see four walls and a roof as a constraint on their freedom and their lives and may appreciate help but not a home.
Those who want and need a roof over their heads and particularly those with mental health issues should be the priority along with the young and for those with mental health issues a house may not be the solution and won't be in isolation.
There is and remains an issue with migrants who end up sleeping rough because whatever was promised in terms of a job or place to live was a fraud. Even so, it's my experience given a choice between a free ticket home and staying around London and rough sleeping most choose the latter.
The other aspect of the housing problem is or are the new slums - the converted suburban semi and terraced houses sleeping 15 or more which exist all over suburban London.
His press conference was conducted in four languages – Finnish, Swedish, English and Russian.
Bradman, Federer, Arkle, Merckx - there isn't a debate over those for batting, men's tennis, jumps, road cycling.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-take-40-minutes-to-respond-to-999-calls-across-the-capital-figures-reveal-a3635996.html
It must depend on the reported urgency - screams for help compared with expressions of long-term concern must make them differentiate. But it seems appallingly long when there's violence threatened.
There appear to be several dynamics:
1. Rees Mogg and the ERG losing patience with the Brexit policy
2. A widespread feeling that May botched the reshuffle and can no longer be trusted to hand over to a viable candidate before 2020.
3. A view, voiced with increasing regularity by Boris, that May is compromising Brexit by failing to paint a vision of the future.
4. General jostling amongst the potential replacements: notably, Williamson, Johnson and Hammond this week.
Each dynamic alone would not be enough to topple her. It’s the interaction between them that makes it hard to read.
The locals are in May. I cannot see the Tories doing well, and I’m not sure how May survives if the performance is very poor.
Particularly if you think it is unwise.
Now if one feels that things are in general going quite well, and we just need some stability and a few tweaks, then that wouldn't matter, and someone like May would be perfectly adequate. But if one's a bit unhappy with Britain's current state (as most people who bother to join a party are), then "steady as she goes and vote for ME" isn't appealing.
I wasn’t there - but our mutual friend suspects she may not have fully reflected the danger of the situation when she called 999.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/28/tory-ex-ministers-deny-charging-fee-for-brexit-related-advice-is-wrong
I don't have much of a problem with what's said about Mitchell - he hasn't tried to evade transparency or claim influence. The others...?
I know you see it differently and of course you know him personally which I don't. But I see a man who will say whatever he thinks will play well with his base - it is just his base is different from those most people honk of politicians appealing too. In 1983 anti-EU, in 2016 for it, in 2003, anti-Iraq war after years of supportingHamas, in 1985 pro miners, in 1985 again pro-IRA, in 2001 anti-Blair, in 2017 anti-tuition fees.
Perhaps I see him too crudely, but I don't see a man of principle when I look at Corbyn. In fact, in many ways he comes across as just as cynical as Cameron but much less intelligent.
I have often agreed with him, in fact, cf Iraq, which I continue to think was the greatest unforced error in foreign policy since the Hundred Days, and I have no love for tuition fees. But I do consider him very slippery, and I would not trust him. Added to his inexperience and self-professed lack of intelligence, he was not a good candidate.
It hasn't created a new wave of homeless people.
If he suddenly embraced the special relationship, for instance, or joined Trump in a war, I wouldn't just be shocked, I'd be astonished. Wouldn't you? By contrast, do you feel confident that Boris wouldn't do exactly that, if he thought it'd be popular?
I've got to do something else for an hour or two so will have to leave it there for now - silence won't mean I've huffed off!
The key differences between Corbyn and Boris that I can see is that one has blond hair and a university degree. Otherwise I see two birds of the same feather and am not enamoured of either,
Yes, rough sleepers are a serious issue. But the big problem is in the many, many more who are vulnerably housed. And his attempt at a stunt today does bugger all to help those.
Rough sleepers need help of a far more complex and tailored kind than simply being given a free house. They each have complicated needs that have created the situation where they are sleeping on the streets and they will not be helped by giving them a house each.
Corbyn's simplistic populism will do nothing to address the real issues surrounding housing inequality. And it shows the limited level of thinking to which he aspires.
It is as laughable as Williamson's assertion on QT on Thursday.
PS As I understand it there's no question of "giving them to the homeless" - they'd be rented.
Tabàrnia (= mashup of Tarragona and Barcelona) is a hypothetical statelet comprising those comarques that voted for anti-separatist parties in the last election.
Catalan separatists have no answers as their opponents turn their arguments for leaving Spain against them, arguing for Tabàrnia's independence from Catalonia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-42777496
Tricky. Gove or Hunt.
I have long rated him as a thoughtful reformer - even though he does lack warmth and empathy.
He does know his mind and what he wants - with the right team around him, he could deliver
Johnson on the other hand has shown himself time and time again to be utterly self-absorbed, coasting on his wit and connections.
They are both shits, but shits of a different kind.
In retrospect, the reshuffle will be seen as critical. She had the opportunity to chasten Johnson and probably remove Hammond. She had the chance to promote the young Turks.
By failing to do any of this, she’s letting Johnson position himself as the voice of the hungry younger generation of Tory MPs.
If she walked, Hague, Howard or (at a push) Liddington could maybe stand in? But I'd be very surprised.