Mr. Sandpit, outmanoeuvred suggests the failure was being outwitted, and, whilst that might be true, it only occurred because May put herself, needlessly and voluntarily, into such a weak position.
We seem to have an attempted assassination on British soil by the Russians, and are on the eve of a trade war with the Americans.
“I’m just going outside the EU. I may be some time.”
Not a good time to put an anti-Western activist as PM.
For the time being his position is safe. Our best hope is that Theresa May can hold it all together and make all the negative forces cancel each other out.
Like Dennis Hopper and the Russian Dynamite Death Chair Act. Which is a thing which actually happened, to my ongoing surprise.
A little surprising May continues to hold a lead, but of course it will not be unique to note that given last June no negative indicators will faze Corbyn or his team or his supporters anymore.
His rhetoric threatens the talks? I'd think there are plenty who share in that sin, and not all one one side at that. A certain EU president stating, in effect, there is no point negotiating (as that is 'cherry picking') springs to mind.
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the PM was in the West Country when Corbyn announced he would be there. She’d have needed a military helicopter to have made it, obviously hadn’t prepared for the debate, and as you say would have been seen as dancing to Corbyn’s tune. Those who protect her might have had something to say about it too.
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Mr. Sandpit, outmanoeuvred suggests the failure was being outwitted, and, whilst that might be true, it only occurred because May put herself, needlessly and voluntarily, into such a weak position.
That's certainly true. No one is saying she was difficult to outmanoeuvre
The surprise is JC didn't think to outmanoeuvre her for the 1st debate on 18th May.
Agreed, particularly the last two, when there would likely be an extremely Democratic Senate and House to contend with. (And he'll be close to 80 which brings with it a high likelihood of health issues.)
Slightly ominous that the Guardian live blog on the Salisbury incident is talking about Sergei Skripal in the past tense... hopefully, that's just sloppy journalism.
@Andrew_Adonis: I have tabled amendment to EU Withdrawal Bill to stop repeal of 2011 European Union Act, which requires referendums on EU treaty changes. Lawyers think 2011 Act may require referendum on Mrs May’s withdrawal treaty, which is why HMG trying to repeal it without anyone noticing!
'Lawyers think' is a pretty meaningless phrase, with all respect to that learned profession. Government lawyers thought parliament didn't need to be involved to activate A50, but they were wrong, as it turns out. And presumably in all but the most spurious and unethical of instances 'lawyers think' they might be right, but one set turn out wrong.
F1: many laps for Ferrari. Reliability at the sharp end looking pretty good. And whilst McLaren's had some problems, still better than the woe of last year.
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the PM was in the West Country when Corbyn announced he would be there. She’d have needed a military helicopter to have made it, obviously hadn’t prepared for the debate, and as you say would have been seen as dancing to Corbyn’s tune. Those who protect her might have had something to say about it too.
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
The latest ICM poll for The Guardian suggests, in addition, that Corbyn's pledge on the Customs Union has been a tactical error.
That wont go down well with the legion of LD remainers on this site.
How do you come to that conclusion ? All the polls seem level pegging or in the margin of error.
"Jeremy Corbyn and Labour have the one positive net score in this poll, with one percent point more of the British public thinking that Corbyn and Labour’s Brexit policy is clearer than it was before (net score = 1%). This compares favourably with Theresa May and the government’s equivalent net score, which is on -5%.
However, Corbynites shouldn’t see this as a cause for celebration, as whilst his and his party’s position may now be marginally more clear, it’s equally apparent that the public are not enamoured with it. On balance the British public do not think that Corbyn and Labour’s aims in Brexit negotiations are realistic (net score = -11%) or approve of their Brexit policy overall (net score = -13%)."
Three 50/1s = 16/1. His re-election is about 2/1. So you're essentially taking around 5/1 that he goes during (most of) his second term, having been popular enough to be re-elected (possibly having already seen off impeachment?). It's probably fair enough, but not screaming value.
