The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.
Seriously? A 'blind, crippled kitten'? As bad as things may get, such self pitying nonsense only makes it easier to dismiss signs of bad things. Is that your aim, to make it easier to dismiss concerns? Because it's working fantastically.
The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.
Post Brexit UK will be the EU's largest export destination, even larger than the USA which is second largest and where Trump is putting heavy tariffs on EU imports.
It is not as if the EU has no benefit at all from a trade deal with the UK even if one would probably benefit us more relatively speaking it is in both our interests to get one
It is in both our economic interests.
Unfortunately the EU and their negotiating team have persistently put their federalist instincts ahead of economic reality.
That said, if we had put economics above politics we wouldn't be leaving anyway, so we're in no position to criticise.
Still, no reason we cannot at least do a basic FTA as Canada has
A basic FTA like Canada means customs infrastructure and the EU Withdrawal Act rules that out in Ireland, so it implies a customs border in the Irish sea.
No it also rules out a customs border in the Irish sea.
If the EU isn't willing to honour that then the deal is nul and void. Nothing agreed until everything agreed. Time to build customs posts in Ireland.
Danny Dyer on ITV says 'no one understands Brexit, what happened to that twat David Cameron who left us with it, where is the geezer?'
He jumped before he was pushed, Danny, pay attention. And it was we the people who left us with it, for better and worse, unless we believe the public are children now.
He was chicken and lightweight to the very end, an absolute balloon.
It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.
'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.
This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?
Jezza 2017 Dave 2015 Dave 2010 Tony 2005, 2001, 1997 Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil) Maggie etc
The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.
Post Brexit UK will be the EU's largest export destination, even larger than the USA which is second largest and where Trump is putting heavy tariffs on EU imports.
It is not as if the EU has no benefit at all from a trade deal with the UK even if one would probably benefit us more relatively speaking it is in both our interests to get one
It is in both our economic interests.
Unfortunately the EU and their negotiating team have persistently put their federalist instincts ahead of economic reality.
That said, if we had put economics above politics we wouldn't be leaving anyway, so we're in no position to criticise.
Still, no reason we cannot at least do a basic FTA as Canada has
A basic FTA like Canada means customs infrastructure and the EU Withdrawal Act rules that out in Ireland, so it implies a customs border in the Irish sea.
No it also rules out a customs border in the Irish sea.
If the EU isn't willing to honour that then the deal is nul and void. Nothing agreed until everything agreed. Time to build customs posts in Ireland.
Very civil servant weasel wording "Nothing in this ... Act authorizes", but neither does it preclude other legislation that might ... So this Act does not rule out such a situation, it only does not authorize it itself.
The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.
Post Brexit UK will be the EU's largest export destination, even larger than the USA which is second largest and where Trump is putting heavy tariffs on EU imports.
It is not as if the EU has no benefit at all from a trade deal with the UK even if one would probably benefit us more relatively speaking it is in both our interests to get one
It is in both our economic interests.
Unfortunately the EU and their negotiating team have persistently put their federalist instincts ahead of economic reality.
That said, if we had put economics above politics we wouldn't be leaving anyway, so we're in no position to criticise.
Still, no reason we cannot at least do a basic FTA as Canada has
A basic FTA like Canada means customs infrastructure and the EU Withdrawal Act rules that out in Ireland, so it implies a customs border in the Irish sea.
No it also rules out a customs border in the Irish sea.
If the EU isn't willing to honour that then the deal is nul and void. Nothing agreed until everything agreed. Time to build customs posts in Ireland.
Very civil servant weasel wording "Nothing in this ... Act authorizes", but neither does it preclude other legislation that might ... So this Act does not rule out such a situation, it only does not authorize it itself.
By what other power would it be done? Until that legislation comes into effect on Brexit day it would be against the legislation by which EU law applies.
I just don't want it on ITV because the presenter is rubbish and the pundits are bad (except Wright). The BBC have definitely got the choice pundits this year.
You'll be one of those numpties demanding the BBC rip up their agreement with ITV should England get to the semi final.
Perhaps ITV can bring in Adrian Chiles to ask why it all went so horribly wrong again SPan in the semi-final.....
ITV should stand down, in the national interest. This is important, people. We always lose when ITV have the commentary.* If 100,000 can march for a second referendum, surely we can get a million out for this?
*This may not be supported by evidence, but it feels right.
MM - Scott P was able to provide the stats on this earlier - they really are astonishing. The only England win at a World Cup that ITV has televised in the last twenty years was against TRinidad and Tobago.: https://twitter.com/RichTReynolds/status/1012425644632834048
The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.
Post Brexit UK will be the EU's largest export destination, even larger than the USA which is second largest and where Trump is putting heavy tariffs on EU imports.
It is not as if the EU has no benefit at all from a trade deal with the UK even if one would probably benefit us more relatively speaking it is in both our interests to get one
It is in both our economic interests.
Unfortunately the EU and their negotiating team have persistently put their federalist instincts ahead of economic reality.
That said, if we had put economics above politics we wouldn't be leaving anyway, so we're in no position to criticise.
Still, no reason we cannot at least do a basic FTA as Canada has
A basic FTA like Canada means customs infrastructure and the EU Withdrawal Act rules that out in Ireland, so it implies a customs border in the Irish sea.
No it also rules out a customs border in the Irish sea.
If the EU isn't willing to honour that then the deal is nul and void. Nothing agreed until everything agreed. Time to build customs posts in Ireland.
Very civil servant weasel wording "Nothing in this ... Act authorizes", but neither does it preclude other legislation that might ... So this Act does not rule out such a situation, it only does not authorize it itself.
By what other power would it be done? Until that legislation comes into effect on Brexit day it would be against the legislation by which EU law applies.
Not an expert in Parliamentary procedure. Have some expertise in reading (and writing) what civil servants write. But if they can pass this Bill to enter into force upon Brexit day, why not another piece of legislation to amend this one? And in what way would preparations for post-Brexit be against EU law?
It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.
'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.
This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?
Jezza 2017 Dave 2015 Dave 2010 Tony 2005, 2001, 1997 Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil) Maggie etc
Very civil servant weasel wording "Nothing in this ... Act authorizes", but neither does it preclude other legislation that might ... So this Act does not rule out such a situation, it only does not authorize it itself.
