Mr. Pulpstar, I learnt it at school (A-level in Religious Studies).
Don't have my school books to hand, as you might expect. Checking Wikipedia, this is under the Revelations section: "The Quran (literally, "Recitation") is viewed by Muslims as the final revelation and literal word of God..."
That's a literalist/fundamentalist perspective of the Quran and, I believe, the position held by the vast majority of Muslims.
Later, in the Sunni section: "Traditionalist theology is characterized by its adherence to a literal understanding of the Quran and the Sunnah, the belief in the Quran to be uncreated and eternal, and opposes reason (kalam) in religious matters"
Many Christians, particularly fundamentalists, believe in the literal truth of the Holy Bible, not just the New Testament, but also the old. Suggesting that all Muslims think homosexuals should be thrown off tall buildings is really as silly as suggesting large numbers of Christians believe blasphemers should be stoned.
However, there *are* plenty of muslims who will actively campaign against homosexuality in aggressive and intimidating ways. I don't think there are that many Christians who would campaign in like manner against taking God's name in vain.
I guess you don't remember when Monty Python brought out a film called "the Life of Brian" then?
Remember it well. All those members of the Methodists and the United Reformed Church blowing up parliament, beheading film stars and stabbing policemen. Who could possibly forget it.
The most celebrated attempt to blow up Parliament was by Catholic militants IIRC.
It was a fawkes terrrorist. His hands were not Guyded properly.
I’m sure he was wracked with guilt
Really? I thought they used the Duke of Exeter's Daughter.
Apparently she was notorious for her hard screwing.
I think you’re stretching the truth until it hangs by a thread. To draw it out, you’re giving it no quarter
As you should know, I always look for a twist in these punning contests.
Mr. Thompson, the clear majority of Muslims are fundamentalists. I don't say that in a pejorative way, only in reference to their approach to religious books. Biblical fundamentalists (and literalists, who are almost identical) are in a minority compared to conservatives (a term which journalists abuse and misuse all the time...) and liberals. That is not true of Islam.
In the UK? Worldwide?
Either way, I don't think you're right.
Morris Dancer is taking “fundamentalist” to mean “I believe my Holy Book is literally the word of God, beginning to end”. In that respect he is surely right. The whole point of Islam is that you entirely believe in the words of the Prophet, as expressed in the Koran, in a way that is not true of, say, Christians and the Bible, post the Enlightenment
Right. There are some wobbles in Christian countries, see for example the evangelicals in the US, or 20th century Ireland, but in general there is secular government and bible interpretation. Though maybe non-Western Christianity is more literal, if one considers the tensions in the Anglican communion as an example.
I don't think people outside the US realize just how extreme some American evangelicals are, especially the Dominionists. They're not a "wobble"; they're serious, well organized and they want to institute a "Christian" theocracy so extreme it'd make Atwood's Gilead look like Hoxha's Albania. There have been worryingly successful attempts by them in recent years to infiltrate the USAF. Why? Because the USAF run the missile silos and some strands of their thinking equate "Judgement Day" with all-out nuclear war.
They know not to be too open about their extremism though, so they still below most people's radar. The current VP maybe isn't quite as bonkers as some, but he's certainly the most extremist Christian fundamentalist to achieve high office in the US so far. One of the reasons I'm not sure I'd really like to see Trump impeached is that it would put Pence into the Oval Office.
(And the polling in places like Alabama and Mississippi on things like homosexuality would - I suspect - be little different to that of Muslims in the UK.)
Mr. Pulpstar, I learnt it at school (A-level in Religious Studies).
Don't have my school books to hand, as you might expect. Checking Wikipedia, this is under the Revelations section: "The Quran (literally, "Recitation") is viewed by Muslims as the final revelation and literal word of God..."
That's a literalist/fundamentalist perspective of the Quran and, I believe, the position held by the vast majority of Muslims.
Later, in the Sunni section: "Traditionalist theology is characterized by its adherence to a literal understanding of the Quran and the Sunnah, the belief in the Quran to be uncreated and eternal, and opposes reason (kalam) in religious matters"
Many Christians, particularly fundamentalists, believe in the literal truth of the Holy Bible, not just the New Testament, but also the old. Suggesting that all Muslims think homosexuals should be thrown off tall buildings is really as silly as suggesting large numbers of Christians believe blasphemers should be stoned.
However, there *are* plenty of muslims who will actively campaign against homosexuality in aggressive and intimidating ways. I don't think there are that many Christians who would campaign in like manner against taking God's name in vain.
I guess you don't remember when Monty Python brought out a film called "the Life of Brian" then?
Remember it well. All those members of the Methodists and the United Reformed Church blowing up parliament, beheading film stars and stabbing policemen. Who could possibly forget it.
The most celebrated attempt to blow up Parliament was by Catholic militants IIRC.
It was a fawkes terrrorist. His hands were not Guyded properly.
I’m sure he was wracked with guilt
Really? I thought they used the Duke of Exeter's Daughter.
Apparently she was notorious for her hard screwing.
I think you’re stretching the truth until it hangs by a thread. To draw it out, you’re giving it no quarter
As you should know, I always look for a twist in these punning contests.
"Life expectancy falls by six months in biggest drop in UK forecasts Decline in longevity in England and Wales ‘a trend as opposed to a blip’, experts say"
Mr. Thompson, the clear majority of Muslims are fundamentalists. I don't say that in a pejorative way, only in reference to their approach to religious books. Biblical fundamentalists (and literalists, who are almost identical) are in a minority compared to conservatives (a term which journalists abuse and misuse all the time...) and liberals. That is not true of Islam.
How would we measure that?
First, there is the distinction between the cultural Muslims, and the actual Muslims. I have a number of friends who drink and cheerfully describe themselves as unbelieving of God. But who also tick "Islam" on forms asking for their religion.
Secondly, there are those who do believe in God, but aren't exactly that keen on all the rules, and might make it to the Mosque twice a year (usually to keep more religious parents happy). I went to a 60% Muslim school in Bedford, and I have a lot of Facebook friends who'd fall into that category. (And I suspect TSE is in it too.)
