King Cole, there are some revisionists who think that John being talented at extortion makes up for him being an extortionist. And torturing prisoners (including women/children). And being a bit rapey. And incompetent at war, losing all the continental possessions he inherited. And so hated by his own side they invited the French to invade. And treacherous against his brother, and father (both royal predecessors). And committing nepocide.
tbf he was the first King of England that spent his reign in, er, England. And hence made a nuisance of himself. Not 100% sure that any other king at that time, if confined to barracks, would not equally have made himself hugely unpopular.
Violent acts? Which king of the time, and before and since, up until, oh I don't know, the Hanovers, didn't?
One for the engineering geek. Below is a photo of the mandrel that SpaceX will be using to create the carbon-fibre tanks for their BFS spaceship.
www.instagram.com/p/BhVk3y3A0yB/
It's certainly big!
Is that a Tesla by any chance? Elon doesn't miss the opportunity for some cross promotional PR.
Well, he wouldn't use another car, would he!
Though the style of SpaceX cars - aside from the original LotusRoadster, leaves me a little cold. They're not sexy.
What's wrong with one of these?
I once saw a little railway permanent way trolley (Wickham) that had been fitted with an engine from one of those. even that puny engine rather overpowered the brakes!
Although now not dissimiliar to Saturn V/SLS thrust, the true beauty of the BFS 'system' is the in-orbit fuelling and reusability.
Yep. von Braun had plans for Saturn V reuse as well, and Boeing considered a version with wings that would fly back! But the US were not interested - the mission had been accomplished.
AIUI (and IANAE) the BFS' Achilles heel is that it is fairly inefficient when it comes to deep space travel: it is a system mainly designed to get things efficiently off Earth and into LEO. To be good in deep space, you need to use liquid hydrogen/oxygen - as the SLS and (as recently announced) the New Glenn second stage.
One for the engineering geek. Below is a photo of the mandrel that SpaceX will be using to create the carbon-fibre tanks for their BFS spaceship.
www.instagram.com/p/BhVk3y3A0yB/
It's certainly big!
Is that a Tesla by any chance? Elon doesn't miss the opportunity for some cross promotional PR.
Well, he wouldn't use another car, would he!
Though the style of SpaceX cars - aside from the original LotusRoadster, leaves me a little cold. They're not sexy.
What's wrong with one of these?
I once saw a little railway permanent way trolley (Wickham) that had been fitted with an engine from one of those. even that puny engine rather overpowered the brakes!
Although now not dissimiliar to Saturn V/SLS thrust, the true beauty of the BFS 'system' is the in-orbit fuelling and reusability.
Yep. von Braun had plans for Saturn V reuse as well, and Boeing considered a version with wings that would fly back! But the US were not interested - the mission had been accomplished.
AIUI (and IANAE) the BFS' Achilles heel is that it is fairly inefficient when it comes to deep space travel: it is a system mainly designed to get things efficiently off Earth and into LEO. To be good in deep space, you need to use liquid hydrogen/oxygen - as the SLS and (as recently announced) the New Glenn second stage.
There was a plan kicking around to partially fit out the tanks for use as a large (compared to what there was then) LEO space station - with the remainder of the necessary kit sent up later and installed on site. It's probably not worth it now- if you want a big station then the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable station stuff seems like a better idea.
Mr. Topping, John spent time in England because he'd lost the possessions overseas and found it difficult to persuade others to follow him to reclaim them due to a combination of alienating the nobility and being mediocre (at best) at war. Congratulating him for being in England, as compared to immediate predecessors, is like praising a man for being faithful to his wife, having crashed his boat and marooned the pair of them on a desert island.
And I didn't chastise him for violent acts, but for torturing prisoners, including women and children by starving them to death, and committing rape. Edward III (despite one scurrilous rumour) did no such thing (certainly for the latter, and I believe for the former also).
If, as we're all agreed, Jezza is the worst political leader in the history of everything, then Theresa's ratings really are supremely shit.
No he isn't.
The Marquis of Granby and the Viscount Goderich were both considerably worse than Jezza.
Not to be confined to one party, convincing cases could be made for Arthur Henderson, Lord Rosebery and Herbert Asquith as well.