16-1 sounds pretty good for someone who's pretty unfit, in their late 70s and in a very stressful job.
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
What tosh! Of course she con's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory t
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
I usually vote LD, but in addition to the Corbyn factor the local LDs put zero effort in (partly to focus on a winnable seat, successfully, partly I'd guess due to much effort to no reward in the locals), so they certainly didn't deserve my vote.
But it was also a very safe Tory seat, so it doesn't really matter. Although it does now mean Lab are clear second place in an area they've only (since Corbyn) started putting up proper numbers of local councillor candidates.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
The latest ICM poll for The Guardian suggests, in addition, that Corbyn's pledge on the Customs Union has been a tactical error.
That wont go down well with the legion of LD remainers on this site.
How do you come to that conclusion ? All the polls seem level pegging or in the margin of error.
I think there were additional questions in the poll.
To be honest , apart from on here , I have never heard anyone discuss a Customs Union v Customs arrangement.Can not imagine it changing how people currently vote.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
It is conceivable those words could be interpreted as relating to the team, but equally I don't think it is so obvious that is what people would think that aides clarifying he was referring to officials is 'spinning', which implies a certain level of underhanded manipulation of words or actions to present a more favourable view. Here it was not necessarily absolutely unambiguous, but it was not overtly misleading I don't think.
Three 50/1s = 16/1. His re-election is about 2/1. So you're essentially taking around 5/1 that he goes during (most of) his second term, having been popular enough to be re-elected (possibly having already seen off impeachment?). It's probably fair enough, but not screaming value.
Given his age by then, what would be the actuarial probability, I wonder.
EDIT: about 8% chance he's going to kark it in those three years, according to US Social Security life table.
And probably twice that that he simply gets sick and is unable to do his job.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
How foolish of anyone to think that 'representation' at a football tournament could possibly be a reference to football teams, rather than to politicians and their bag-carriers.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
Ben , Britain went to the 1980 Olympics , even with the USA boycotting them and Thatcher's disapproval .I am glad they did attend as we saw Coe , Ovett and Wells win gold.To believe that the England football team will not attend a world cup seems improbable .Also the support from the public to such a decision if taken by the government would not be good imo.
Anyone working on assumptions that Donald Trump may deteriorate in his late 70s should note that by many reports he doesn't drink or smoke (or drink tea or coffee). He seems far too self-absorbed to appreciate that the job of president might have some stresses.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
Ben , Britain went to the 1980 Olympics , even with the USA boycotting them and Thatcher's disapproval .I am glad they did attend as we saw Coe , Ovett and Wells win gold.To believe that the England football team will not attend a world cup seems improbable .Also the support from the public to such a decision if taken by the government would not be good imo.
An actual boycot of the WC by the team wouldn’t happen unilaterally, it would have to be all the Western nations pulling out for serious security considerations.
Doesn’t mean there might not be a lot of advise given to travelling fans though, @foxy et al check your travel insurance carefully.
Anyone working on assumptions that Donald Trump may deteriorate in his late 70s should note that by many reports he doesn't drink or smoke (or drink tea or coffee). He seems far too self-absorbed to appreciate that the job of president might have some stresses.
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The preparation point is valid though.
Maybe, although I have a feeling an unprepared Mrs May might be preferable.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
Ben , Britain went to the 1980 Olympics , even with the USA boycotting them and Thatcher's disapproval .I am glad they did attend as we saw Coe , Ovett and Wells win gold.To believe that the England football team will not attend a world cup seems improbable .Also the support from the public to such a decision if taken by the government would not be good imo.
An actual boycot of the WC by the team wouldn’t happen unilaterally, it would have to be all the Western nations pulling out for serious security considerations.
Doesn’t mean there might not be a lot of advise given to travelling fans though, @foxy et al check your travel insurance carefully.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
Ben , Britain went to the 1980 Olympics , even with the USA boycotting them and Thatcher's disapproval .I am glad they did attend as we saw Coe , Ovett and Wells win gold.To believe that the England football team will not attend a world cup seems improbable .Also the support from the public to such a decision if taken by the government would not be good imo.