Thirdly, there are quite a few different strands of Islamic thought - Sufis, etc. - who don't fit neatly into the categories. The Islam that is practicised in many parts of the world is very different from the Wahhabi version. (I would argue that fundamentalist Islam has arrived as a global problem because Saudi Arabia got oil money and used it to spread their poison.) Simply, it's no coincidence Saudi Arabia is 1% of Muslims, but 50% of Muslim terrorists.
And finally, even among the fundamentalists, there are those who are violent and seek an Islamic celiphate, and those who just want to follow the rules in the Koran and provide for their families.
"In light of the commission coming in, I think we’ve got to put it on hold, see what the commission is going to do. If they are minded to do an investigation, they will have a range of statutory powers to get documents, emails, Whatsapp messages and witnesses, and they will do an investigation that will be completely independent from the Labour party.
So there is no point in me, with my firm of solicitors, coming in and doing exactly the same thing because it won’t carry the same degree of statutory support as the commission has"
Mr. Thompson, the clear majority of Muslims are fundamentalists. I don't say that in a pejorative way, only in reference to their approach to religious books. Biblical fundamentalists (and literalists, who are almost identical) are in a minority compared to conservatives (a term which journalists abuse and misuse all the time...) and liberals. That is not true of Islam.
In the UK? Worldwide?
Either way, I don't think you're right.
Morris Dancer is taking “fundamentalist” to mean “I believe my Holy Book is literally the word of God, beginning to end”. In that respect he is surely right. The whole point of Islam is that you entirely believe in the words of the Prophet, as expressed in the Koran, in a way that is not true of, say, Christians and the Bible, post the Enlightenment
Right. There are some wobbles in Christian countries, see for example the evangelicals in the US, or 20th century Ireland, but in general there is secular government and bible interpretation. Though maybe non-Western Christianity is more literal, if one considers the tensions in the Anglican communion as an example.
I don't think people outside the US realize just how extreme some American evangelicals are, especially the Dominionists. They're not a "wobble"; they're serious, well organized and they want to institute a "Christian" theocracy so extreme it'd make Atwood's Gilead look like Hoxha's Albania. There have been worryingly successful attempts by them in recent years to infiltrate the USAF. Why? Because the USAF run the missile silos and some strands of their thinking equate "Judgement Day" with all-out nuclear war.
They know not to be too open about their extremism though, so they still below most people's radar. The current VP maybe isn't quite as bonkers as some, but he's certainly the most extremist Christian fundamentalist to achieve high office in the US so far. One of the reasons I'm not sure I'd really like to see Trump impeached is that it would put Pence into the Oval Office.
(And the polling in places like Alabama and Mississippi on things like homosexuality would - I suspect - be little different to that of Muslims in the UK.)
The polling results on sibling marriage would differ.
Francois is clearly about to twat Will Self, there. Inches away. I wish he had punched the smug, supercilious c*nt*
*I refer to Will Self, though I accept it is confusing
I am interested to know that Will Self thinks that all anti-semites are Brexit supporters....racists, I can see the rational in that, anti-semites, there are certinaly right-wing ones, but all these ones in the Labour Party are Brexiteers....I find that rather hard to believe.
Mr. Thompson, the clear majority of Muslims are fundamentalists. I don't say that in a pejorative way, only in reference to their approach to religious books. Biblical fundamentalists (and literalists, who are almost identical) are in a minority compared to conservatives (a term which journalists abuse and misuse all the time...) and liberals. That is not true of Islam.
In the UK? Worldwide?
Either way, I don't think you're right.
Morris Dancer is taking “fundamentalist” to mean “I believe my Holy Book is literally the word of God, beginning to end”. In that respect he is surely right. The whole point of Islam is that you entirely believe in the words of the Prophet, as expressed in the Koran, in a way that is not true of, say, Christians and the Bible, post the Enlightenment
Right. There are some wobbles in Christian countries, see for example the evangelicals in the US, or 20th century Ireland, but in general there is secular government and bible interpretation. Though maybe non-Western Christianity is more literal, if one considers the tensions in the Anglican communion as an example.
I don't think people outside the US realize just how extreme some American evangelicals are, especially the Dominionists. They're not a "wobble"; they're serious, well organized and they want to institute a "Christian" theocracy so extreme it'd make Atwood's Gilead look like Hoxha's Albania. There have been worryingly successful attempts by them in recent years to infiltrate the USAF. Why? Because the USAF run the missile silos and some strands of their thinking equate "Judgement Day" with all-out nuclear war.
They know not to be too open about their extremism though, so they still below most people's radar. The current VP maybe isn't quite as bonkers as some, but he's certainly the most extremist Christian fundamentalist to achieve high office in the US so far. One of the reasons I'm not sure I'd really like to see Trump impeached is that it would put Pence into the Oval Office.
(And the polling in places like Alabama and Mississippi on things like homosexuality would - I suspect - be little different to that of Muslims in the UK.)
The polling results on sibling marriage would differ.
In Alabama you don’t need to get married before having sex with your sister?
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
I suspect that, regardless of what happens in terms of remaining/leaving, things are going to be very fraught and bitter for quite some time.
Maybe on here but not out in the real world.
Indeed. I think most people will eventually shrug their shoulders and get on with their lives. Even the word Brexit is verboten in most pub conversations now - people are just bored to tears with it.
What's fascinating is that support for the legality of homosexuality only conclusively broke through the 50% mark in about 2006.
Religiousity has a lot to answer for. I agree with Phillip here - we’d be better off poking fun at religion. But, I’m forever told that I’m not supposed to, for fear of causing offence.
On the “blame game”.. I would be wary if I was an ERG-er relying on the GB public laying it all at Barnier’s and Merkel’s doors.
I think the Tory rhetoric that “the people have given us an instruction and we must implement it” will stick, and either a non-Brexit or suboptimal effects of a hard one will be laid pretty squarely at their door (at least electorally).
Conversely.. I suspect Deal, Corby Deal, Norway, Switzerland and the rest would all count as “box ticked, now get on with the rest of your manifesto”.
As the sane Brexiters are fond of saying... don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
On the “blame game”.. I would be wary if I was an ERG-er relying on the GB public laying it all at Barnier’s and Merkel’s doors.
I think the Tory rhetoric that “the people have given us an instruction and we must implement it” will stick, and either a non-Brexit or suboptimal effects of a hard one will be laid pretty squarely at their door (at least electorally).