You're being unfair on Henderson, apart from his unwillingness to stand down after losing his seat. Also, his first two terms as leader were critical in establishing Labour as a permanent, meaningful parliamentary force and in taking Labour into government at a time when to have stood back on pacifist grounds - as MacDonald did - could have destroyed the movement.
Lansbury was worse.
I thought he had suffered the greatest net loss of seats by any leader in the history of British politics. On a careful check I am wrong and his disaster was only the greatest in the age of universal suffrage (Balfour having done slightly worse in 1906).
I appreciate however that wasn't altogether his fault.
Mr. Topping, John spent time in England because he'd lost the possessions overseas and found it difficult to persuade others to follow him to reclaim them due to a combination of alienating the nobility and being mediocre (at best) at war. Congratulating him for being in England, as compared to immediate predecessors, is like praising a man for being faithful to his wife, having crashed his boat and marooned the pair of them on a desert island.
And I didn't chastise him for violent acts, but for torturing prisoners, including women and children by starving them to death, and committing rape. Edward III (despite one scurrilous rumour) did no such thing (certainly for the latter, and I believe for the former also).
Morris I am not praising him or criticising him for being in England, I am saying just that he was in England (because as you say he managed to lose most of his continental possessions) whereas previous monarchs (well, after William) had not been there for very much of the time at all and hence, the barons got to see more of him and all wealth extraction, and territorial shenanigans, and general kingly activities had to happen domestically and hence the barons got mightily pissed off.
If, as we're all agreed, Jezza is the worst political leader in the history of everything, then Theresa's ratings really are supremely shit.
No he isn't.
The Marquis of Granby and the Viscount Goderich were both considerably worse than Jezza.
Not to be confined to one party, convincing cases could be made for Arthur Henderson, Lord Rosebery and Herbert Asquith as well.
You're being unfair on Henderson, apart from his unwillingness to stand down after losing his seat. Also, his first two terms as leader were critical in establishing Labour as a permanent, meaningful parliamentary force and in taking Labour into government at a time when to have stood back on pacifist grounds - as MacDonald did - could have destroyed the movement.
Lansbury was worse.
I thought he had suffered the greatest net loss of seats by any leader in the history of British politics. On a careful check I am wrong and his disaster was only the greatest in the age of universal suffrage (Balfour having done slightly worse in 1906).
I appreciate however that wasn't altogether his fault.
"Hospital pass" doesn't even begin to describe it! (And to be fair, Labour still polled more than 30%).
Mr. Doethur, I'm unfamiliar with Richard III/Henry VI. I think the early 15th century is quite modern enough.
Mr. Topping, neither of John's immediate predecessors were so unpopular as him. His presence appears to have been more a cause of concern than delight.
If, as we're all agreed, Jezza is the worst political leader in the history of everything, then Theresa's ratings really are supremely shit.
No he isn't.
The Marquis of Granby and the Viscount Goderich were both considerably worse than Jezza.
Not to be confined to one party, convincing cases could be made for Arthur Henderson, Lord Rosebery and Herbert Asquith as well.
You're being unfair on Henderson, apart from his unwillingness to stand down after losing his seat. Also, his first two terms as leader were critical in establishing Labour as a permanent, meaningful parliamentary force and in taking Labour into government at a time when to have stood back on pacifist grounds - as MacDonald did - could have destroyed the movement.
Lansbury was worse.
I thought he had suffered the greatest net loss of seats by any leader in the history of British politics. On a careful check I am wrong and his disaster was only the greatest in the age of universal suffrage (Balfour having done slightly worse in 1906).
I appreciate however that wasn't altogether his fault.
"Hospital pass" doesn't even begin to describe it! (And to be fair, Labour still polled more than 30%).
Are you saying he was 1% better than Gordon Brown? Because that's hardly a high bar...
Mr. Topping, neither of John's immediate predecessors were so unpopular as him. His presence appears to have been more a cause of concern than delight.
There was a plan kicking around to partially fit out the tanks for use as a large (compared to what there was then) LEO space station - with the remainder of the necessary kit sent up later and installed on site. It's probably not worth it now- if you want a big station then the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable station stuff seems like a better idea.
That was the wet-lab Skylab proposal; in the end they went for a dry-lab.