By what other power would it be done? Until that legislation comes into effect on Brexit day it would be against the legislation by which EU law applies.
Not an expert in Parliamentary procedure. Have some expertise in reading (and writing) what civil servants write. But if they can pass this Bill to enter into force upon Brexit day, why not another piece of legislation to amend this one? And in what way would preparations for post-Brexit be against EU law?
The reason they couldn't amend it is because they don't have the numbers to do so. This just formalises the fact that the government's hands are politically tied, although I accept the point that technically there'd be ways to override it.
Why is no bookie offering odds on TM either as tory leader at next election, or as PM after next election? All the odds are next Tory leader or next PM.
It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.
'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.
This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?
Jezza 2017 Dave 2015 Dave 2010 Tony 2005, 2001, 1997 Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil) Maggie etc
That's right, the British are ex-pats. An entirely different kettle of fish.
I'd be interested to see what the forced choice was, though. If they had to choose between losing their freedom and granting that freedom to others, what would be more important to them?
Looks like a graph with no 50%.. So no contradiction necessary?
Because the charts weren't identical it means there are, at least, some people who are certain the British should have freedom of movement, but don't know whether other EU citizens should have the same freedom. Or they aren't sure whether Brits should have that freedom, but they are sure that foreigners shouldn't.
Looks like a graph with no 50%.. So no contradiction necessary?
Because the charts weren't identical it means there are, at least, some people who are certain the British should have freedom of movement, but don't know whether other EU citizens should have the same freedom. Or they aren't sure whether Brits should have that freedom, but they are sure that foreigners shouldn't.
It's a logical inconsistency which is pathetic.
I'm pretty sure it isn't hard to run oxymoronic polls on any number of topics, whoever is polled. But this really isn't especially so. It's a bit JRM moved his hedge fund. The Canary will love it.
It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.
'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.
This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?
Jezza 2017 Dave 2015 Dave 2010 Tony 2005, 2001, 1997 Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil) Maggie etc
It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.
'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.
This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?
Jezza 2017 Dave 2015 Dave 2010 Tony 2005, 2001, 1997 Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil) Maggie etc
It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.
'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.
This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?
Jezza 2017 Dave 2015 Dave 2010 Tony 2005, 2001, 1997 Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil) Maggie etc
If charisma always wins then that means maybe only Boris can stop Corbyn
He said "charisma", not "bumbling incompetence".
To be fair, BoJo does have charisma. It may test the charisma theory to breaking point.
It passes me by, I`m afraid. Perhaps blocked out by the incompetence and the buffoonery. PB Tories like to think he is popular though.
I can think of only one who thinks he would be the best leadership candidate. I don't know why you would have trouble accepting Boris has charisma, or why you seem to think it is a matter of popularity. That he has, in the past particularly, been able to be compelling and persuasive, beyond merely the party faithful, seems inarguable, and that is surely the essence of charisma. I don't personally think he has enough substance and I think his ability to positively sway more people than he negatively sways no longer holds true, but he is charismatic.
Similarly, Trump is undoubtedly charismatic. He's brash, offensive, often seems pretty dim, he's incoherent, but is an entertaining speaker, forceful in personality, and clearly swayed a lot more people to his side that people thought he would. I certainly don't like that, and I don't think his charisma cancels out his negative aspects, but it is something he ha, and denying someone's ability to be charismatic because we don't like them seems like it would be pretty silly. It's why no matter how much others might not get the fervour for Corbyn, and think it misplaced even, to deny that his own brand of charisma has a significant following would be pretty silly too.
Two Brains on This Week talking about taxing Tory voters to oblivion.
JRM on the same programme taking him to task quite strongly too. Chuka on the programme as well, both could be leaders of their respective parties within a decade
It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.
'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.
This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?
Jezza 2017 Dave 2015 Dave 2010 Tony 2005, 2001, 1997 Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil) Maggie etc
If charisma always wins then that means maybe only Boris can stop Corbyn
He said "charisma", not "bumbling incompetence".
The two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, people can be rank idiots and be very charismatic indeed. Nor does the possession of charisma mean it works on everyone, so someone not charmed by another isn't proof that other isn't charismatic generally. I preferred Brown to Blair, frankly, but it would seem pretty clear that for a lot of people Blair was a charismatic person for quite some time, whatever his other qualities.
It was only 2 years into the other parliament, Corbyn getting another go seems reasonable given he did so much better than expected. Every year that passes is another which gives the standard 'It's time for a change' argument to work on people.
'Time for a change' only works if the alternative is better. It worked for Blair (and Cameron to a lesser extent). It didn't work for Kinnock. May or her successor could balls up so spectacularly the Jezaster looks better, but most scenarios that lead to that conclusion involve either Michael Gove or subsequent nuclear winters.
This Twitter Thread gave me pause for thought. Does the more charismatic contender always gain here too?
Jezza 2017 Dave 2015 Dave 2010 Tony 2005, 2001, 1997 Major 1992 (perhaps a nil nil draw with Neil) Maggie etc
If charisma always wins then that means maybe only Boris can stop Corbyn
He said "charisma", not "bumbling incompetence".
The two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, people can be rank idiots and be very charismatic indeed. Nor does the possession of charisma mean it works on everyone, so someone not charmed by another isn't proof that other isn't charismatic generally. I preferred Brown to Blair, frankly, but it would seem pretty clear that for a lot of people Blair was a charismatic person for quite some time, whatever his other qualities.
On your second sentence how else has Joey Essex had a TV career?
I think it can get silly looking for past precedent and then proceeding to debate what does and doesn't count within that precedent, modern times, Churchill/Atlee don't count.
I often wonder when people start arguing the technicalities if the other person could be convinced that the precedent was or wasn't flawless that they would change their mind about the point the precedent helps prove. It seems unlikely.
You could similarly argue that precedent would mean the Tories will lose seats at the next election, being the 3rd election in government (although in coalition mostly) and governing for a fair few years by the time of the next election.
There isn't really much wiggle room for Tory + DUP, if you can get the Lib Dems to abstain that is a little extra breathing room, if you can get the Lib Dems to vote with the Tories as well then there is a small buffer where both precedents could hold but that does seem like a stretch and without the Lib Dems surging in seats even that only gives a small buffer.