Conversely.. I suspect Deal, Corby Deal, Norway, Switzerland and the rest would all count as “box ticked, now get on with the rest of your manifesto”.
As the sane Brexiters are fond of saying... don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
"In light of the commission coming in, I think we’ve got to put it on hold, see what the commission is going to do. If they are minded to do an investigation, they will have a range of statutory powers to get documents, emails, Whatsapp messages and witnesses, and they will do an investigation that will be completely independent from the Labour party.
So there is no point in me, with my firm of solicitors, coming in and doing exactly the same thing because it won’t carry the same degree of statutory support as the commission has"
Oh no! Is he not going to be an 'Antisemitism Surveillance Commissioner' after all?
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
I am interested to know that Will Self thinks that all anti-semites are Brexit supporters....racists, I can see the rational in that, anti-semites, there are certinaly right-wing ones, but all these ones in the Labour Party are Brexiteers....I find that rather hard to believe.
The hard left are for Brexit. Many hard left policies are against EU rules.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
That's 'humankind' Mr Baddiel. And on International Women's Day too!
(Incidentally, I was in a meeting today - 17 men and 1 woman!)
I had a meeting today with my chairman/ceo and vice chairman.
5 minutes to get the ceo to agree to do what I needed
I then had to sit through 25 minutes of them talking about college football and games they remember from the early 80s...
I am scheduling a conference call with all my editors, publicists, agents, re a long dispute over the title of my next thriller. Chances are high I will be the only male in 6-8 people.
Some industries are already dominated by women, some aren’t. Degree results imply the female takeover of higher echelons will continue, and spread. That’s fair enough if girls work harder etc. But should we really be engineering society to ensure ALL industries are female-dominated? I have two daughters, i guess it suits me. But what about those with sons?
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
The 1922 banged the desks in support after Theresa May stuffed up GE2017. Incredible.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
How she achieved high office will be one of the puzzles of our era.
Even when I find myself sort-of admiring her, just for surviving and being stubborn, she does or says something seriously cringeworthy (and often against the national interest) and I go back to quietly despising her all over again. I am sure she is a lovely person, as a person, but OMFG
That's 'humankind' Mr Baddiel. And on International Women's Day too!
(Incidentally, I was in a meeting today - 17 men and 1 woman!)
I had a meeting today with my chairman/ceo and vice chairman.
5 minutes to get the ceo to agree to do what I needed
I then had to sit through 25 minutes of them talking about college football and games they remember from the early 80s...
I am scheduling a conference call with all my editors, publicists, agents, re a long dispute over the title of my next thriller. Chances are high I will be the only male in 6-8 people.
Some industries are already dominated by women, some aren’t. Degree results imply the female takeover of higher echelons will continue, and spread. That’s fair enough if girls work harder etc. But should we really be engineering society to ensure ALL industries are female-dominated? I have two daughters, i guess it suits me. But what about those with sons?
I'm not sure if supporting WISE purely because one would rather be in an office full of babes than gammons is in the true spirit of things, but is it OK to consider this as a fringe benefit?
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Her husband is an investment manager. Must be quite helpful for him to have a wife so nicely placed to know what is likely to happen next at Westminster.
That's 'humankind' Mr Baddiel. And on International Women's Day too!
(Incidentally, I was in a meeting today - 17 men and 1 woman!)
I had a meeting today with my chairman/ceo and vice chairman.
5 minutes to get the ceo to agree to do what I needed
I then had to sit through 25 minutes of them talking about college football and games they remember from the early 80s...
I am scheduling a conference call with all my editors, publicists, agents, re a long dispute over the title of my next thriller. Chances are high I will be the only male in 6-8 people.
Some industries are already dominated by women, some aren’t. Degree results imply the female takeover of higher echelons will continue, and spread. That’s fair enough if girls work harder etc. But should we really be engineering society to ensure ALL industries are female-dominated? I have two daughters, i guess it suits me. But what about those with sons?
What about them? Are you saying that women bosses prevent men from being promoted?
Ok. They are not striking they are working to rule.
Which means interviewing ever passenger on where they live, why they are travelling, how long they have been in France, do you have anything to declare and what do you mean no alcohol or tobacco.
You can imagine how long that takes - presumably to demonstrate they need more staff
Quick question. As many here know, I have £500 riding on a Mar 29 departure. It was placed as an insurance policy against "no deal". At the time I thought the probability of delay-followed-by-no-deal was negligible, but that appears to be an underestimate:despite @Big_G_NorthWales sanguinity. What bets are there that would enable me to hedge against delay-followed-by-no-deal?
Just lay off the bet; we aren't going to be leaving on Mar 29 and aren't going to be leaving without a deal.
Thank you for the response, but my bank account requires something more bet-y.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Mr. Thompson, the clear majority of Muslims are fundamentalists. I don't say that in a pejorative way, only in reference to their approach to religious books. Biblical fundamentalists (and literalists, who are almost identical) are in a minority compared to conservatives (a term which journalists abuse and misuse all the time...) and liberals. That is not true of Islam.
How would we measure that?
First, there is the distinction between the cultural Muslims, and the actual Muslims. I have a number of friends who drink and cheerfully describe themselves as unbelieving of God. But who also tick "Islam" on forms asking for their religion.
Secondly, there are those who do believe in God, but aren't exactly that keen on all the rules, and might make it to the Mosque twice a year (usually to keep more religious parents happy). I went to a 60% Muslim school in Bedford, and I have a lot of Facebook friends who'd fall into that category. (And I suspect TSE is in it too.)
Thirdly, there are quite a few different strands of Islamic thought - Sufis, etc. - who don't fit neatly into the categories. The Islam that is practicised in many parts of the world is very different from the Wahhabi version. (I would argue that fundamentalist Islam has arrived as a global problem because Saudi Arabia got oil money and used it to spread their poison.) Simply, it's no coincidence Saudi Arabia is 1% of Muslims, but 50% of Muslim terrorists.
And finally, even among the fundamentalists, there are those who are violent and seek an Islamic celiphate, and those who just want to follow the rules in the Koran and provide for their families.
A big majority of Muslims disapprove of terrorism in general and ISIS in particular, but attitudes to sharia law vary enormously by country.