An actual boycot of the WC by the team wouldn’t happen unilaterally, it would have to be all the Western nations pulling out for serious security considerations.
Doesn’t mean there might not be a lot of advise given to travelling fans though, @foxy et al check your travel insurance carefully.
I have tickets for the semi in St Petersburg, hotel and flights booked, really looking forward to it.
I forecast the match will be Brazil France. I am not anticipating seeing England fans that late in the tournament.
Having wandered around sub-saharan africa etc, I am not daunted by a few Russkis.
Anyone working on assumptions that Donald Trump may deteriorate in his late 70s should note that by many reports he doesn't drink or smoke (or drink tea or coffee). He seems far too self-absorbed to appreciate that the job of president might have some stresses.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
Ben , Britain went to the 1980 Olympics , even with the USA boycotting them and Thatcher's disapproval .I am glad they did attend as we saw Coe , Ovett and Wells win gold.To believe that the England football team will not attend a world cup seems improbable .Also the support from the public to such a decision if taken by the government would not be good imo.
An actual boycot of the WC by the team wouldn’t happen unilaterally, it would have to be all the Western nations pulling out for serious security considerations.
Doesn’t mean there might not be a lot of advise given to travelling fans though, @foxy et al check your travel insurance carefully.
I have tickets for the semi in St Petersburg, hotel and flights booked, really looking forward to it.
I forecast the match will be Brazil France. I am not anticipating seeing England fans that late in the tournament.
Having wandered around sub-saharan africa etc, I am not daunted by a few Russkis.
I think you're going to get Russia vs England. Good luck.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
Ben , Britain went to the 1980 Olympics , even with the USA boycotting them and Thatcher's disapproval .I am glad they did attend as we saw Coe , Ovett and Wells win gold.To believe that the England football team will not attend a world cup seems improbable .Also the support from the public to such a decision if taken by the government would not be good imo.
An actual boycot of the WC by the team wouldn’t happen unilaterally, it would have to be all the Western nations pulling out for serious security considerations.
Doesn’t mean there might not be a lot of advise given to travelling fans though, @foxy et al check your travel insurance carefully.
I have tickets for the semi in St Petersburg, hotel and flights booked, really looking forward to it.
I forecast the match will be Brazil France. I am not anticipating seeing England fans that late in the tournament.
Having wandered around sub-saharan africa etc, I am not daunted by a few Russkis.
I think you're going to get Russia vs England. Good luck.
They haven’t got enough for the summer schedule, again.
Training Captains also leaving, which is causing delays with new recruits. They’re also not charging the new kids €30k for their 737 type rating any more, preferring a 5 year training bond.
Anyone working on assumptions that Donald Trump may deteriorate in his late 70s should note that by many reports he doesn't drink or smoke (or drink tea or coffee). He seems far too self-absorbed to appreciate that the job of president might have some stresses.
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
I quite like Farron, but he doesn't come over well on television, rather like a hyperactive puppy.
I wanted him to stay on, and think that he would have grown into the job with a bit af age and media training. Vince is a dead loss.
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
I quite like Farron, but he doesn't come over well on television, rather like a hyperactive puppy.
I wanted him to stay on, and think that he would have grown into the job with a bit af age and media training. Vince is a dead loss.
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
I quite like Farron, but he doesn't come over well on television, rather like a hyperactive puppy.
I wanted him to stay on, and think that he would have grown into the job with a bit af age and media training. Vince is a dead loss.
Vince is deffo coming across as older than his 107 years.....
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
I quite like Farron, but he doesn't come over well on television, rather like a hyperactive puppy.
I wanted him to stay on, and think that he would have grown into the job with a bit af age and media training. Vince is a dead loss.
I like Vince. Old, but smart. In what way is he a dead loss?
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
I quite like Farron, but he doesn't come over well on television, rather like a hyperactive puppy.