Doesn't seem worth considering SNP, Greens or PC backing.
Both precedents could easily be broken, any black wednesday type event could see Labour surge or a very successful few years with Brexit going well could see the Tories pull away from Labour. Even without picking the circumstances it seems entirely plausible either precedent could be broken by people falling away from one party or the other.
To get into the precedent argument that I have been trashing though, if Corbyn made the same advances Kinnock made in his second election would that make Corbyn PM?
I think it can get silly looking for past precedent and then proceeding to debate what does and doesn't count within that precedent, modern times, Churchill/Atlee don't count.
I often wonder when people start arguing the technicalities if the other person could be convinced that the precedent was or wasn't flawless that they would change their mind about the point the precedent helps prove. It seems unlikely.
You could similarly argue that precedent would mean the Tories will lose seats at the next election, being the 3rd election in government (although in coalition mostly) and governing for a fair few years by the time of the next election.
There isn't really much wiggle room for Tory + DUP, if you can get the Lib Dems to abstain that is a little extra breathing room, if you can get the Lib Dems to vote with the Tories as well then there is a small buffer where both precedents could hold but that does seem like a stretch and without the Lib Dems surging in seats even that only gives a small buffer.
Doesn't seem worth considering SNP, Greens or PC backing.
Both precedents could easily be broken, any black wednesday type event could see Labour surge or a very successful few years with Brexit going well could see the Tories pull away from Labour. Even without picking the circumstances it seems entirely plausible either precedent could be broken by people falling away from one party or the other.
To get into the precedent argument that I have been trashing though, if Corbyn made the same advances Kinnock made in his second election would that make Corbyn PM?
Kinnock added 42 net seats in 1992, so that would take Corbyn from 262 to 304.
I think it can get silly looking for past precedent and then proceeding to debate what does and doesn't count within that precedent, modern times, Churchill/Atlee don't count.
I often wonder when people start arguing the technicalities if the other person could be convinced that the precedent was or wasn't flawless that they would change their mind about the point the precedent helps prove. It seems unlikely.
You could similarly argue that precedent would mean the Tories will lose seats at the next election, being the 3rd election in government (although in coalition mostly) and governing for a fair few years by the time of the next election.
There isn't really much wiggle room for Tory + DUP, if you can get the Lib Dems to abstain that is a little extra breathing room, if you can get the Lib Dems to vote with the Tories as well then there is a small buffer where both precedents could hold but that does seem like a stretch and without the Lib Dems surging in seats even that only gives a small buffer.
Doesn't seem worth considering SNP, Greens or PC backing.
Both precedents could easily be broken, any black wednesday type event could see Labour surge or a very successful few years with Brexit going well could see the Tories pull away from Labour. Even without picking the circumstances it seems entirely plausible either precedent could be broken by people falling away from one party or the other.
To get into the precedent argument that I have been trashing though, if Corbyn made the same advances Kinnock made in his second election would that make Corbyn PM?
Kinnock added 42 net seats in 1992, so that would take Corbyn from 262 to 304.
I guess that would all depend on whether we were taking Tory or SNP seats mainly, I don't think we have Lib Dem targets, 1 close second and 1 closeish third to PC and second to the Greens though I think that is safe for them if Lucas stays.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
This isn't some old school Italian defence, Godin is quality but their defence will face far tougher tests than Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Although the Portugal game is a close call I was taking favourites by the tweet someone put up earlier which looked pretty good, my main complaint was maybe Croatia being underrated and possibly England a touch overrated.
Two Brains on This Week talking about taxing Tory voters to oblivion.
JRM on the same programme taking him to task quite strongly too. Chuka on the programme as well, both could be leaders of their respective parties within a decade
I really really struggle to see JRM lead the Conservatives, except from the opposition benches (bit like Hague after 1997). I dont underestimate him but he just lacks something - too posh is probably what I am thinking (even more than Cameron)
Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.
Churchill was NOT opposition leader in 1945
But he was a first time election loser main party leader!
And he was the LOTO in 1950, of course.
However, as an ex-Prime Minister, even aged 75 and suffering the after-effects of a stroke, he still had a huge advantage.
Ridiculous trivia question - since 1830, how many Conservative leaders who are ex-PMs have been unseated in opposition when they actually tried to fight their demotion? The answer is surprising.
I only just read the previous thread on Target2 and the video by Robert Smithson. I believe that his analysis was wrong in many ways, but typical of the financial industry viewpoint that Target2 is simply an interbank settlement mechanism and does not reflect any deeper problem.
If people are genuinely interested a far better and more informed explanation was been produced by City University London http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/19674/ (coincidentally my alma mater).
This documents points out two things that the video did not pick up - firstly, in fact the Target2 system is a de-facto mechanism for fiscal transfer from Germany to Southern Europe and that it is, in fact, reflective of the trade imbalance because Target2 transfers are financing a large chunk of Germany's exports.
Secondly, the conclusion by Smithson that a breakup of the Eurozone would not affect Target2 was, to put it mildly, unconvincing. In fact, if Italy defaults on their Target2 debt the German central bank picks up a 'real' liability for the same amount as this is owed by the Bundesbank to the German commercial banks. Therefore the German taxpayer is in fact completely financially exposed for these debts, which is of course in violation of EU treaties and the German constitution, not that this matters much in EU-land.
If charisma always wins then that means maybe only Boris can stop Corbyn
He said "charisma", not "bumbling incompetence".
To be fair, BoJo does have charisma. It may test the charisma theory to breaking point.
It passes me by, I`m afraid. Perhaps blocked out by the incompetence and the buffoonery. PB Tories like to think he is popular though.
I can think of only one who thinks he would be the best leadership candidate. I don't know why you would have trouble accepting Boris has charisma, or why you seem to think it is a matter of popularity. That he has, in the past particularly, been able to be compelling and persuasive, beyond merely the party faithful, seems inarguable, and that is surely the essence of charisma. I don't personally think he has enough substance and I think his ability to positively sway more people than he negatively sways no longer holds true, but he is charismatic.
