A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
By *this* I meant the whole of Woke, with the above being merely the latest example
It edges close to outright racism against white people. In fact I would say it has crossed the line, big time. And it is anti male, anti feminist, and crazy
As I say, if I were an American and given the choice between Wokeness and Trump, I might go for Trump
Hopefully the Republicans can see sense and offer America a better choice than Trump. If they do they will sweep to victory
Bolleaux.
They (State Street) are just ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.
Just seen Marr what a useless nonentity Starmer is.
Attacking sleaze you need to be squeaky clean Lab isnt
Moron
If he defected to the Tories would you vote Labour again?
I don't get why the Cult hate Starmer so much. If he was Blair it would be war to end all wars on Corbyn and fellows - certainly as far as policy goes and positions in party, but Starmer isn't like that.
As the recent documentary highlighted.
Why? Because he isn't one of them. Because he had to say stupid during the leadership election to win the vote of foaming-dog-feverists. Now he is leader he can discard stupid policies and with it the lunatics - win win.
If only RLB had won! Then we would have a path to True Socialism...
A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
By *this* I meant the whole of Woke, with the above being merely the latest example
It edges close to outright racism against white people. In fact I would say it has crossed the line, big time. And it is anti male, anti feminist, and crazy
As I say, if I were an American and given the choice between Wokeness and Trump, I might go for Trump
Hopefully the Republicans can see sense and offer America a better choice than Trump. If they do they will sweep to victory
Bolleaux.
They (State Street) are just ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.
Just seen Marr what a useless nonentity Starmer is.
Attacking sleaze you need to be squeaky clean Lab isnt
Moron
If he defected to the Tories would you vote Labour again?
I don't get why the Cult hate Starmer so much. If he was Blair it would be war to end all wars on Corbyn and fellows - certainly as far as policy goes and positions in party, but Starmer isn't like that.
As the recent documentary highlighted.
Why? Because he isn't one of them. Because he had to say stupid during the leadership election to win the vote of foaming-dog-feverists. Now he is leader he can discard stupid policies and with it the lunatics - win win.
If only RLB had won! Then we would have a path to True Socialism...
Well, yes. Straight through the wilderness of opposition to the gates of total irrelevance.
A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
By *this* I meant the whole of Woke, with the above being merely the latest example
It edges close to outright racism against white people. In fact I would say it has crossed the line, big time. And it is anti male, anti feminist, and crazy
As I say, if I were an American and given the choice between Wokeness and Trump, I might go for Trump
Hopefully the Republicans can see sense and offer America a better choice than Trump. If they do they will sweep to victory
Bolleaux.
They (State Street) are just ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.
We have. The topic is now the Shropshire by-election, where the questions are imo:
Will Boris's ham-fisted attempt to abolish the independent scrutiny of parliamentary standards damage their defence of the seat?
If so, who will most benefit, Davey or Sir Keir?
1) Yes but not fatally, 2) Davey but he won't win. (Labour can't win)
Think I agree. Btw I have moved my GE long range assessment in line with yours now. Con maj and hung parliament about equally probable.
Noted with interest. I don't think the shifting facts on the ground at the moment significantly changes the dial as between Tory 326+ seats and Tory 325- seats. (The question of what actually happens politically if the Tories get between 325 and about 290 seats is another and complex set of conundrums for another day).
The issue will perhaps become more like one in which a resistible force meets a moveable object, in which a soggy seedy set of Tories can't win, Labour can't win (maths decides that) and no-one wants the Lab/LD/G/SNP circus, especially because of its insoluble dilemmas over the union, and (which may emerge before the election) post-Brexit policy.
In both the current facts and that future scenario I can find no factor which shows the dial is biased in any way towards or against Tories being 326+ or 325- next time.
The continuing certainty is that Labour at 6/1 or thereabouts is nonsense.
I do not think the LibDems are going to win North Shropshire, and I think 10s are very ungenerous.
With that said: it's entirely possible that (a) the LibDems leapfrog the Labour Party, and (b) the Conservative vote is well down.