I wanted him to stay on, and think that he would have grown into the job with a bit af age and media training. Vince is a dead loss.
I like Vince. Old, but smart. In what way is he a dead loss?
I have never liked him, but he is too languid, and is the primary architect of the Tuition fee mess. He cannot walk away from it.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
Dr. Foxy, whilst I also wanted Lamb then, I actually meant instead of Farron. At the last election, sensible, solid Lamb against loony left Corbyn and suddenly awful May would've done better, I feel.
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
Labour didn’t name their attendee until
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
I quite like Farron, but he doesn't come over well on television, rather like a hyperactive puppy.
I wanted him to stay on, and think that he would have grown into the job with a bit af age and media training. Vince is a dead loss.
I like Vince. Old, but smart. In what way is he a dead loss?
I have never liked him, but he is too languid, and is the primary architect of the Tuition fee mess. He cannot walk away from it.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
I tthink he's very able, but sadly his ship has sailed. Get into your mid 70's and pressure starts to become a concern. You maybe don't realise it until you stop.
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, butlarly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
I quite like Farron, but he doesn't come over well on television, rather like a hyperactive puppy.
I wanted him to stay on, and think that he would have grown into the job with a bit af age and media training. Vince is a dead loss.
I like Vince. Old, but smart. In what way is he a dead loss?
I have never liked him, but he is too languid, and is the primary architect of the Tuition fee mess. He cannot walk away from it.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
He's the only LD with any popularity, gravitas or charisma and is surely best placed to deal with the tuition fees thing
He's the chap that wants me to sign a code of conduct saying I won't blow myself up and things like that.
I am more worried about your terrible taste in music...we need to get you to sign up to a code of conduct promising not to go to see bands like Steps so they don’t continue to tour...
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Yes - there's no way of knowing really. A disastrous performance would surely have been worse than simply not showing up.
At the time - she was so far ahead I can totally understand the logic (even if I hate the decision on a principles basis).
And we have to remember that Corbyn did one of his cynical u-turns after first saying that he wouldn't attend a debate without May and then saying he would.
Cynical but effective.
Labour didn’t name their attendee until after the Tories named Rudd a couple of days out, then announced with about four hours to go that it would be Corbyn. By that time the PM was miles away and wouldn’t have had time to get back and prepare. Unlike the LotO, the PM can’t change her schedule at short notice without a whole pile of hassle.
What tosh! Of course she could have changed her schedule and attended. I suspect two things prevented her: 1. She's just no good at that thinking-on-your-feet sort of thing. 2. It sould have looked like she was dancing to Corbyn's tune.
The debate was in Cambridge, and from memory the
Well, she was certainly well and truly outmanoeuvered. Rudd did ok though IIRC.
I was honestly quite impressed by parts of Rudd's performance, but it was a smart move by Corbyn. Sure he'd changed his tune on attending, but with the PM still not being there no one was going to care much about him u-turning, particularly since it was u-turning to engage more, not less.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
Farron's performance was very poor tbf. I did end up voting LD (in a very safe Tory seat so my vote was alwayrs going to be wasted) because I know and like our LD candidate, but Farron nearly put me off.
I quite like Farron, but he doesn't come over well on television, rather like a hyperactive puppy.
I wanted him to stay on, and think that he would have grown into the job with a bit af age and media training. Vince is a dead loss.
Farron always makes me think of Kevin Eldon playing a hapless politician.
He's the chap that wants me to sign a code of conduct saying I won't blow myself up and things like that.
"Blow yourself off" ?
Have you had a rib removed?
Oh, blow yourself up. Well, that's a very different matter. Personally I'd prefer the former. Perhaps there's been a translation error in the madrasas and in the on-line videos:
He's the chap that wants me to sign a code of conduct saying I won't blow myself up and things like that.
"Blow yourself off" ?
Have you had a rib removed?