Similarly, Trump is undoubtedly charismatic. He's brash, offensive, often seems pretty dim, he's incoherent, but is an entertaining speaker, forceful in personality, and clearly swayed a lot more people to his side that people thought he would. I certainly don't like that, and I don't think his charisma cancels out his negative aspects, but it is something he ha, and denying someone's ability to be charismatic because we don't like them seems like it would be pretty silly. It's why no matter how much others might not get the fervour for Corbyn, and think it misplaced even, to deny that his own brand of charisma has a significant following would be pretty silly too.
I spent half a day going round with Boris in his mayoral days. Yes, he was charismatic; he was besieged by all sorts of people wanting photos taken with him wherever we went. Behind the scenes however he was remarkably disorganised, and totally reliant on his advisors to keep reminding him what he was doing, why he was there, and what he had done previously. He was a great front man for a competent set of staff, but without them he would be lost. I suspect the reason his previous leadership campaign went so badly is that it was the one thing he actually had to run himself.
It is an interesting measure of urbanism, but I think there would be a similar trend with fast food shops too. What we are seing are measures of lifestyle and culture.
Churchill lost the 45 and 50 general elections before winning in 1951.
Churchill was NOT opposition leader in 1945
But he was a first time election loser main party leader!
And he was the LOTO in 1950, of course.
However, as an ex-Prime Minister, even aged 75 and suffering the after-effects of a stroke, he still had a huge advantage.
Ridiculous trivia question - since 1830, how many Conservative leaders who are ex-PMs have been unseated in opposition when they actually tried to fight their demotion? The answer is surprising.
None apart from Heath
Correct. Home, Balfour, Major all resigned although I think it is fair to say all three had untenable positions.
Baldwin in 1930 is instructive, however. He resigned, changed his mind, made a fight of it and won. That shows how tough it can be to unseat a Tory leader, contrary to the meme on here that it's Labour who are dud at regicide.
F1: practice in Austria kicks off today. Be interesting to see if Perez's engine failure was a one-off or if the reliability problem with the new Mercedes engine was never really solved.
To be fair, BoJo does have charisma. It may test the charisma theory to breaking point.
It passes me by, I`m afraid. Perhaps blocked out by the incompetence and the buffoonery. PB Tories like to think he is popular though.
The more important thing about Boris is that he's good media copy. In the same way that hardly a day went by during the election without Trump saying something so outrageous that it grabbed the headlines, a Boris vs Corbyn campaign would be all about Boris.
The Tory problem is that there's no guarantee that if the election becomes a referendum on Boris, people won't turn their thumbs down.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
This isn't some old school Italian defence, Godin is quality but their defence will face far tougher tests than Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Although the Portugal game is a close call I was taking favourites by the tweet someone put up earlier which looked pretty good, my main complaint was maybe Croatia being underrated and possibly England a touch overrated.
Croatia have surprised but I think the teams currently being underrated are Portugal and perhaps England (yes, England). France have most upside, in the sense their squad looks strongest but they've not set the tournament alight so far.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
To be fair, BoJo does have charisma. It may test the charisma theory to breaking point.
It passes me by, I`m afraid. Perhaps blocked out by the incompetence and the buffoonery. PB Tories like to think he is popular though.
The more important thing about Boris is that he's good media copy. In the same way that hardly a day went by during the election without Trump saying something so outrageous that it grabbed the headlines, a Boris vs Corbyn campaign would be all about Boris.
The Tory problem is that there's no guarantee that if the election becomes a referendum on Boris, people won't turn their thumbs down.
Boris Johnson has passed his sell-by date. He published the wrong article for his personal ambition in 2016. After that he was destined to be divisive rather than amusing, forced to rely on his efficient rather than his dignified skills. Since his skill set was comprised almost entirely of the latter rather than the former, he engineered his own eclipse.
Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.
During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history…
Which might possibly, with the Mueller investigation, and the issues it throws up perhaps heading to the Supreme Court, go some way to explaining why Kennedy decided now was a good time to head back home to Sacramento.
A little more detail: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/say-hello-to-your-boy-a-special-guy When I first read the Times story I wasn’t sure whether the younger Kennedy, whose title was Managing Director and Global Head of Real Estate Capital Markets, would have been someone to actually make loans to someone like Trump as opposed to overseeing more complex or synthetic efforts like mortgage backed securities and such. But it turns out he definitely was. The FT says Kennedy was “one of Mr Trump’s most trusted associates over a 12-year spell at Deutsche.” A review of Kennedy’s bio suggests those twelve years were 1997 through 2009 – key years for Trump...
The EU deal today is just the sort of deal that Britain can get on Brexit if we want it - it has just enough substance for people to claim various kinds of victory, but unclear how it will work in practice, which will (perhaps) be worked out by civil servants over the coming months. It is classic fudge, but that's arguably better than the harsh clarity of No Deal.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
This isn't some old school Italian defence, Godin is quality but their defence will face far tougher tests than Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Although the Portugal game is a close call I was taking favourites by the tweet someone put up earlier which looked pretty good, my main complaint was maybe Croatia being underrated and possibly England a touch overrated.
Croatia have surprised but I think the teams currently being underrated are Portugal and perhaps England (yes, England). France have most upside, in the sense their squad looks strongest but they've not set the tournament alight so far.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
England play Sweden or Switzerland not Spain should they defeat Colombia.
To be fair, BoJo does have charisma. It may test the charisma theory to breaking point.
It passes me by, I`m afraid. Perhaps blocked out by the incompetence and the buffoonery. PB Tories like to think he is popular though.
The more important thing about Boris is that he's good media copy. In the same way that hardly a day went by during the election without Trump saying something so outrageous that it grabbed the headlines, a Boris vs Corbyn campaign would be all about Boris.
The Tory problem is that there's no guarantee that if the election becomes a referendum on Boris, people won't turn their thumbs down.
Boris Johnson has passed his sell-by date. He published the wrong article for his personal ambition in 2016. After that he was destined to be divisive rather than amusing, forced to rely on his efficient rather than his dignified skills. Since his skill set was comprised almost entirely of the latter rather than the former, he engineered his own eclipse.
Yes, I agree Boris is past his sell by date. The charisma factor is rather lacking in his rivals though. Javid and Hunt are both rather dull, and Haammond exceptionally so.
The charisma factor does seem to be significant from opposition, but much less so from within government. Brown, May and Major all were rather dull, but took power in internal elections while in government.