(A wet-lab is a used rocket stage that is lifted further into orbit and fitted out. A dry-lab is a stage that is kitted out on Earth and sent up 'dry' without fuel - AIUI dry labs are smaller, but require much less work on orbit to get operational. And Skylab was *huge* despite being a dry-lab in a Saturn IV-B stage).
There were also proposals for the same thing to happen to a Shuttle External Tank, a proposal which failed for a number of reasons. But the tank got almost to orbital speed before it was jettisoned, so would not have required much extra ooomph to get it into orbit. See http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ssi_externaltanks_gimarc.pdf
Mr. Urquhart, cheers for that information. Hope they make a success of it.
Mr. Doethur, well, not read anything on Henry V's reign either (excluding general Hundred Years' War stuff).
The Hitman game is brilliant and I really liked the episodic release, but it seemed to go down like a bucket of cold sick with the gaming community. Also I noticed that none of the big twitch streamers played it on release and these days that drives a huge amount of interest in games.
I would have thought that Square Enix could have afforded to pay a handful of the big Twitch variety streamers to play it one day a month, as it is the sort of puzzly type game that will easily fill 6-8hrs of time just for one level.
Those leadership ratings may be about to take another hit:
twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/983341751569211392
All that is missing is....there are good people on all sides....
I'm sure Mrs Assad is charming.
Well Jezza should know,
I think that's Baroness Tongue rather than his wife to be honest.
I didn't say / think that was his wife in the photo.
Mrs Assad is by all accounts a very impressive lady. Highly educated and was very successful in her own right, investment banking I believe. Then she married Mr Assad, gave it all up and now props up the vicious murdering dictator.
The things we do for love, eh?
Presumably gassing women and children were left out of the song because they didn't scan so well.
King John was worse. It is hard to find anyone quite so bad. Collectively, the Angeli dynasty might be a good comparison.
I'm intrigued you put him below Richard III (who was basically similar in most crucial ways but didn't have the throne as long) or Henry VI.
How very dare you I follow Josephine Tey in my assessment of Richard III
I thought these days it was Philippa Langley, gazing dreamily into the eyes of his reconstructed skull and saying 'that's not the face of a tyrant, I'm sorry but it's not' as she patently falls in love with it/him live on air...
King John was worse. It is hard to find anyone quite so bad. Collectively, the Angeli dynasty might be a good comparison.
I'm intrigued you put him below Richard III (who was basically similar in most crucial ways but didn't have the throne as long) or Henry VI.
How very dare you I follow Josephine Tey in my assessment of Richard III
I thought these days it was Philippa Langley, gazing dreamily into the eyes of his reconstructed skull and saying 'that's not the face of a tyrant, I'm sorry but it's not' as she patently falls in love with it/him live on air...
Has she done anything else apart from her “project”?
King John was worse. It is hard to find anyone quite so bad. Collectively, the Angeli dynasty might be a good comparison.
I'm intrigued you put him below Richard III (who was basically similar in most crucial ways but didn't have the throne as long) or Henry VI.
How very dare you I follow Josephine Tey in my assessment of Richard III
I thought these days it was Philippa Langley, gazing dreamily into the eyes of his reconstructed skull and saying 'that's not the face of a tyrant, I'm sorry but it's not' as she patently falls in love with it/him live on air...
Has she done anything else apart from her “project”?
She wrote a book on it, although I haven't read it.
In private life I believe she's a TV producer for BBC Scotland, although I could be wrong.
For those of us who confront anti-semitism it is important that the Tory Foreign Secretary has just licked the arse of an anti-semite in Hungary and has received so little criticism,as he did not when he spoke of "water melon smiles".The UK has a racist and anti-semite as Foreign Secretary.Not in my name. May must sack him for this.
For those of us who confront anti-semitism it is important that the Tory Foreign Secretary has just licked the arse of an anti-semite in Hungary and has received so little criticism,as he did not when he spoke of "water melon smiles".The UK has a racist and anti-semite as Foreign Secretary.Not in my name. May must sack him for this.
The lead: There were 6,555 Britons who acquired citizenship in another EU country in 2016, compared to 2,478 in 2015 — an increase of 165 per cent.