I could easily see Cons getting 17-18,000 votes, with the LDs at 10,000, and Labour at 6,000.
The Greens really should be going all out here, because if you want to be a player in a FPTP world, then you need to start winning elections. I suspect, however, that they will (as so often) fail to contest North Shropshire, and end up with their vote down on the General Election.
A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
By *this* I meant the whole of Woke, with the above being merely the latest example
It edges close to outright racism against white people. In fact I would say it has crossed the line, big time. And it is anti male, anti feminist, and crazy
As I say, if I were an American and given the choice between Wokeness and Trump, I might go for Trump
Hopefully the Republicans can see sense and offer America a better choice than Trump. If they do they will sweep to victory
Bolleaux.
They (State Street) are just ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.
By discriminating against white men?
Did you read the story, not the headline?
I did. They are making it harder to hire a white man than anyone else, because only the latter needs approval from higher authority.
I do not think the LibDems are going to win North Shropshire, and I think 10s are very ungenerous.
With that said: it's entirely possible that (a) the LibDems leapfrog the Labour Party, and (b) the Conservative vote is well down.
I could easily see Cons getting 17-18,000 votes, with the LDs at 10,000, and Labour at 6,000.
The Greens really should be going all out here, because if you want to be a player in a FPTP world, then you need to start winning elections. I suspect, however, that they will (as so often) fail to contest North Shropshire, and end up with their vote down on the General Election.
I do not think the LibDems are going to win North Shropshire, and I think 10s are very ungenerous.
With that said: it's entirely possible that (a) the LibDems leapfrog the Labour Party, and (b) the Conservative vote is well down.
I could easily see Cons getting 17-18,000 votes, with the LDs at 10,000, and Labour at 6,000.
The Greens really should be going all out here, because if you want to be a player in a FPTP world, then you need to start winning elections. I suspect, however, that they will (as so often) fail to contest North Shropshire, and end up with their vote down on the General Election.
Well, the LibDems used to regularly clock 10,000 votes here, but that seems to have just vanished. Even their 5,000 last time was something of a recovery. That comes back to the discussion this morning of changing demographics in the Oswestry area I think (which you can see across the border in Montgomery and Radnor as well). They relied on the Welsh vote, which is shrinking. If they get up to 10,000 they will have done very, very well and clearly picked up new voters somewhere.
I do not think the LibDems are going to win North Shropshire, and I think 10s are very ungenerous.
With that said: it's entirely possible that (a) the LibDems leapfrog the Labour Party, and (b) the Conservative vote is well down.
I could easily see Cons getting 17-18,000 votes, with the LDs at 10,000, and Labour at 6,000.
The Greens really should be going all out here, because if you want to be a player in a FPTP world, then you need to start winning elections. I suspect, however, that they will (as so often) fail to contest North Shropshire, and end up with their vote down on the General Election.
I do not think the LibDems are going to win North Shropshire, and I think 10s are very ungenerous.
With that said: it's entirely possible that (a) the LibDems leapfrog the Labour Party, and (b) the Conservative vote is well down.
I could easily see Cons getting 17-18,000 votes, with the LDs at 10,000, and Labour at 6,000.
The Greens really should be going all out here, because if you want to be a player in a FPTP world, then you need to start winning elections. I suspect, however, that they will (as so often) fail to contest North Shropshire, and end up with their vote down on the General Election.
Just seen Marr what a useless nonentity Starmer is.
Attacking sleaze you need to be squeaky clean Lab isnt
Moron
If he defected to the Tories would you vote Labour again?
I thought BJO had defected to the Tories. Only by voting for the Tories can he bring about True Socialism or some bollox.
Who is BJO?
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
His housemaster at Eton noted his belief that he should be treated as “an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else”. He rarely encounters a rule without feeling the urge to break it. Know this and you are well on the way to understanding why the government engaged in grubby scheming to undermine parliament’s anti-corruption safeguards, then brutish bullying of Tory MPs to make them follow the prime minister’s orders.