My impression has always been that there are as many shades of Islam with as many degrees of extremism (or non extremism) as there are in Christianity. It shouldn't need saying but it clearly does, to attack all Muslims for what is either believed or done by the extremists is like attacking all Christians for what is believed or done by the Westboro Baptist Church.
That said of course, as a staunch atheist I think all religion is pretty pointless. But if we got rid of all the pointless things in the world it would be a very boring place.
Quick question. As many here know, I have £500 riding on a Mar 29 departure. It was placed as an insurance policy against "no deal". At the time I thought the probability of delay-followed-by-no-deal was negligible, but that appears to be an underestimate:despite @Big_G_NorthWales sanguinity. What bets are there that would enable me to hedge against delay-followed-by-no-deal?
The delay followed by no deal scenario almost certainly means a short delay in which we don't take part in the European elections, so if you can bet on the length of the extension or whether we take part in the elections that might be a way to hedge it.
That's 'humankind' Mr Baddiel. And on International Women's Day too!
(Incidentally, I was in a meeting today - 17 men and 1 woman!)
I had a meeting today with my chairman/ceo and vice chairman.
5 minutes to get the ceo to agree to do what I needed
I then had to sit through 25 minutes of them talking about college football and games they remember from the early 80s...
I am scheduling a conference call with all my editors, publicists, agents, re a long dispute over the title of my next thriller. Chances are high I will be the only male in 6-8 people.
Some industries are already dominated by women, some aren’t. Degree results imply the female takeover of higher echelons will continue, and spread. That’s fair enough if girls work harder etc. But should we really be engineering society to ensure ALL industries are female-dominated? I have two daughters, i guess it suits me. But what about those with sons?
Women are unlikely to ever dominate all industries, for starters as most will still have babies and need jobs with flexi time
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
Stewart is very good but ultimately faced with lengthy extension and potential EUref2 or BINO I think most of the ERG will cave and with a few Labour MPs from Leave seats backing the Deal too, the Deal will scrape home
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
And that will all be worthless if May cannot secure Brexit.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
And that will all be worthless if May cannot secure Brexit.
It will not be May not securing Brexit, she has a Deal to enable Brexit, it will be a majority of MPs voting against her Deal and for lengthy extension of Article 50 and EUref2 or BINO to avoid No Deal
Arron Banks is a distraction imo, unless he can be tied to Russia. Foreign interference, misuse of personal data, appalling campaigning: there are far more important issues than some clown with deep pockets. I'd wager Leave would have won more easily without Banks and Farage.
That's 'humankind' Mr Baddiel. And on International Women's Day too!
(Incidentally, I was in a meeting today - 17 men and 1 woman!)
I had a meeting today with my chairman/ceo and vice chairman.
5 minutes to get the ceo to agree to do what I needed
I then had to sit through 25 minutes of them talking about college football and games they remember from the early 80s...
I am scheduling a conference call with all my editors, publicists, agents, re a long dispute over the title of my next thriller. Chances are high I will be the only male in 6-8 people.
Some industries are already dominated by women, some aren’t. Degree results imply the female takeover of higher echelons will continue, and spread. That’s fair enough if girls work harder etc. But should we really be engineering society to ensure ALL industries are female-dominated? I have two daughters, i guess it suits me. But what about those with sons?
What about them? Are you saying that women bosses prevent men from being promoted?
Derr. No. I SPECIFICALLY said that women are already dominant in some industries - e.g, mine, publishing - and this dominance will only spread as women get better educational qualifications (which they do). I then SPECIFICALLY said “that’s fair eniough if girls work harder etc”
Can you read? Did you manage to read that bit?
My question was whether it is morally correct to help women, and deliberately hinder men, when it is clear that western women are already doing better, in most ways, than men, and will continue to outpace them, as things stand. If I had sons I would seriously query this attitude
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
And that will all be worthless if May cannot secure Brexit.
It will not be May not securing Brexit, she has a Deal to enable Brexit, it will be a majority of MPs voting for lengthy extension of Article 50 and EUref2 or BINO to avoid No Deal
Which may have something to do with May being utterly incapable of selling her deal.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
And that will all be worthless if May cannot secure Brexit.
It will not be May not securing Brexit, she has a Deal to enable Brexit, it will be a majority of MPs voting for lengthy extension of Article 50 and EUref2 or BINO to avoid No Deal
Which may have something to do with May being utterly incapable of selling her deal.
The ERG were never going to allow any compromise with the EU whoever was PM, what May is sensibly now doing is forcing the ERG to either accept her Deal or risk no Brexit at all, rather like a mother telling her unruly children you may want steak and chips but it is chicken and boiled potatoes for you tonight otherwise no dinner at all
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
That's 'humankind' Mr Baddiel. And on International Women's Day too!
(Incidentally, I was in a meeting today - 17 men and 1 woman!)
I had a meeting today with my chairman/ceo and vice chairman.
5 minutes to get the ceo to agree to do what I needed
I then had to sit through 25 minutes of them talking about college football and games they remember from the early 80s...
I am scheduling a conference call with all my editors, publicists, agents, re a long dispute over the title of my next thriller. Chances are high I will be the only male in 6-8 people.
Some industries are already dominated by women, some aren’t. Degree results imply the female takeover of higher echelons will continue, and spread. That’s fair enough if girls work harder etc. But should we really be engineering society to ensure ALL industries are female-dominated? I have two daughters, i guess it suits me. But what about those with sons?
What about them? Are you saying that women bosses prevent men from being promoted?
Derr. No. I SPECIFICALLY said that women are already dominant in some industries - e.g, mine, publishing - and this dominance will only spread as women get better educational qualifications (which they do). I then SPECIFICALLY said “that’s fair eniough if girls work harder etc”
Can you read? Did you manage to read that bit?
My question was whether it is morally correct to help women, and deliberately hinder men, when it is clear that western women are already doing better, in most ways, than men, and will continue to outpace them, as things stand. If I had sons I would seriously query this attitude
If you're interested, medical statistics is majority female.
That's 'humankind' Mr Baddiel. And on International Women's Day too!
(Incidentally, I was in a meeting today - 17 men and 1 woman!)
I had a meeting today with my chairman/ceo and vice chairman.
5 minutes to get the ceo to agree to do what I needed
I then had to sit through 25 minutes of them talking about college football and games they remember from the early 80s...