And at the bottom of the article: the number of individuals from all countries seeking a British passport also rose by 27 per cent year-on-year to 149,372 in 2016
People voted to Leave, not to Maybe Leave. Not only that, we wouldn't be having these calls* for another vote a few years after having had one, if Remain had won. The barrier for Leave being higher than Remain is one reason why people are so sceptical, and voted to leave (because they feared they'd never have another opportunity). If we'd been granted the referendum on Lisbon every party promised we could have put the brakes on the eurobus. Instead our options were to jump out or career over the cliff.
*Ok, the odd hardliner, but they wouldn't be so widespread.
Both May and Corbyn agree that it is, so with the exception of the unlikely event of Corbyn being replaced as Labour leader by 2022 or the Tories picking a diehard Remainer to succeed May regardless of who wins the next general election Brexit means Brexit
King John was worse. It is hard to find anyone quite so bad. Collectively, the Angeli dynasty might be a good comparison.
I'm intrigued you put him below Richard III (who was basically similar in most crucial ways but didn't have the throne as long) or Henry VI.
How very dare you I follow Josephine Tey in my assessment of Richard III
I thought these days it was Philippa Langley, gazing dreamily into the eyes of his reconstructed skull and saying 'that's not the face of a tyrant, I'm sorry but it's not' as she patently falls in love with it/him live on air...
Has she done anything else apart from her “project”?
She wrote a book on it, although I haven't read it.
In private life I believe she's a TV producer for BBC Scotland, although I could be wrong.
She will have plenty of time for writing then , given how little they produce.
Given how much is at stake, it is reasonable to expect Theresa May to sound confident that Brexit is the best available path for the country, but she cannot. She says instead that it is the only path, of which the best must be made. In an interview last week, she declined to say it would be “worth it”. She has never repudiated her vote for remain and refuses to say how she would vote in a hypothetical rerun.
A more devious politician would simply pretend to be more enthusiastic. But May is no actor. She is a devout Christian, a clergyman’s daughter, which helps explain, I think, her ability to sustain total devotion to a plan, regardless of its material impact on the country. She finds comfort in submission to duty on a plane above the grubby temporal realm of economics and trade.
King John was worse. It is hard to find anyone quite so bad. Collectively, the Angeli dynasty might be a good comparison.
I'm intrigued you put him below Richard III (who was basically similar in most crucial ways but didn't have the throne as long) or Henry VI.
How very dare you I follow Josephine Tey in my assessment of Richard III
I thought these days it was Philippa Langley, gazing dreamily into the eyes of his reconstructed skull and saying 'that's not the face of a tyrant, I'm sorry but it's not' as she patently falls in love with it/him live on air...
Has she done anything else apart from her “project”?
She wrote a book on it, although I haven't read it.
In private life I believe she's a TV producer for BBC Scotland, although I could be wrong.
She will have plenty of time for writing then , given how little they produce.
If she never produces another thing, her performance in The King in the Car Park was one of the great comic turns of all time, although Johanna Haminga upstaged her in a brief cameo which gave new meaning to the word 'insane'.
People voted to Leave, not to Maybe Leave. Not only that, we wouldn't be having these calls* for another vote a few years after having had one, if Remain had won. The barrier for Leave being higher than Remain is one reason why people are so sceptical, and voted to leave (because they feared they'd never have another opportunity). If we'd been granted the referendum on Lisbon every party promised we could have put the brakes on the eurobus. Instead our options were to jump out or career over the cliff.
*Ok, the odd hardliner, but they wouldn't be so widespread.
I think it’s a storm in a teacup.
In the medium-long term the U.K. will develop a voice, either formal or informal, to have a say in the development of any future EU regulations it may become party to due to our economic and political weight. In other words, the looser associate membership most Britons were really interested in.
I don’t see that as hugely different to the existing set-up, where we are one of 28, albeit we won’t have a formal weighted voting number that’s tallied and declared at the end.
Mr. Doethur, I'm unfamiliar with Richard III/Henry VI. I think the early 15th century is quite modern enough.
Mr. Topping, neither of John's immediate predecessors were so unpopular as him. His presence appears to have been more a cause of concern than delight.
I think Prince Charles will do to the Commonwealth Realms what King John did for his territories in France.
The lead: There were 6,555 Britons who acquired citizenship in another EU country in 2016, compared to 2,478 in 2015 — an increase of 165 per cent.