This could have been a very small footnote in the life of this parliament. It was choices made in Downing Street that turned a lobbying affair involving one former cabinet minister into an utterly disreputable episode for the entire government…highly aggressive whipping, which is alleged to have included threats to cut funding to the constituencies of any Tory MP who refused to fall in with the plot. That’s not parliamentary government – that’s government as an extortion racket.
It was predictable to anyone living outside the Boris Johnson bubble that fiddling with the rules in this nakedly partisan fashion would trigger a tsunami of condemnation. Someone extremely close to events says: “I think it was when he saw the headlines on Wednesday night that Boris decided he had to order the retreat.” All those Tories who went along with the attempt to subvert the standards regime have been left looking stupid for making themselves complicit with the squalid scheme.
People close to Mr Johnson confirm that he ditched the attempt to meddle with the anti-corruption rules because he was taken aback by the scale of the opposition. That is very telling. He failed to appreciate why others would attach importance to standards in public life because he cares so little about them himself. In comparison with many other democracies, and in the absence of a written constitution, Britain lacks all that many checks and balances to curb bad behaviour by the ruling party. The forced retreat over the Paterson affair is not only a very deserved humiliation, it is also a very necessary defeat.
The last para contains a classic piece of journalistic rhetoric. I want to know what all these checks and balances are, and where, and how cleverly and effectively all these other countries keep a series of massive gigantic venal egos from nicking all the spoons and swiping the non-toffee Quality Street.
Our check is called Parliament, which has supreme unfettered authority to do whatever it likes, and our balance is called General Elections which means that Andrew Rawnsley and I put them there and can kick them out. What, exactly, more does he want? This is pure sermonising.
I do not think the LibDems are going to win North Shropshire, and I think 10s are very ungenerous.
With that said: it's entirely possible that (a) the LibDems leapfrog the Labour Party, and (b) the Conservative vote is well down.
I could easily see Cons getting 17-18,000 votes, with the LDs at 10,000, and Labour at 6,000.
The Greens really should be going all out here, because if you want to be a player in a FPTP world, then you need to start winning elections. I suspect, however, that they will (as so often) fail to contest North Shropshire, and end up with their vote down on the General Election.
Well, the LibDems used to regularly clock 10,000 votes here, but that seems to have just vanished. Even their 5,000 last time was something of a recovery. That comes back to the discussion this morning of changing demographics in the Oswestry area I think (which you can see across the border in Montgomery and Radnor as well). They relied on the Welsh vote, which is shrinking. If they get up to 10,000 they will have done very, very well and clearly picked up new voters somewhere.
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
And so on
I once tried to list all the identities of Sean Thomas, but the post was too long.
Just seen Marr what a useless nonentity Starmer is.
Attacking sleaze you need to be squeaky clean Lab isnt
Moron
If he defected to the Tories would you vote Labour again?
I thought BJO had defected to the Tories. Only by voting for the Tories can he bring about True Socialism or some bollox.
Who is BJO?
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
By *this* I meant the whole of Woke, with the above being merely the latest example
It edges close to outright racism against white people. In fact I would say it has crossed the line, big time. And it is anti male, anti feminist, and crazy
As I say, if I were an American and given the choice between Wokeness and Trump, I might go for Trump
Hopefully the Republicans can see sense and offer America a better choice than Trump. If they do they will sweep to victory
Bolleaux.
They (State Street) are just ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.
By discriminating against white men?
Did you read the story, not the headline?
From what I can work out, they are trying to improve the representation of non white men. So they have set up an approval process where a manager needs to demonstrate they have considered other options before hiring a white man. There is also mention of bonuses being linked to how many minorities and women a manager hires.
This isn't that complicated. It is a policy of valuing racial and sexual identity over individual merit and ability in recruitment decisions. It is a retrograde step away from true equality, but entirely in line with the woke zeitgeist and its alternative vision of equity.
If you don't like this direction of travel, then your only option is to vote republican.