Oh, blow yourself up. Well, that's a very different matter. Personally I'd prefer the former. Perhaps there's been a translation error in the madrasas and in the on-line videos:
I see you're talking fatuous nonsense. "Many" Londoners - a hundred thousand, half a million or nearer one thousand or even 500 ?
No problems here with water and I don't know of anyone who has issues. Yes, there is a burst pipe in East Ham High Street but the good folk of Newham are coping well.
We rely on provincial England to make a crisis out of a drama.
I have never liked him, but he is too languid, and is the primary architect of the Tuition fee mess. He cannot walk away from it.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
Everyone knows Vince is there for the short term. The question is whether Jo Swinson will also get a coronation or whether she will be challenged by Layla Moran.
He's the only LD with any popularity, gravitas or charisma and is surely best placed to deal with the tuition fees thing.
Cable being leader is most significant in that it stopped Swinson, who has very limited electoral appeal. She is nominally foreign affairs spokesman but is entirely invisible (even by LD standards) on her brief. But she’s been very vocal on #MeToo and recently authored an utterly tone-deaf article in the MoS arguing for a statue of Thatcher - hardly the best way to dispel the charge of “yellow Tories”.
Lib Dem grassroots momentum seems to be very rapidly moving towards Layla Moran.
And Scots are without milk and bread. Nicola Sturgeon told the lorry drivers to get off the road because it was snowing. Our supply chain has still not recovered and thousands of self employed drivers are suffering serious hardship. Still, it got a good headline in the National.
I have never liked him, but he is too languid, and is the primary architect of the Tuition fee mess. He cannot walk away from it.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
Everyone knows Vince is there for the short term. The question is whether Jo Swinson will also get a coronation or whether she will be challenged by Layla Moran.
I have never liked him, but he is too languid, and is the primary architect of the Tuition fee mess. He cannot walk away from it.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
Everyone knows Vince is there for the short term. The question is whether Jo Swinson will also get a coronation or whether she will be challenged by Layla Moran.
Both very weak, in a weak field. Ed Davey?
If it were my choice, it would be Tom Brake but he and Ed Davey know we can't go back to the pre-Coalition days. Moran represents what the Party is not what it was.
That Liberal Democrat Party, the one I joined as a Liberal, died in the fire of the Coalition, There is a new party out there - 3/4 of the current membership joined post-2015 - and it needs a leader less encumbered by the ghosts of the Rose Garden.
I see you're talking fatuous nonsense. "Many" Londoners - a hundred thousand, half a million or nearer one thousand or even 500 ?
No problems here with water and I don't know of anyone who has issues. Yes, there is a burst pipe in East Ham High Street but the good folk of Newham are coping well.
We rely on provincial England to make a crisis out of a drama.
Fair point. It is around 1,000 homes and businesses:
I see you're talking fatuous nonsense. "Many" Londoners - a hundred thousand, half a million or nearer one thousand or even 500 ?
No problems here with water and I don't know of anyone who has issues. Yes, there is a burst pipe in East Ham High Street but the good folk of Newham are coping well.
We rely on provincial England to make a crisis out of a drama.
Just wait for the inevitable typhoid pandemic. We'll be ringing the M25 with pitchforks to prevent the contagion spreading.
What an idiot. ALl that will do is persuade voters to rethink about ever using Ryanair again.
Michael O'Leary has always been a cock.
O’Leary goes into a bar in Dublin and asks for a pint of Guinness. “That will be 2.50 Euros”, said the barman. “Wow” said O’Leary. “That has to be the best price in Dublin.”
“Yes”, said the barman, “Would you be wanting a glass with that?”
But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).
I don't see anyone who could be worse. At the very least the next leader will bother to turn up to the TV debates.
Who precisely do you think would be better, and why, apart from Davidson (and perhaps Boris, who to be fair is a complete wildcard who could go either way).
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
Davidson is worse than May, you Tories are not the full shilling.