It is quite likely that the next Tory leader will be a dullard, and probably next PM too, but they may flounder like May when it comes to the actual campaign.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
This isn't some old school Italian defence, Godin is quality but their defence will face far tougher tests than Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Although the Portugal game is a close call I was taking favourites by the tweet someone put up earlier which looked pretty good, my main complaint was maybe Croatia being underrated and possibly England a touch overrated.
Croatia have surprised but I think the teams currently being underrated are Portugal and perhaps England (yes, England). France have most upside, in the sense their squad looks strongest but they've not set the tournament alight so far.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
Croatia vs Denmark will be an interesting match, but the Danes are also looking solid defensively. Could go either way.
Uruguay vs Portugal is the pick of the weekend matches IMO. Should be a festival of prima donnas and play acting, and even a pantomime villain in Suarez.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
This isn't some old school Italian defence, Godin is quality but their defence will face far tougher tests than Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Although the Portugal game is a close call I was taking favourites by the tweet someone put up earlier which looked pretty good, my main complaint was maybe Croatia being underrated and possibly England a touch overrated.
Croatia have surprised but I think the teams currently being underrated are Portugal and perhaps England (yes, England). France have most upside, in the sense their squad looks strongest but they've not set the tournament alight so far.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
England play Sweden or Switzerland not Spain should they defeat Colombia.
Yes, that is right, but I was looking at the path to the final and which of the big two -- Spain and Brazil -- are in which half of the draw.
The Irish PM is a class act. " We've got a population of 500,000,000 in 27 countries who also have to be considered" he said almost pityingly. What an feeble country we have become. Our best chance is that they take pity on us like you would a blind crippled kitten on a three lane motorway.
Seriously? A 'blind, crippled kitten'? As bad as things may get, such self pitying nonsense only makes it easier to dismiss signs of bad things. Is that your aim, to make it easier to dismiss concerns? Because it's working fantastically.
To be fair, BoJo does have charisma. It may test the charisma theory to breaking point.
It passes me by, I`m afraid. Perhaps blocked out by the incompetence and the buffoonery. PB Tories like to think he is popular though.
The more important thing about Boris is that he's good media copy. In the same way that hardly a day went by during the election without Trump saying something so outrageous that it grabbed the headlines, a Boris vs Corbyn campaign would be all about Boris.
The Tory problem is that there's no guarantee that if the election becomes a referendum on Boris, people won't turn their thumbs down.
Boris Johnson has passed his sell-by date. He published the wrong article for his personal ambition in 2016. After that he was destined to be divisive rather than amusing, forced to rely on his efficient rather than his dignified skills. Since his skill set was comprised almost entirely of the latter rather than the former, he engineered his own eclipse.
Yes, I agree Boris is past his sell by date. The charisma factor is rather lacking in his rivals though. Javid and Hunt are both rather dull, and Haammond exceptionally so.
The charisma factor does seem to be significant from opposition, but much less so from within government. Brown, May and Major all were rather dull, but took power in internal elections while in government.
It is quite likely that the next Tory leader will be a dullard, and probably next PM too, but they may flounder like May when it comes to the actual campaign.
If you feel that the Opposition leader is a big negative for the Opposition's chances of victory - putting forward a "dullard" (which many people will interpret as "basically competent") as your own leader is a good idea. Putting forward somebody like Boris would undermine many of Corbyn's negatives with those who would otherwise be reluctant to vote Labour because of its leadership.
So I assume the EU migration deal, fudged as it is, will be enough to get Merkel's rivals to climb down? Hard to imagine then pushing it and saying it's not enough.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
This isn't some old school Italian defence, Godin is quality but their defence will face far tougher tests than Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Although the Portugal game is a close call I was taking favourites by the tweet someone put up earlier which looked pretty good, my main complaint was maybe Croatia being underrated and possibly England a touch overrated.
Croatia have surprised but I think the teams currently being underrated are Portugal and perhaps England (yes, England). France have most upside, in the sense their squad looks strongest but they've not set the tournament alight so far.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
England play Sweden or Switzerland not Spain should they defeat Colombia.
Yes, that is right, but I was looking at the path to the final and which of the big two -- Spain and Brazil -- are in which half of the draw.
Surely the path to victory is what matters? With an argument that the longer you put off the really difficult games, the better the chance that the difficult opponents get knocked out before you get to play them.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
This isn't some old school Italian defence, Godin is quality but their defence will face far tougher tests than Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Although the Portugal game is a close call I was taking favourites by the tweet someone put up earlier which looked pretty good, my main complaint was maybe Croatia being underrated and possibly England a touch overrated.
Croatia have surprised but I think the teams currently being underrated are Portugal and perhaps England (yes, England). France have most upside, in the sense their squad looks strongest but they've not set the tournament alight so far.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
England play Sweden or Switzerland not Spain should they defeat Colombia.
Yes, that is right, but I was looking at the path to the final and which of the big two -- Spain and Brazil -- are in which half of the draw.
As a disinterested party I'd say the England half of the draw is weaker through to the semi-final by which time you would expect to face a top quality side.
Broadly I'd say there is no single outstanding team in the last 16. Of those I'd say Croatia have edged the initial honours so far. It is a very open competition and the England first XI have as much chance as all the other fifteen of progressing to lift the prize.
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
This isn't some old school Italian defence, Godin is quality but their defence will face far tougher tests than Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Although the Portugal game is a close call I was taking favourites by the tweet someone put up earlier which looked pretty good, my main complaint was maybe Croatia being underrated and possibly England a touch overrated.
Croatia have surprised but I think the teams currently being underrated are Portugal and perhaps England (yes, England). France have most upside, in the sense their squad looks strongest but they've not set the tournament alight so far.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
If England beat Colombia they will face Switzerland or Sweden. They cannot meet Spain until the semifinal. Belgium will come up against Brazil in the quarterfinals.
The EU deal today is just the sort of deal that Britain can get on Brexit if we want it - it has just enough substance for people to claim various kinds of victory, but unclear how it will work in practice, which will (perhaps) be worked out by civil servants over the coming months. It is classic fudge, but that's arguably better than the harsh clarity of No Deal.
It's really not. We need specifics in place on a very tight deadline - or are you suggesting the EU will be happy to ignore their own rules for a time ?