And at the bottom of the article: the number of individuals from all countries seeking a British passport also rose by 27 per cent year-on-year to 149,372 in 2016
In the medium-long term the U.K. will develop a voice, either formal or informal, to have a say in the development of any future EU regulations it may become party to due to our economic and political weight. In other words, the looser associate membership most Britons were really interested in.
I don’t see that as hugely different to the existing set-up, where we are one of 28, albeit we won’t have a formal weighted voting number that’s tallied and declared at the end.
How much say did we have in the much smaller EEC's policies during the 60s?
Given how much is at stake, it is reasonable to expect Theresa May to sound confident that Brexit is the best available path for the country, but she cannot. She says instead that it is the only path, of which the best must be made. In an interview last week, she declined to say it would be “worth it”. She has never repudiated her vote for remain and refuses to say how she would vote in a hypothetical rerun.
A more devious politician would simply pretend to be more enthusiastic. But May is no actor. She is a devout Christian, a clergyman’s daughter, which helps explain, I think, her ability to sustain total devotion to a plan, regardless of its material impact on the country. She finds comfort in submission to duty on a plane above the grubby temporal realm of economics and trade.
In this case, May's 'higher plane' and 'duty' is to 'democracy'
Mentioning that sent me to Wikipedia to look for other offspring of the manse in Number 10. Recently both May and Brown, of course, and Mrs Thatcher was as good as. Otherwise we need to go back to Bonar Law. Lloyd George's father was a Sunday school teacher which might count.
In the medium-long term the U.K. will develop a voice, either formal or informal, to have a say in the development of any future EU regulations it may become party to due to our economic and political weight. In other words, the looser associate membership most Britons were really interested in.
I don’t see that as hugely different to the existing set-up, where we are one of 28, albeit we won’t have a formal weighted voting number that’s tallied and declared at the end.
How much say did we have in the much smaller EEC's policies during the 60s?
That was then, when we were still operating aspects of imperial preference.
In the medium-long term the U.K. will develop a voice, either formal or informal, to have a say in the development of any future EU regulations it may become party to due to our economic and political weight. In other words, the looser associate membership most Britons were really interested in.
I don’t see that as hugely different to the existing set-up, where we are one of 28, albeit we won’t have a formal weighted voting number that’s tallied and declared at the end.
How much say did we have in the much smaller EEC's policies during the 60s?
That was then, when we were still operating aspects of imperial preference.
The world has moved on.
By implication you think we will remain aligned with the EU anyway, so why would they want to cede any sovereignty to us without the obligations of membership?
Whilst it must be said that King John spent a deal of time within his English realm and watching his treasury sink in the Wash, it should also be noted that the English Kingdom existed prior to King Harold taking one in the eye at Hastings.
Whilst it must be said that King John spent a deal of time within his English realm and watching his treasury sink in the Wash, it should also be noted that the English Kingdom existed prior to King Harold taking one in the eye at Hastings.
And of course the only Stuart who spent all her time in England was Anne...
In the medium-long term the U.K. will develop a voice, either formal or informal, to have a say in the development of any future EU regulations it may become party to due to our economic and political weight. In other words, the looser associate membership most Britons were really interested in.
I don’t see that as hugely different to the existing set-up, where we are one of 28, albeit we won’t have a formal weighted voting number that’s tallied and declared at the end.
How much say did we have in the much smaller EEC's policies during the 60s?
That was then, when we were still operating aspects of imperial preference.
The world has moved on.
By implication you think we will remain aligned with the EU anyway, so why would they want to cede any sovereignty to us without the obligations of membership?
That’s no secret. I’ve said on here since Day Onethat I think we will remain aligned with them in some areas; it’s clear on intercontinental transport, energy and on most goods standards that equivalence will be maintained.
It will be fudged. They will say you have no formal votes, and we won’t. Meanwhile, representatives of our Government and our technocrats will continue to be consulted and involved behind closed doors, and influencing accordingly.
The transition agreement is a canary in the coal mine with respect to this.
I don't see how she would get the votes for it if they were asked.
On leader ratings, it's another reason why Corbyn and his supporters won't care if they drop from the highs of the last year. They were a lot worse before and recovered in a campaign. It's not guaranteed it would happen again, but they have good reason to believe it might.