I am scheduling a conference call with all my editors, publicists, agents, re a long dispute over the title of my next thriller. Chances are high I will be the only male in 6-8 people.
Some industries are already dominated by women, some aren’t. Degree results imply the female takeover of higher echelons will continue, and spread. That’s fair enough if girls work harder etc. But should we really be engineering society to ensure ALL industries are female-dominated? I have two daughters, i guess it suits me. But what about those with sons?
What about them? Are you saying that women bosses prevent men from being promoted?
Derr. No. I SPECIFICALLY said that women are already dominant in some industries - e.g, mine, publishing - and this dominance will only spread as women get better educational qualifications (which they do). I then SPECIFICALLY said “that’s fair eniough if girls work harder etc”
Can you read? Did you manage to read that bit?
My question was whether it is morally correct to help women, and deliberately hinder men, when it is clear that western women are already doing better, in most ways, than men, and will continue to outpace them, as things stand. If I had sons I would seriously query this attitude
Keep your hair on, my friend. I am still confused what your point is. How is it that men are being deliberately hindered? Boys and girls get the same educational opportunities, and it's hardly the girls' fault that they work harder than the boys and get better grades and more qualifications. Still, when averaged across all subjects the balance is probably about 60% girls 40% boys (guesstimate), so there are still millions of well-qualified young men coming into the employment market.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Cameron achieved over 40% in the polls in 2008 and 2009 and it didn't do him much good as he failed to get an overall majority in 2010, nor did it do much good for May when she (The Tories) were 20 points plus ahead in 2017 and yet lost her overall majority .
All this shows is how gullible people are to believe them!
I also think comparing an opposition party after many years in power to a PM in power is also a fools errand. It is a completely different dynamic and if a moderate Labour leader was in situ I suspect we would be witnessing similar opinion polls to those in the run up to 1997, Labour would be on 50% plus!
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
One rule for the Saxe-Coburgs Windsors, one rule for the plebs.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
One rule for the Saxe-Coburgs Windsors, one rule for the plebs.
Depends how rich the plebs are, though there is a danger of Meghan becoming Wallace Simpson to Kate's Queen Mother, the rumour is there is little love lost between them
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Very astute. I’ve also noticed that the Nepalese have amazing teeth. Beautiful white American-type smiles, without the super expensive dentistry. Even the poorest (in a very poor country) generally have beautiful orthodontic smiles.
The only kids I met in the countryside who were eating sweets... were chewing stalks of pure sugar cane.
It’s a wonderful country (with lots of problems), with honest, loyal, friendly, handsome people, and I hope to return very soon to see the apparently amazing jungles. And on that note, I must really go to bed. Namaste, PB, Namaste.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Cameron achieved over 40% in the polls in 2008 and 2009 and it didn't do him much good as he failed to get an overall majority in 2010, nor did it do much good for May when she (The Tories) were 20 points plus ahead in 2017 and yet lost her overall majority .
All this shows is how gullible people are to believe them!
I also think comparing an opposition party after many years in power to a PM in power is also a fools errand. It is a completely different dynamic and if a moderate Labour leader was in situ I suspect we would be witnessing similar opinion polls to those in the run up to 1997, Labour would be on 50% plus!
Cameron failed to achieve that 40% though in either 2010 or 2015 but won a majority in 2015 because of the large gap over Labour, hence it is better for May to be on 40% today and 9% ahead of Labour as minor parties eat into the Labour vote than the 42% she was on in 2017 and only 2% ahead of Labour.
You can make hypotheticals but we are where we are with Corbyn Labour leader and likely staying there and for the foreseeable future, of course the SDP reached over 50% in 1981 and if TIG takes off who knows what would happen but for the moment they are still nowhere near that
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Travel by train - he's got a whole private train to himself!
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.
Even a Tory majority of 40 would be the largest Tory majority won at a general election for 32 years
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
One rule for the Saxe-Coburgs Windsors, one rule for the plebs.
Ah Sunil, my yellow pen has been active today: High Wycombe to Aynho Junction
Hickenlooper is more likely to end up being a centrist third party candidate with Kasich in my view if a 'progressive' leftist like Sanders or Warren wins the Democratic nomination than being able to win the nomination himself
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Very astute. I’ve also noticed that the Nepalese have amazing teeth. Beautiful white American-type smiles, without the super expensive dentistry. Even the poorest (in a very poor country) generally have beautiful orthodontic smiles.
The only kids I met in the countryside who were eating sweets... were chewing stalks of pure sugar cane.
It’s a wonderful country (with lots of problems), with honest, loyal, friendly, handsome people, and I hope to return very soon to see the apparently amazing jungles. And on that note, I must really go to bed. Namaste, PB, Namaste.
Nepal is indeed wonderful.
Sometimes poor health can have physical signs.
However deciding that perfectly aligned teeth, high cheekbones, hairless kneecaps, or little fingers with precisely the feng-sui balance to the other fingers is just as bad a judging people by their skin colour. Nepalese people perhaps have good teeth, but the population is so young due to the death rate.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Cameron achieved over 40% in the polls in 2008 and 2009 and it didn't do him much good as he failed to get an overall majority in 2010, nor did it do much good for May when she (The Tories) were 20 points plus ahead in 2017 and yet lost her overall majority .
All this shows is how gullible people are to believe them!
I also think comparing an opposition party after many years in power to a PM in power is also a fools errand. It is a completely different dynamic and if a moderate Labour leader was in situ I suspect we would be witnessing similar opinion polls to those in the run up to 1997, Labour would be on 50% plus!
Cameron failed to achieve that 40% though in either 2010 or 2015 but won a majority in 2015 because of the large gap over Labour, hence it is better for May to be on 40% today and 9% ahead of Labour as minor parties eat into the Labour vote than the 42% she was on in 2017 and only 2% ahead of Labour.
You can make hypotheticals but we are where we are with Corbyn Labour leader and likely staying there and for the foreseeable future, of course the SDP reached over 50% in 1981 and if TIG takes off who knows what happen but for the moment they are still nowhere near that
Despite getting 40% in 2017, Jezza only won four more seats than Gordon did in 2010 on 29%.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.