I only just read the previous thread on Target2 and the video by Robert Smithson. I believe that his analysis was wrong in many ways, but typical of the financial industry viewpoint that Target2 is simply an interbank settlement mechanism and does not reflect any deeper problem.
If people are genuinely interested a far better and more informed explanation was been produced by City University London http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/19674/ (coincidentally my alma mater).
This documents points out two things that the video did not pick up - firstly, in fact the Target2 system is a de-facto mechanism for fiscal transfer from Germany to Southern Europe and that it is, in fact, reflective of the trade imbalance because Target2 transfers are financing a large chunk of Germany's exports.
Secondly, the conclusion by Smithson that a breakup of the Eurozone would not affect Target2 was, to put it mildly, unconvincing. In fact, if Italy defaults on their Target2 debt the German central bank picks up a 'real' liability for the same amount as this is owed by the Bundesbank to the German commercial banks. Therefore the German taxpayer is in fact completely financially exposed for these debts, which is of course in violation of EU treaties and the German constitution, not that this matters much in EU-land.
Surely it is only a final transfer if defaults do occur ?
So I assume the EU migration deal, fudged as it is, will be enough to get Merkel's rivals to climb down? Hard to imagine then pushing it and saying it's not enough.
the CSU started gently rowing back a bit yesterday morning to give themselves more room for manoeuvre.
Seehofers problem remains he still has to bring his party with him and the AfD is nicking his votes. Currently on latest polls the CSU will lose its in built majority in Bavaria and the AfD will be the second largest party.
F1: Haas are 2 to have both cars classified, with Ladbrokes. In 8 races to date, they've had 4 DNFs out of a possible 16 (affecting 3/8 races). However, half of these were at the first race due to dodgy pit stops, a problem that has not recurred.
The team's also 2.5 for a double points finish (which is far too short, I think). So, one of those markets looks wrong. I'd say there's a 60-70% chance of a double finish for Haas, maybe more.
Of course, this year I've been as lucky as a man who carried, and dropped, a mirror under a ladder, shortly before stepping on a witch's black cat, so...
Croatia have surprised but I think the teams currently being underrated are Portugal and perhaps England (yes, England). France have most upside, in the sense their squad looks strongest but they've not set the tournament alight so far.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
England play Sweden or Switzerland not Spain should they defeat Colombia.
Yes, that is right, but I was looking at the path to the final and which of the big two -- Spain and Brazil -- are in which half of the draw.
Surely the path to victory is what matters? With an argument that the longer you put off the really difficult games, the better the chance that the difficult opponents get knocked out before you get to play them.
Yes and no. In the end we (or Spain or Brazil) either win the World Cup or go home empty-handed like Germany.
My analysis is crude and starts with the assumption the betting market is correct: the big two, Spain and Brazil, are 4/1 shots (or have a 20 per cent chance of winning) and are in opposite halves of the draw. Then come the 10/1 shots (10-ish per cent) France, England, Portugal and so on. Finally a few no-hopers like Japan and Colombia. Then based on my own reading of the games and no doubt the odd prejudice or two, I tweak the probabilities to see if there are any areas where I can see value.
In other words, I start by assuming the market is right and then look for places where it is wrong.
The EU deal today is just the sort of deal that Britain can get on Brexit if we want it - it has just enough substance for people to claim various kinds of victory, but unclear how it will work in practice, which will (perhaps) be worked out by civil servants over the coming months. It is classic fudge, but that's arguably better than the harsh clarity of No Deal.
That deal was achieved only in the knowledge that the Italian Government was prepared to walk away and leave without a deal, a prospect the rest of the EU took seriously.
And that is why the British Government has to similarly make preparations to walk away and make the best of no deal and why it was such folly for Parliament to try and undermine the prospect of its being able to hold out the prospect of doing so in negotiations.
Two Brains on This Week talking about taxing Tory voters to oblivion.
JRM on the same programme taking him to task quite strongly too. Chuka on the programme as well, both could be leaders of their respective parties within a decade
I really really struggle to see JRM lead the Conservatives, except from the opposition benches (bit like Hague after 1997). I dont underestimate him but he just lacks something - too posh is probably what I am thinking (even more than Cameron)
The scenario was based on him leading from the opposition benches, Chuka as PM, JRM as Leader of the Opposition
Also, the important bit, happy with the loss in the football today. Players rested, easier route in the competition.
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
Beware of Uruguay. If you don't concede it is difficult to lose.
This isn't some old school Italian defence, Godin is quality but their defence will face far tougher tests than Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Although the Portugal game is a close call I was taking favourites by the tweet someone put up earlier which looked pretty good, my main complaint was maybe Croatia being underrated and possibly England a touch overrated.
Croatia have surprised but I think the teams currently being underrated are Portugal and perhaps England (yes, England). France have most upside, in the sense their squad looks strongest but they've not set the tournament alight so far.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
If England beat Colombia they will face Switzerland or Sweden. They cannot meet Spain until the semifinal. Belgium will come up against Brazil in the quarterfinals.
Yes but as stated earlier in mentioning Spain and Brazil I was just considering which of the two tournament favourites is in which half of the draw, not our next matches. The difference losing to Belgium made is to put us in Spain's half of the draw rather than Brazil's.
To be fair, BoJo does have charisma. It may test the charisma theory to breaking point.
It passes me by, I`m afraid. Perhaps blocked out by the incompetence and the buffoonery. PB Tories like to think he is popular though.
The more important thing about Boris is that he's good media copy. In the same way that hardly a day went by during the election without Trump saying something so outrageous that it grabbed the headlines, a Boris vs Corbyn campaign would be all about Boris.
The Tory problem is that there's no guarantee that if the election becomes a referendum on Boris, people won't turn their thumbs down.
Boris Johnson has passed his sell-by date. He published the wrong article for his personal ambition in 2016. After that he was destined to be divisive rather than amusing, forced to rely on his efficient rather than his dignified skills. Since his skill set was comprised almost entirely of the latter rather than the former, he engineered his own eclipse.
Yes, I agree Boris is past his sell by date. The charisma factor is rather lacking in his rivals though. Javid and Hunt are both rather dull, and Haammond exceptionally so.