Whilst it must be said that King John spent a deal of time within his English realm and watching his treasury sink in the Wash, it should also be noted that the English Kingdom existed prior to King Harold taking one in the eye at Hastings.
And of course the only Stuart who spent all her time in England was Anne...
Not so.
As Lady Anne she spent time in the Netherlands and almost a year in Scotland.
Is it huge? Where is rcs when we need him? Since Trump is already budgeting for a trillion dollar deficit, will anyone even notice?
Well yes, Trump is hoping that the Chinese would as usual buy a fairly large proportion of the $1trn of loan notes he intends to issue. If they don't it will cost the US a significant sum because the interest rate price to sell that debt will go up.
In the long run of course this is exactly what the US needs. The way in which China's huge surplus is converted into more treasury debt to fund more consumption and another year of China surplus has probably done more to damage US power than any other event since WW2. It has been truly disastrous for the US.
Whilst it must be said that King John spent a deal of time within his English realm and watching his treasury sink in the Wash, it should also be noted that the English Kingdom existed prior to King Harold taking one in the eye at Hastings.
And of course the only Stuart who spent all her time in England was Anne...
Not so.
As Lady Anne she spent time in the Netherlands and almost a year in Scotland.
Didn't realise she left England while she was queen. That does surprise me.
Re David Herdson’s earlier post on leaders’ ratings: I think William_H has a point. That Corbyn went into that GE with such a low rating, initially indicated that the impression of him was fixed. That the ratings of not only Corbyn but also May changed over campaign, and also since the campaign indicates that the political wisdom that the public makes up its mind about leaders early on does hold this time.
Basing what will happen in 2022 on ratings now is therefore a bit misguided IMO, given we don’t know how (or if) Corbyn’s or May’s (and indeed whoever succeeds her) ratings will change throughout the years. That Corbyn managed to survive all the chaos and turmoil of the 2015-17 period which included a leadership contest, shadow cabinet resignations, scandals on all of his controversial views/associations e.g. Livingstone antisemitism scandal means that we cannot assume that the latest issues with Salisbury and Russia will make a permenant dent in his ratings.
On the issue of a centrist party: I don’t know why people believe that just because it’s a Corbynista dismissing/criticising it, it must be out of fear. Even those such as Jane Merrick (who is pretty much a liberal centrist from what I’ve seen of her views on twitter) don’t buy into this idea that we need a new centrist party. There are two good pieces of analysis here which explain the issues with a new centrist party:
And analysis by Anthony Wells: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9987 Wells notes here the problem of how the commentariat appear to define centrism versus how the public might define it. I was talking to my dad today who reminded me that he sees himself as a centrist, he votes UKIP (or did, anyway - even the incident with Jo Marney was too much for him). He previously voted Labour, is a Brexiteer, cares the most about immigration, hates the Tories, doesn’t think Corbyn is that left and thinks that the recent stories about antisemitism in Labour are a Blairite plot. That certainly isn’t what many see as centrist.
Whilst it must be said that King John spent a deal of time within his English realm and watching his treasury sink in the Wash, it should also be noted that the English Kingdom existed prior to King Harold taking one in the eye at Hastings.
And of course the only Stuart who spent all her time in England was Anne...
Not so.
As Lady Anne she spent time in the Netherlands and almost a year in Scotland.
Didn't realise she left England while she was queen. That does surprise me.
Not as Queen, which is why I noted Anne's style as "Lady Anne".
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
In 66 I believe it was one city, one stadium and Goodison got the nod over Anfield. Would never happen today. At Euro 96 Anfield, Old Trafford, the City Ground and St James’ Park featured, among several others.
Yes I am sure you are right. But Yorkcity is right - lots of great venues in England to stage a World Cup
Really just an idiot. We are way, way past the time of asking for cease fires. Assad has won. It is over. The longer the opposition have any delusions about the west actually helping them the more people will die. Corbyn is completely wrong to say that this will be resolved by everyone getting around the table. It will be resolved by boots, bayonets and bombs on the ground and fairly soon at that. Ultimately, humiliating though it is for the west, any kind of result is probably better than prolonged warfare.