Even a Tory majority of 40 would be the largest Tory majority won at a general election for 32 years
Indeed - though there is probably quite a bit of downside potential to the 9% lead - which itself is 2% lower than last week's Yougov figure.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Cameron achieved over 40% in the polls in 2008 and 2009 and it didn't do him much good as he failed to get an overall majority in 2010, nor did it do much good for May when she (The Tories) were 20 points plus ahead in 2017 and yet lost her overall majority .
All this shows is how gullible people are to believe them!
I also think comparing an opposition party after many years in power to a PM in power is also a fools errand. It is a completely different dynamic and if a moderate Labour leader was in situ I suspect we would be witnessing similar opinion polls to those in the run up to 1997, Labour would be on 50% plus!
Cameron failed to achieve that 40% though in either 2010 or 2015 but won a majority in 2015 because of the large gap over Labour, hence it is better for May to be on 40% today and 9% ahead of Labour as minor parties eat into the Labour vote than the 42% she was on in 2017 and only 2% ahead of Labour.
You can make hypotheticals but we are where we are with Corbyn Labour leader and likely staying there and for the foreseeable future, of course the SDP reached over 50% in 1981 and if TIG takes off who knows what happen but for the moment they are still nowhere near that
Despite getting 40% in 2017, Jezza only won four more seats than Gordon did in 2010 on 29%.
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.
Even a Tory majority of 40 would be the largest Tory majority won at a general election for 32 years
Indeed - though there is probably quite a bit of downside potential to the 9% lead - which itself is 2% lower than last week's Yougov figure.
It all depends on whether minor party voters go back to Labour or not
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Cameron achieved over 40% in the polls in 2008 and 2009 and it didn't do him much good as he failed to get an overall majority in 2010, nor did it do much good for May when she (The Tories) were 20 points plus ahead in 2017 and yet lost her overall majority .
All this shows is how gullible people are to believe them!
I also think comparing an opposition party after many years in power to a PM in power is also a fools errand. It is a completely different dynamic and if a moderate Labour leader was in situ I suspect we would be witnessing similar opinion polls to those in the run up to 1997, Labour would be on 50% plus!
Cameron failed to achieve that 40% though in either 2010 or 2015 but won a majority in 2015 because of the large gap over Labour, hence it is better for May to be on 40% today and 9% ahead of Labour as minor parties eat into the Labour vote than the 42% she was on in 2017 and only 2% ahead of Labour.
You can make hypotheticals but we are where we are with Corbyn Labour leader and likely staying there and for the foreseeable future, of course the SDP reached over 50% in 1981 and if TIG takes off who knows what happen but for the moment they are still nowhere near that
Despite getting 40% in 2017, Jezza only won four more seats than Gordon did in 2010 on 29%.
Though he did win quite a few more in England & Wales .
Stewart is smart and personable (if oddly gaunt). The bitter irony is that TMay’s deal would have a much greater chance of passing if he were selling it, not her. That tweet by itself - making the deal and himself look like the sane centrist position - is cleverer than anything she has done.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
How anyone with such a total lack of either leadership or people skills chose to become a politician, let alone reached PM, is beyond me.
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Yet the Tories have a 9% lead today under May and are on 40%, ratings Hague, IDS, Howard, even Cameron would have killed for
Though it would only produce a Tory majority of circa 40 with gains from Labour and a few losses to the LibDems. Yougov has been coming up with Tory leads of 6%/7% for several months now so we have to be aware of a likely house effect in their data. Both major parties are down compared with 2017 - though Labour much more so. In a General Election I think it is unlikely the Greens would actually poll anything close to 4% - most would probably drift back to Labour in the course of the campaign. Without having looked at the tables, I also suspect there has been quite a shift from Labour to Don't Knows - and this too would be likely to be reversed were an election to be called.
Even a Tory majority of 40 would be the largest Tory majority won at a general election for 32 years
Indeed - though there is probably quite a bit of downside potential to the 9% lead - which itself is 2% lower than last week's Yougov figure.
It all depends on whether minor party voters go back to Labour or not
I suspect there is quite a pool of Don't Knows who are likely to respond to Corbyn's campaigning skills.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Very astute. I’ve also noticed that the Nepalese have amazing teeth. Beautiful white American-type smiles, without the super expensive dentistry. Even the poorest (in a very poor country) generally have beautiful orthodontic smiles.
The only kids I met in the countryside who were eating sweets... were chewing stalks of pure sugar cane.
It’s a wonderful country (with lots of problems), with honest, loyal, friendly, handsome people, and I hope to return very soon to see the apparently amazing jungles. And on that note, I must really go to bed. Namaste, PB, Namaste.
Nepal is indeed wonderful.
Sometimes poor health can have physical signs.
However deciding that perfectly aligned teeth, high cheekbones, hairless kneecaps, or little fingers with precisely the feng-sui balance to the other fingers is just as bad a judging people by their skin colour. Nepalese people perhaps have good teeth, but the population is so young due to the death rate.
Nepalese life expectancy is about 71 (and rising fast). It is higher than some neighboring countries (despite being poorer). They get their 3 score years and 10. Plus 1.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Travel by train - he's got a whole private train to himself!
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and Kate as dutiful, likeable family-focussed people. They know that the public will never truly warm to Charles and they need his reign to have an air of the interim around it, before the true future of the monarchy steps up. In many ways the family image that William and Kate have built up is reminiscent of the image the Queen tried to cultivate in the 60s and 70s.
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Very astute. I’ve also noticed that the Nepalese have amazing teeth. Beautiful white American-type smiles, without the super expensive dentistry. Even the poorest (in a very poor country) generally have beautiful orthodontic smiles.
The only kids I met in the countryside who were eating sweets... were chewing stalks of pure sugar cane.
It’s a wonderful country (with lots of problems), with honest, loyal, friendly, handsome people, and I hope to return very soon to see the apparently amazing jungles. And on that note, I must really go to bed. Namaste, PB, Namaste.
Nepal is indeed wonderful.
Sometimes poor health can have physical signs.
However deciding that perfectly aligned teeth, high cheekbones, hairless kneecaps, or little fingers with precisely the feng-sui balance to the other fingers is just as bad a judging people by their skin colour. Nepalese people perhaps have good teeth, but the population is so young due to the death rate.
Nepalese life expectancy is about 71 (and rising fast). It is higher than some neighboring countries (despite being poorer). They get their 3 score years and 10. Plus 1.
You know full well that the Nepalese man that you meet and judge to be 60 will in fact be 40.