The charisma factor does seem to be significant from opposition, but much less so from within government. Brown, May and Major all were rather dull, but took power in internal elections while in government.
It is quite likely that the next Tory leader will be a dullard, and probably next PM too, but they may flounder like May when it comes to the actual campaign.
Major v Kinnock was probably the last time the less charismatic candidate won, May led Corbyn in seats in 2017 but without a majority
Not sure why they were bothering with it -Barnier has not been reticent on similar points before.
I’m not sure they are. It doesn’t fit with the ‘leave the single market’ proposal and would only be to the net benefit of the EU.
The headline should be ‘EU blocks EU exporters from biggest market’. It will hurt companies there more than here.
This is the fundamental flaw in our negotiating position. Logic would dictate that no free trade deal for UK will harm Europe more (pain spread widely). That ignores the political dimension that if we look like we got something good out of leaving then that would encourage leaving as an option for other countries - not in the EUs interest.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
Clive Lewis at least committed Labour to the 2% on defence NATO target on QT last night
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
I only just read the previous thread on Target2 and the video by Robert Smithson. I believe that his analysis was wrong in many ways, but typical of the financial industry viewpoint that Target2 is simply an interbank settlement mechanism and does not reflect any deeper problem.
If people are genuinely interested a far better and more informed explanation was been produced by City University London http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/19674/ (coincidentally my alma mater).
This documents points out two things that the video did not pick up - firstly, in fact the Target2 system is a de-facto mechanism for fiscal transfer from Germany to Southern Europe and that it is, in fact, reflective of the trade imbalance because Target2 transfers are financing a large chunk of Germany's exports.
Secondly, the conclusion by Smithson that a breakup of the Eurozone would not affect Target2 was, to put it mildly, unconvincing. In fact, if Italy defaults on their Target2 debt the German central bank picks up a 'real' liability for the same amount as this is owed by the Bundesbank to the German commercial banks. Therefore the German taxpayer is in fact completely financially exposed for these debts, which is of course in violation of EU treaties and the German constitution, not that this matters much in EU-land.
Surely it is only a final transfer if defaults do occur ?
I am in bed, but for every Euro owed to the Bundesbank through Target2, there is an additional (capital flight) Euro owned by a peripheral Eurozone entity sitting in a German bank account.
The whole lot could be sterilized if the Bundesbank revalued Italian holdings in Commerzbank accounts to New Lira.
(Which would require primary legislation. But given Italy leaving the Eurozone would take at least a week, that should not be beyond the wit of man.)
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
You get fewer miles per gallon (mpg) if you drive faster (mph).
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
First, just detailing the scale of cuts will give Tory supporters pause. Second, if CCHQ were daft enough to rely on Morris Dancer's old news video of Corbyn calling for cuts decades ago, then that will simply shift the debate Labour's way.
I wonder if there were be political and / or economic consequences of Germany's football failing.
I'm not sure that rising consumption in the UK is a particularly good thing, given we are number two of the G20 in terms of consumption (66.3%) as % of GDP.
It's the British disease*. We export more (great), but then we spend more than all of the increase.
* A disease that didn't exist before Gordon Brown and George Osborne.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Belatedly, and catching up on the "If you drive economically you should pay less tax" argument, I saw it's been pointed out that you do.
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax - At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year - At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year - At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year - At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
I must be missing something, but this appears (surprisingly) to show the opposite - the faster you drive, the less tax you pay? Really?
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
As I said many times, Labour needs to hammer Conservative defence cuts at the next election to prize voters away from the blue team. I wonder if Williamson's SpAd read it on pb!
That might have worked for a different Labour (or for UKIP) leader but nobody is going to believe that Corbyn Labour is going to spend more on defence than the Conservatives.
Comments
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted
Grumpiest SF writer ever.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/28/harlan-ellison-death-science-fiction-star-trek
https://twitter.com/flipchartrick/status/1012452863778480128?s=21
I'd be interested to see what the forced choice was, though. If they had to choose between losing their freedom and granting that freedom to others, what would be more important to them?
That Danny Dyer clip is hilarious. He’s trending on twitter now.
It's a logical inconsistency which is pathetic.
He’s become the Archie Rice of British politics.
Similarly, Trump is undoubtedly charismatic. He's brash, offensive, often seems pretty dim, he's incoherent, but is an entertaining speaker, forceful in personality, and clearly swayed a lot more people to his side that people thought he would. I certainly don't like that, and I don't think his charisma cancels out his negative aspects, but it is something he ha, and denying someone's ability to be charismatic because we don't like them seems like it would be pretty silly. It's why no matter how much others might not get the fervour for Corbyn, and think it misplaced even, to deny that his own brand of charisma has a significant following would be pretty silly too.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-alt-right-members-paul-joseph-watson-mark-meechan-carl-benjamin-a8418116.html
I often wonder when people start arguing the technicalities if the other person could be convinced that the precedent was or wasn't flawless that they would change their mind about the point the precedent helps prove. It seems unlikely.
You could similarly argue that precedent would mean the Tories will lose seats at the next election, being the 3rd election in government (although in coalition mostly) and governing for a fair few years by the time of the next election.
There isn't really much wiggle room for Tory + DUP, if you can get the Lib Dems to abstain that is a little extra breathing room, if you can get the Lib Dems to vote with the Tories as well then there is a small buffer where both precedents could hold but that does seem like a stretch and without the Lib Dems surging in seats even that only gives a small buffer.
Doesn't seem worth considering SNP, Greens or PC backing.
Both precedents could easily be broken, any black wednesday type event could see Labour surge or a very successful few years with Brexit going well could see the Tories pull away from Labour. Even without picking the circumstances it seems entirely plausible either precedent could be broken by people falling away from one party or the other.
To get into the precedent argument that I have been trashing though, if Corbyn made the same advances Kinnock made in his second election would that make Corbyn PM?
If we aren't good enough to beat Colombia we would be likely to go out even if we did beat Japan. If we are good enough to beat them then we have a very good chance in a quarter final against the winners of Sweden and Switzerland, both teams worse than Colombia IMO.
Then we just have to win 2 games against possibly superior opponents to win the world cup, even if we lose the semi I'll still be very happy, I was too young for 1990 so a quarter final is the furthest I've seen us go. Winning 2 games against better teams isn't impossible though, even if we rightly wouldn't be favourites football gives the underdogs a decent chance and we aren't Andorra.