This has been inevitable since the west backed out of backing the opposition and the Russians and Iranians tipped the scales so heavily in Assad's favour. Whether the opposition were people we would really want to win is another very complicated question but it is academic. We made our choice years ago and we have to live with it. Having someone guilty of war crimes win is just salt in the wounds.
You do wonder just how much longer it will be before there is a widespread boycott of the World Cup.
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
The world cup should be held in England , the stadiums are fantastic .
Absolutely
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
Big g , what a great memory .Two of the all time greats.Did you ever see George Best play ?
Yes - throughout all his career. Was a season ticket holder for many years but surrendered it a few years ago but still had the pleasure of several meetings with Fergie and two with my hero, Sir Bobby Charlton.
Shame in the World Cup tie Portugal took out Pele fairly early. He was the most famous footballer in the World at the time
Comments
Violent acts? Which king of the time, and before and since, up until, oh I don't know, the Hanovers, didn't?
AIUI (and IANAE) the BFS' Achilles heel is that it is fairly inefficient when it comes to deep space travel: it is a system mainly designed to get things efficiently off Earth and into LEO. To be good in deep space, you need to use liquid hydrogen/oxygen - as the SLS and (as recently announced) the New Glenn second stage.
And I didn't chastise him for violent acts, but for torturing prisoners, including women and children by starving them to death, and committing rape. Edward III (despite one scurrilous rumour) did no such thing (certainly for the latter, and I believe for the former also).
I appreciate however that wasn't altogether his fault.
He'll hold on to these titles a lot longer than his shadow cabinet position!
JewishZionist stuff, but what is it with the conspiracy theory nutters and Maomentum....Mr. Topping, neither of John's immediate predecessors were so unpopular as him. His presence appears to have been more a cause of concern than delight.
Mr. Doethur, well, not read anything on Henry V's reign either (excluding general Hundred Years' War stuff).
(A wet-lab is a used rocket stage that is lifted further into orbit and fitted out. A dry-lab is a stage that is kitted out on Earth and sent up 'dry' without fuel - AIUI dry labs are smaller, but require much less work on orbit to get operational. And Skylab was *huge* despite being a dry-lab in a Saturn IV-B stage).
There were also proposals for the same thing to happen to a Shuttle External Tank, a proposal which failed for a number of reasons. But the tank got almost to orbital speed before it was jettisoned, so would not have required much extra ooomph to get it into orbit. See
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ssi_externaltanks_gimarc.pdf
I would have thought that Square Enix could have afforded to pay a handful of the big Twitch variety streamers to play it one day a month, as it is the sort of puzzly type game that will easily fill 6-8hrs of time just for one level.
Presumably gassing women and children were left out of the song because they didn't scan so well.
“I think she’s (Maureen Lipman) a great actress, a great comic and I hope she reflects on what she said.”
https://order-order.com/2018/04/09/corbyn-tells-maureen-lipman/
Interesting response.
Maureen you have been very naughty and I think you should go away and think very carefully about what you have said and what you have done wrong...
In private life I believe she's a TV producer for BBC Scotland, although I could be wrong.
Bit difficult painting your opponents as mendacious scumbags when you yourself only publicise one half of your poll.....
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/983381915460886528
May must sack him for this.
https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/983382898454777857
52% of voters voted Leave, less than 50% want a second referendum on this poll
Britons seeking EU citizenship more than doubles
The lead: There were 6,555 Britons who acquired citizenship in another EU country in 2016, compared to 2,478 in 2015 — an increase of 165 per cent.
And at the bottom of the article: the number of individuals from all countries seeking a British passport also rose by 27 per cent year-on-year to 149,372 in 2016
https://www.ft.com/content/6e0dd592-3c05-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4
People voted to Leave, not to Maybe Leave. Not only that, we wouldn't be having these calls* for another vote a few years after having had one, if Remain had won. The barrier for Leave being higher than Remain is one reason why people are so sceptical, and voted to leave (because they feared they'd never have another opportunity). If we'd been granted the referendum on Lisbon every party promised we could have put the brakes on the eurobus. Instead our options were to jump out or career over the cliff.
*Ok, the odd hardliner, but they wouldn't be so widespread.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/983333322955911168
In the 2022 GE Campaign to rejoin. Should be a slam dunk, surely?