You're seeing white teeth because they are young teeth.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and Kate as dutiful, likeable family-focussed people. They know that the public will never truly warm to Charles and they need his reign to have an air of the interim around it, before the true future of the monarchy steps up. In many ways the family image that William and Kate have built up is reminiscent of the image the Queen tried to cultivate in the 60s and 70s.
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Is that backwards reasoning? Does health define beauty, instead of beauty betokening health? Black teeth is considered beautiful in geisha, iirc. Modern western standards of beauty now encompass overlarge breasts in women and unfeasibly large muscles in men, neither of which can be realistically achieved without drugs or surgery. Foot-binding is excruciatingly unhealthy. Face tattoos are difficult to defend as healthy but are on the rise. Lip implants can be grotesque. Heroin chic and anorexia have been held up as beautiful
(Sorry I'm not sure I'm making a coherent point here: it's just that a lot of beauty procedures are unhealthy or evocative of ill-health)
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Is that backwards reasoning? Does health define beauty, instead of beauty betokening health? Black teeth is considered beautiful in geisha, iirc. Modern western standards of beauty now encompass overlarge breasts in women and unfeasibly large muscles in men, neither of which can be realistically achieved without drugs or surgery. Foot-binding is excruciatingly unhealthy. Face tattoos are difficult to defend as healthy but are on the rise. Lip implants can be grotesque. Heroin chic and anorexia have been held up as beautiful
(Sorry I'm not sure I'm making a coherent point here: it's just that a lot of beauty procedures are unhealthy or evocative of ill-health)
Is there anyone who actually finds a Trout Pout attractive? I just find it rather odd.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and Kate as dutiful, likeable family-focussed people. They know that the public will never truly warm to Charles and they need his reign to have an air of the interim around it, before the true future of the monarchy steps up. In many ways the family image that William and Kate have built up is reminiscent of the image the Queen tried to cultivate in the 60s and 70s.
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Doubt the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will last more than five years... It never works out well when the Royals get involved with the American's...
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Is that backwards reasoning? Does health define beauty, instead of beauty betokening health? Black teeth is considered beautiful in geisha, iirc. Modern western standards of beauty now encompass overlarge breasts in women and unfeasibly large muscles in men, neither of which can be realistically achieved without drugs or surgery. Foot-binding is excruciatingly unhealthy. Face tattoos are difficult to defend as healthy but are on the rise. Lip implants can be grotesque. Heroin chic and anorexia have been held up as beautiful
(Sorry I'm not sure I'm making a coherent point here: it's just that a lot of beauty procedures are unhealthy or evocative of ill-health)
Is there anyone who actually finds a Trout Pout attractive? I just find it rather odd.
I have friends who get hugely horny when it's attached to a trout.
ON topic, I am in Nepal right now, doing a travel piece for The Times.
It’s a troubled country with amazing culture and horrible poverty and quite nice beer.
But my, oh my, what it does have is beautiful people. The men often look like young dashing Hussars, well built and athletic, the women are even better: generally exquisite, with a mix of sultry southern brown eyes, high Aryan cheekbones, and the rosy complexion of the steppes.
Having now travelled the entire world (apart from Moldova) I can now say with authority the best looking people in the world, on average, are the Nepalese.
They are also some of the poorest. There must be a profound lesson here, but I haven’t grasped it yet.
Nepal doesn't have any steppes.
That’s where they come from tho. Like the tectonic plates beneath them, the Nepalese are a collision between north (steppes, Mongolia, winter) and south (India, Aryans, summer). The geological collision caused the enormous erection that is the Himalayas. The genetic collision...
Physical beauty is a sign of health. Obviously not in terms of coloration, but good facial development, high cheekbones, big enough jaws for teeth to sit perfectly, etc. are signs of a good diet over generations. Absence of refined sugar would probably be a good potential benefactor.
Is that backwards reasoning? Does health define beauty, instead of beauty betokening health? Black teeth is considered beautiful in geisha, iirc. Modern western standards of beauty now encompass overlarge breasts in women and unfeasibly large muscles in men, neither of which can be realistically achieved without drugs or surgery. Foot-binding is excruciatingly unhealthy. Face tattoos are difficult to defend as healthy but are on the rise. Lip implants can be grotesque. Heroin chic and anorexia have been held up as beautiful
(Sorry I'm not sure I'm making a coherent point here: it's just that a lot of beauty procedures are unhealthy or evocative of ill-health)
Traditional beauty is for healthy markers.
Fads are different. And no trout pouts are off-putting not attractive.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
The palace is also heavily invested in William and Kate. The top brass are not stupid: they know the best chances for the survival of the monarchy are in presenting William and Kate as dutiful, likeable family-focussed people. They know that the public will never truly warm to Charles and they need his reign to have an air of the interim around it, before the true future of the monarchy steps up. In many ways the family image that William and Kate have built up is reminiscent of the image the Queen tried to cultivate in the 60s and 70s.
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
Doubt the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will last more than five years... It never works out well when the Royals get involved with the American's...
The Windsors were married for 30-odd years, and that only ended when the Duke died.
Charles practices what he preaches, Highgrove is self sufficient on organic food and he tends to travel by train or car in the UK, Meghan Markle though is clearly used to Hollywood living and some of that is rubbing off on Harry
Harry is likeable. His wife is beautiful. But he is in grave danger of fucking his USP
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Yes, early last year there was even talk of 'Harry for King' that has largely disappeared and the Cambridges and their more traditional approach is back ahead of the Sussexes and Meghan's A List lifestyle, epitomised by that extremely expensive baby shower she had with the Clooneys.
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
Behind the scenes there has been some extremely aggressive press work by the Duchess of Cambridge
She is a shrewd operator no doubt
She’s a self-entitled, lazy bint who didn’t like the positive coverage Meghan was getting.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Well you should very much keep it to yourself, Charles.
I’m just a bloke posting on a niche website. What do my opinions matter?
It seems the mood is ratcheting up before the votes next week. The Cabinet are already getting out the "it's all the Europeans fault" line and all Barnier proposed was separating Ulster from the rest of the UK which, let's be honest, most people outside Ulster would probably not care too much about.