Edit: Europeans looking good as well, if all the favourites win Brazil will be the only country outside Europe still in the world cup.
If people are genuinely interested a far better and more informed explanation was been produced by City University London http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/19674/ (coincidentally my alma mater).
This documents points out two things that the video did not pick up - firstly, in fact the Target2 system is a de-facto mechanism for fiscal transfer from Germany to Southern Europe and that it is, in fact, reflective of the trade imbalance because Target2 transfers are financing a large chunk of Germany's exports.
Secondly, the conclusion by Smithson that a breakup of the Eurozone would not affect Target2 was, to put it mildly, unconvincing. In fact, if Italy defaults on their Target2 debt the German central bank picks up a 'real' liability for the same amount as this is owed by the Bundesbank to the German commercial banks. Therefore the German taxpayer is in fact completely financially exposed for these debts, which is of course in violation of EU treaties and the German constitution, not that this matters much in EU-land.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1012550601840963586?s=19
Baldwin in 1930 is instructive, however. He resigned, changed his mind, made a fight of it and won. That shows how tough it can be to unseat a Tory leader, contrary to the meme on here that it's Labour who are dud at regicide.
F1: practice in Austria kicks off today. Be interesting to see if Perez's engine failure was a one-off or if the reliability problem with the new Mercedes engine was never really solved.
The Tory problem is that there's no guarantee that if the election becomes a referendum on Boris, people won't turn their thumbs down.
England might have done better to win last night. Colombia followed by Spain looks harder than Japan followed by Brazil.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html
As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice.
“Say hello to your boy,” Mr. Trump said. “Special guy.”
Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.
During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history…
Which might possibly, with the Mueller investigation, and the issues it throws up perhaps heading to the Supreme Court, go some way to explaining why Kennedy decided now was a good time to head back home to Sacramento.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/say-hello-to-your-boy-a-special-guy
When I first read the Times story I wasn’t sure whether the younger Kennedy, whose title was Managing Director and Global Head of Real Estate Capital Markets, would have been someone to actually make loans to someone like Trump as opposed to overseeing more complex or synthetic efforts like mortgage backed securities and such. But it turns out he definitely was. The FT says Kennedy was “one of Mr Trump’s most trusted associates over a 12-year spell at Deutsche.” A review of Kennedy’s bio suggests those twelve years were 1997 through 2009 – key years for Trump...
The charisma factor does seem to be significant from opposition, but much less so from within government. Brown, May and Major all were rather dull, but took power in internal elections while in government.
It is quite likely that the next Tory leader will be a dullard, and probably next PM too, but they may flounder like May when it comes to the actual campaign.
Uruguay vs Portugal is the pick of the weekend matches IMO. Should be a festival of prima donnas and play acting, and even a pantomime villain in Suarez.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/06/28/time-conservatives-started-take-economics-seriously/
Broadly I'd say there is no single outstanding team in the last 16. Of those I'd say Croatia have edged the initial honours so far. It is a very open competition and the England first XI have as much chance as all the other fifteen of progressing to lift the prize.
The headline should be ‘EU blocks EU exporters from biggest market’. It will hurt companies there more than here.
Seehofers problem remains he still has to bring his party with him and the AfD is nicking his votes. Currently on latest polls the CSU will lose its in built majority in Bavaria and the AfD will be the second largest party.
Betting PostF1: Haas are 2 to have both cars classified, with Ladbrokes. In 8 races to date, they've had 4 DNFs out of a possible 16 (affecting 3/8 races). However, half of these were at the first race due to dodgy pit stops, a problem that has not recurred.
The team's also 2.5 for a double points finish (which is far too short, I think). So, one of those markets looks wrong. I'd say there's a 60-70% chance of a double finish for Haas, maybe more.
Of course, this year I've been as lucky as a man who carried, and dropped, a mirror under a ladder, shortly before stepping on a witch's black cat, so...
My analysis is crude and starts with the assumption the betting market is correct: the big two, Spain and Brazil, are 4/1 shots (or have a 20 per cent chance of winning) and are in opposite halves of the draw. Then come the 10/1 shots (10-ish per cent) France, England, Portugal and so on. Finally a few no-hopers like Japan and Colombia. Then based on my own reading of the games and no doubt the odd prejudice or two, I tweak the probabilities to see if there are any areas where I can see value.
In other words, I start by assuming the market is right and then look for places where it is wrong.
And that is why the British Government has to similarly make preparations to walk away and make the best of no deal and why it was such folly for Parliament to try and undermine the prospect of its being able to hold out the prospect of doing so in negotiations.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2018/06/PD18_237_45212.html;jsessionid=7556BA5E3F33865E455689C8819552E2.InternetLive1
https://www.insee.fr/en/statistiques/3578188
Compared to those in the UK being 3.9% higher:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/bulletins/retailsales/may2018
I wonder if there were be political and / or economic consequences of Germany's football failing.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/06/our-panel-two-in-three-party-members-back-williamsons-push-for-higher-defence-spending.html
To add numbers to that:
If you drive 10,000 miles per year, and bought fuel at an average of £1.25 per litre:
- At 100 mpg, you'd pay just over £350 per year in tax
- At 50 mpg, it's a bit over £700 per year
- At 33 mpg, it's over £1,060 per year
- At 25 mpg, it's a little over £1,400 per year
- At 16 mpg, it's over £2,200 per year
https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/1012593082724909056
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssueW15FuI8
The whole lot could be sterilized if the Bundesbank revalued Italian holdings in Commerzbank accounts to New Lira.
(Which would require primary legislation. But given Italy leaving the Eurozone would take at least a week, that should not be beyond the wit of man.)
Does anyone know if a similar situation is taking place in France, Germany, Italy and other EU countries ?
It's the British disease*. We export more (great), but then we spend more than all of the increase.
* A disease that didn't exist before Gordon Brown and George Osborne.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5879251/British-army-deploy-INFLATABLE-tanks-bid-confuse-enemies.html
But it wont have any effect, no matter how bad the Conservatives are with defence people will think Labour will be worse.
Its the opposite effect of how people always trust Labour more on health.