I have never liked him, but he is too languid, and is the primary architect of the Tuition fee mess. He cannot walk away from it.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
Everyone knows Vince is there for the short term. The question is whether Jo Swinson will also get a coronation or whether she will be challenged by Layla Moran.
Both very weak, in a weak field. Ed Davey?
If it were my choice, it would be Tom Brake but he and Ed Davey know we can't go back to the pre-Coalition days. Moran represents what the Party is not what it was.
That Liberal Democrat Party, the one I joined as a Liberal, died in the fire of the Coalition, There is a new party out there - 3/4 of the current membership joined post-2015 - and it needs a leader less encumbered by the ghosts of the Rose Garden.
It needs someone experienced who can organise, develop interest and make the most of the limited moments as and when they arise. A new MP is not going to be able to do that.
I have never liked him, but he is too languid, and is the primary architect of the Tuition fee mess. He cannot walk away from it.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
Everyone knows Vince is there for the short term. The question is whether Jo Swinson will also get a coronation or whether she will be challenged by Layla Moran.
Both very weak, in a weak field. Ed Davey?
If it were my choice, it would be Tom Brake but he and Ed Davey know we can't go back to the pre-Coalition days. Moran represents what the Party is not what it was.
That Liberal Democrat Party, the one I joined as a Liberal, died in the fire of the Coalition, There is a new party out there - 3/4 of the current membership joined post-2015 - and it needs a leader less encumbered by the ghosts of the Rose Garden.
Yes, the membership is larger, but also even more pro-EU as a result of the last few years.
I quite like Swinson, but she does seem to be most interested in gender politics, rather than bread and butter social or economic issues likely to get support out at elections.
Tom Brake is possible, and Moran increasingly impressive, but I am a Lambite at heart. He was a very capable minister.
He's the chap that wants me to sign a code of conduct saying I won't blow myself up and things like that.
I am more worried about your terrible taste in music...we need to get you to sign up to a code of conduct promising not to go to see bands like Steps so they don’t continue to tour...
It is said my music collection contains more evil than an ISIS suggestion box.
But May is apparently going to be ditched before the next election, in favour of someone who is either no better than her, or quite possibly even worse (unless they can get Ruth Davidson eligible somehow).
I don't see anyone who could be worse. At the very least the next leader will bother to turn up to the TV debates.
Who precisely do you think would be better, and why, apart from Davidson (and perhaps Boris, who to be fair is a complete wildcard who could go either way).
Also, I'm not entirely sure May skipping the debates was as much of a mistake as people say. Yes, it made her look chicken, but that's arguably better than her actually taking part in the debates, having a car-crash, and providing all sorts of "viral" clips that would've damaged her.
I have never liked him, but he is too languid, and is the primary architect of the Tuition fee mess. He cannot walk away from it.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
Everyone knows Vince is there for the short term. The question is whether Jo Swinson will also get a coronation or whether she will be challenged by Layla Moran.
Both very weak, in a weak field. Ed Davey?
If it were my choice, it would be Tom Brake but he and Ed Davey know we can't go back to the pre-Coalition days. Moran represents what the Party is not what it was.
That Liberal Democrat Party, the one I joined as a Liberal, died in the fire of the Coalition, There is a new party out there - 3/4 of the current membership joined post-2015 - and it needs a leader less encumbered by the ghosts of the Rose Garden.
Yes, the membership is larger, but also even more pro-EU as a result of the last few years.
I quite like Swinson, but she does seem to be most interested in gender politics, rather than bread and butter social or economic issues likely to get support out at elections.
Tom Brake is possible, and Moran increasingly impressive, but I am a Lambite at heart. He was a very capable minister.
The BBC report I read made the same point, in less partisan fashion.
BoJo's words: "I think it will be very difficult to imagine that UK representation at that event could go ahead in the normal way." could fairly be interpreted as England not playing there.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
Waste of money anyway as they will not be there for long.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov
If I was Putin I'd be peeved at the UK's double standards:
hostility to Russia
brown-nosing China
They exhibit similar behaviour, although China recently abandoned the pretence that it elects its leader.