The poor workers forced to sit through the May diatribe are the ones I feel sorry for - it disgusts me Conservative-supporting employers should treat their workers so badly, how would the Board of Directors like to listen to Jeremy Corbyn for an hour? It's torture in all but name.
Short of something miraculous, the WA voted down so convincingly in mid January is basically the same document being put to the same people next Tuesday. May continues to peddle her absurd Project Fear at this late stage - perhaps she should threaten to resign if the WA is passed as that would cause a number of MPs a real dilemma.
Comments
Have a good evening.
*I refer to Will Self, though I accept it is confusing
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
A big majority of Muslims disapprove of terrorism in general and ISIS in particular, but attitudes to sharia law vary enormously by country.
"In light of the commission coming in, I think we’ve got to put it on hold, see what the commission is going to do. If they are minded to do an investigation, they will have a range of statutory powers to get documents, emails, Whatsapp messages and witnesses, and they will do an investigation that will be completely independent from the Labour party.
So there is no point in me, with my firm of solicitors, coming in and doing exactly the same thing because it won’t carry the same degree of statutory support as the commission has"
What's fascinating is that support for the legality of homosexuality only conclusively broke through the 50% mark in about 2006.
I think the Tory rhetoric that “the people have given us an instruction and we must implement it” will stick, and either a non-Brexit or suboptimal effects of a hard one will be laid pretty squarely at their door (at least electorally).
Conversely.. I suspect Deal, Corby Deal, Norway, Switzerland and the rest would all count as “box ticked, now get on with the rest of your manifesto”.
As the sane Brexiters are fond of saying... don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
(Incidentally, I was in a meeting today - 17 men and 1 woman!)
Odd decision. Chance might never come again.
I’m just about to mix a Martinez. I suggest you do the same and chill the fuck out.
My hunch is that the deal will fall, and we willl get an extension, possibly a long one (because the EU is as terrified of No Deal as us). The Tories must surely then get a new leader who CAN sell a tweaked deal. The avowed Unionist Stewart would be a decent choice
5 minutes to get the ceo to agree to do what I needed
I then had to sit through 25 minutes of them talking about college football and games they remember from the early 80s...
Its not as if May even has any 'big ideas' she wanted to implement or even a desire to personally profit from political power.
Some industries are already dominated by women, some aren’t. Degree results imply the female takeover of higher echelons will continue, and spread. That’s fair enough if girls work harder etc. But should we really be engineering society to ensure ALL industries are female-dominated? I have two daughters, i guess it suits me. But what about those with sons?
Even when I find myself sort-of admiring her, just for surviving and being stubborn, she does or says something seriously cringeworthy (and often against the national interest) and I go back to quietly despising her all over again. I am sure she is a lovely person, as a person, but OMFG
Which means interviewing ever passenger on where they live, why they are travelling, how long they have been in France, do you have anything to declare and what do you mean no alcohol or tobacco.
You can imagine how long that takes - presumably to demonstrate they need more staff
That said of course, as a staunch atheist I think all religion is pretty pointless. But if we got rid of all the pointless things in the world it would be a very boring place.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1104107135485521921
Can you read? Did you manage to read that bit?
My question was whether it is morally correct to help women, and deliberately hinder men, when it is clear that western women are already doing better, in most ways, than men, and will continue to outpace them, as things stand. If I had sons I would seriously query this attitude
And on that note I must abed. My last full day in Kathmandu tomorrow and I am scheduled to meet a living goddess (the Kumari) at 9.30am
Can anyone beat that as an excuse?
Night night
Enjoy your last day in Kathmandu
All this shows is how gullible people are to believe them!
I also think comparing an opposition party after many years in power to a PM in power is also a fools errand. It is a completely different dynamic and if a moderate Labour leader was in situ I suspect we would be witnessing similar opinion polls to those in the run up to 1997, Labour would be on 50% plus!
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/hickenlooper-i-can-beat-trump-and-bring-us-together-1454391363984
The only kids I met in the countryside who were eating sweets... were chewing stalks of pure sugar cane.
It’s a wonderful country (with lots of problems), with honest, loyal, friendly, handsome people, and I hope to return very soon to see the apparently amazing jungles. And on that note, I must really go to bed. Namaste, PB, Namaste.
You can make hypotheticals but we are where we are with Corbyn Labour leader and likely staying there and for the foreseeable future, of course the SDP reached over 50% in 1981 and if TIG takes off who knows what would happen but for the moment they are still nowhere near that
Sometimes poor health can have physical signs.
However deciding that perfectly aligned teeth, high cheekbones, hairless kneecaps, or little fingers with precisely the feng-sui balance to the other fingers is just as bad a judging people by their skin colour. Nepalese people perhaps have good teeth, but the population is so young due to the death rate.
It’s been an orchestrated take down and very unedifying to watch.
(I must stress that I don’t particularly follow this aspect of public life, but my wife gives me regular updates on the latest palace gossip)
Nepalese life expectancy is about 71 (and rising fast). It is higher than some neighboring countries (despite being poorer). They get their 3 score years and 10. Plus 1.
They couldn’t have denied Harry his bride: we saw how Margaret and Charles troubles on that front impacted on the monarchy. But methinks they don’t care too much about the resulting fallout. If anything it stands in contrast to the golden couple who they are trying to present as the perfect King and Queen.
You're seeing white teeth because they are young teeth.
Socialism = jobs for life
Monarchy = jobs for life
therefore
Monarchy = Socialism
(Sorry I'm not sure I'm making a coherent point here: it's just that a lot of beauty procedures are unhealthy or evocative of ill-health)
Fads are different. And no trout pouts are off-putting not attractive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIa-2qQxubM
It seems the mood is ratcheting up before the votes next week. The Cabinet are already getting out the "it's all the Europeans fault" line and all Barnier proposed was separating Ulster from the rest of the UK which, let's be honest, most people outside Ulster would probably not care too much about.
The poor workers forced to sit through the May diatribe are the ones I feel sorry for - it disgusts me Conservative-supporting employers should treat their workers so badly, how would the Board of Directors like to listen to Jeremy Corbyn for an hour? It's torture in all but name.
Short of something miraculous, the WA voted down so convincingly in mid January is basically the same document being put to the same people next Tuesday. May continues to peddle her absurd Project Fear at this late stage - perhaps she should threaten to resign if the WA is passed as that would cause a number of MPs a real dilemma.