Maureen Lipman drops long-standing support for Labour party
The prominent actor said she could not vote for ‘Chuka Harman Burnham Hunt Balls brigade’
Given how much is at stake, it is reasonable to expect Theresa May to sound confident that Brexit is the best available path for the country, but she cannot. She says instead that it is the only path, of which the best must be made. In an interview last week, she declined to say it would be “worth it”. She has never repudiated her vote for remain and refuses to say how she would vote in a hypothetical rerun.
A more devious politician would simply pretend to be more enthusiastic. But May is no actor. She is a devout Christian, a clergyman’s daughter, which helps explain, I think, her ability to sustain total devotion to a plan, regardless of its material impact on the country. She finds comfort in submission to duty on a plane above the grubby temporal realm of economics and trade.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/i-see-no-sign-that-this-politics-of-devotion-is-doing-us-any-good
In this case, May's 'higher plane' and 'duty' is to 'democracy'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/29/maureen-lipman-support-labour
In the medium-long term the U.K. will develop a voice, either formal or informal, to have a say in the development of any future EU regulations it may become party to due to our economic and political weight. In other words, the looser associate membership most Britons were really interested in.
I don’t see that as hugely different to the existing set-up, where we are one of 28, albeit we won’t have a formal weighted voting number that’s tallied and declared at the end.
If you were hoping for “two out of three” you’ve already lost two....
Hope you can get a refund Dr Fox
There may be trouble ahead.....
Did Russia say they would retaliate if USA took action against Syria again?
The world has moved on.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/china-officials-are-said-to-view-treasuries-as-less-attractive
It will be fudged. They will say you have no formal votes, and we won’t. Meanwhile, representatives of our Government and our technocrats will continue to be consulted and involved behind closed doors, and influencing accordingly.
The transition agreement is a canary in the coal mine with respect to this.
On leader ratings, it's another reason why Corbyn and his supporters won't care if they drop from the highs of the last year. They were a lot worse before and recovered in a campaign. It's not guaranteed it would happen again, but they have good reason to believe it might.
As Lady Anne she spent time in the Netherlands and almost a year in Scotland.
In the long run of course this is exactly what the US needs. The way in which China's huge surplus is converted into more treasury debt to fund more consumption and another year of China surplus has probably done more to damage US power than any other event since WW2. It has been truly disastrous for the US.
Basing what will happen in 2022 on ratings now is therefore a bit misguided IMO, given we don’t know how (or if) Corbyn’s or May’s (and indeed whoever succeeds her) ratings will change throughout the years. That Corbyn managed to survive all the chaos and turmoil of the 2015-17 period which included a leadership contest, shadow cabinet resignations, scandals on all of his controversial views/associations e.g. Livingstone antisemitism scandal means that we cannot assume that the latest issues with Salisbury and Russia will make a permenant dent in his ratings.
On the issue of a centrist party: I don’t know why people believe that just because it’s a Corbynista dismissing/criticising it, it must be out of fear. Even those such as Jane Merrick (who is pretty much a liberal centrist from what I’ve seen of her views on twitter) don’t buy into this idea that we need a new centrist party. There are two good pieces of analysis here which explain the issues with a new centrist party:
Thread here: https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/982720849408155648?s=20
(Which points out, as Stephen Bush did yesterday that there are many more voters of an authoritarian nature who feel underrepresented than there are centrists).
And analysis by Anthony Wells: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9987
Wells notes here the problem of how the commentariat appear to define centrism versus how the public might define it. I was talking to my dad today who reminded me that he sees himself as a centrist, he votes UKIP (or did, anyway - even the incident with Jo Marney was too much for him). He previously voted Labour, is a Brexiteer, cares the most about immigration, hates the Tories, doesn’t think Corbyn is that left and thinks that the recent stories about antisemitism in Labour are a Blairite plot. That certainly isn’t what many see as centrist.
I went to see Brazil v Portugal at Goodison last time - Pele v Eusebio.
This has been inevitable since the west backed out of backing the opposition and the Russians and Iranians tipped the scales so heavily in Assad's favour. Whether the opposition were people we would really want to win is another very complicated question but it is academic. We made our choice years ago and we have to live with it. Having someone guilty of war crimes win is just salt in the wounds.
Shame in the World Cup tie Portugal took out Pele fairly early. He was the most famous footballer in the World at the time