IIRC Farron warned us May might be outside our houses looking to take it from us when we got old and sick.
The surprise is JC didn't think to outmanoeuvre her for the 1st debate on 18th May.
"Jeremy Corbyn and Labour have the one positive net score in this poll, with one percent point more of the British public thinking that Corbyn and Labour’s Brexit policy is clearer than it was before (net score = 1%). This compares favourably with Theresa May and the government’s equivalent net score, which is on -5%.
However, Corbynites shouldn’t see this as a cause for celebration, as whilst his and his party’s position may now be marginally more clear, it’s equally apparent that the public are not enamoured with it. On balance the British public do not think that Corbyn and Labour’s aims in Brexit negotiations are realistic (net score = -11%) or approve of their Brexit policy overall (net score = -13%)."
Source : ICM/Guardian
But it was also a very safe Tory seat, so it doesn't really matter. Although it does now mean Lab are clear second place in an area they've only (since Corbyn) started putting up proper numbers of local councillor candidates.
(Then again maybe he meant to encourage England to get beyond the first knock-out round for a change!)
Many forget that the anti-Corbyn turnout at the next election is going to be very high as well. Few people are indifferent.....
Doesn’t mean there might not be a lot of advise given to travelling fans though, @foxy et al check your travel insurance carefully.
I forecast the match will be Brazil France. I am not anticipating seeing England fans that late in the tournament.
Having wandered around sub-saharan africa etc, I am not daunted by a few Russkis.
Training Captains also leaving, which is causing delays with new recruits. They’re also not charging the new kids €30k for their 737 type rating any more, preferring a 5 year training bond.
https://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/606179-things-getting-interesting-ryr-cadets-2.html
I wanted him to stay on, and think that he would have grown into the job with a bit af age and media training. Vince is a dead loss.
#ATasteOfThingsToCome
Lamb chose not to stand as he wasn't happy with current party position on Brexit. He wanted to abide by the result with a soft Brexit.
I would have voted anyone but Vince if it hadn't been a coronation.
Anyway, I must be off.
He's the chap that wants me to sign a code of conduct saying I won't blow myself up and things like that.
https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/970981021717016578
Have you had a rib removed?
Oh, blow yourself up. Well, that's a very different matter. Personally I'd prefer the former. Perhaps there's been a translation error in the madrasas and in the on-line videos:
"No, you fool! I said blow yourself off!"
I'm told.
No problems here with water and I don't know of anyone who has issues. Yes, there is a burst pipe in East Ham High Street but the good folk of Newham are coping well.
We rely on provincial England to make a crisis out of a drama.
He's the only LD with any popularity, gravitas or charisma and is surely best placed to deal with the tuition fees thing.
Cable being leader is most significant in that it stopped Swinson, who has very limited electoral appeal. She is nominally foreign affairs spokesman but is entirely invisible (even by LD standards) on her brief. But she’s been very vocal on #MeToo and recently authored an utterly tone-deaf article in the MoS arguing for a statue of Thatcher - hardly the best way to dispel the charge of “yellow Tories”.
Lib Dem grassroots momentum seems to be very rapidly moving towards Layla Moran.
That Liberal Democrat Party, the one I joined as a Liberal, died in the fire of the Coalition, There is a new party out there - 3/4 of the current membership joined post-2015 - and it needs a leader less encumbered by the ghosts of the Rose Garden.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43298773
To be fair, it was the headline on BBC London News tonight so I guessed it was a significant number of people.
The whole of Woking could be without water and BBC London wouldn't even know about it.
“Wow” said O’Leary. “That has to be the best price in Dublin.”
“Yes”, said the barman, “Would you be wanting a glass with that?”
I quite like Swinson, but she does seem to be most interested in gender politics, rather than bread and butter social or economic issues likely to get support out at elections.
Tom Brake is possible, and Moran increasingly impressive, but I am a Lambite at heart. He was a very capable minister.