A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
By *this* I meant the whole of Woke, with the above being merely the latest example
It edges close to outright racism against white people. In fact I would say it has crossed the line, big time. And it is anti male, anti feminist, and crazy
As I say, if I were an American and given the choice between Wokeness and Trump, I might go for Trump
Hopefully the Republicans can see sense and offer America a better choice than Trump. If they do they will sweep to victory
Bolleaux.
They (State Street) are just ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.
I do not think the LibDems are going to win North Shropshire, and I think 10s are very ungenerous.
With that said: it's entirely possible that (a) the LibDems leapfrog the Labour Party, and (b) the Conservative vote is well down.
I could easily see Cons getting 17-18,000 votes, with the LDs at 10,000, and Labour at 6,000.
The Greens really should be going all out here, because if you want to be a player in a FPTP world, then you need to start winning elections. I suspect, however, that they will (as so often) fail to contest North Shropshire, and end up with their vote down on the General Election.
Well, the LibDems used to regularly clock 10,000 votes here, but that seems to have just vanished. Even their 5,000 last time was something of a recovery. That comes back to the discussion this morning of changing demographics in the Oswestry area I think (which you can see across the border in Montgomery and Radnor as well). They relied on the Welsh vote, which is shrinking. If they get up to 10,000 they will have done very, very well and clearly picked up new voters somewhere.
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
And so on
I once tried to list all the identities of Sean Thomas, but the post was too long.
I tried using an investment bank AI designed to spot patterns, to identify all the SeanTs
But all I got was "These Are Things Man Was Not Meant to Know"
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
His housemaster at Eton noted his belief that he should be treated as “an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else”. He rarely encounters a rule without feeling the urge to break it. Know this and you are well on the way to understanding why the government engaged in grubby scheming to undermine parliament’s anti-corruption safeguards, then brutish bullying of Tory MPs to make them follow the prime minister’s orders.
This could have been a very small footnote in the life of this parliament. It was choices made in Downing Street that turned a lobbying affair involving one former cabinet minister into an utterly disreputable episode for the entire government…highly aggressive whipping, which is alleged to have included threats to cut funding to the constituencies of any Tory MP who refused to fall in with the plot. That’s not parliamentary government – that’s government as an extortion racket.
It was predictable to anyone living outside the Boris Johnson bubble that fiddling with the rules in this nakedly partisan fashion would trigger a tsunami of condemnation. Someone extremely close to events says: “I think it was when he saw the headlines on Wednesday night that Boris decided he had to order the retreat.” All those Tories who went along with the attempt to subvert the standards regime have been left looking stupid for making themselves complicit with the squalid scheme.
People close to Mr Johnson confirm that he ditched the attempt to meddle with the anti-corruption rules because he was taken aback by the scale of the opposition. That is very telling. He failed to appreciate why others would attach importance to standards in public life because he cares so little about them himself. In comparison with many other democracies, and in the absence of a written constitution, Britain lacks all that many checks and balances to curb bad behaviour by the ruling party. The forced retreat over the Paterson affair is not only a very deserved humiliation, it is also a very necessary defeat.
The last para contains a classic piece of journalistic rhetoric. I want to know what all these checks and balances are, and where, and how cleverly and effectively all these other countries keep a series of massive gigantic venal egos from nicking all the spoons and swiping the non-toffee Quality Street.
Our check is called Parliament, which has supreme unfettered authority to do whatever it likes, and our balance is called General Elections which means that Andrew Rawnsley and I put them there and can kick them out. What, exactly, more does he want? This is pure sermonising.
It must be a symptom of Americanisation that many people have lost the ability to articulate the vitues of any other system.
A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
Ha ha, I don’t agree with ‘Leon’ one bit but so much for your ‘be kind, we’re a family’ stuff earlier in the thread.
That's precisely the point. Families can bicker. That's what makes them families.
A brief view of the details says that they can hire whomever they want but must show that they have also interviewed other candidates who are female, black, etc.
By *this* I meant the whole of Woke, with the above being merely the latest example
It edges close to outright racism against white people. In fact I would say it has crossed the line, big time. And it is anti male, anti feminist, and crazy
As I say, if I were an American and given the choice between Wokeness and Trump, I might go for Trump
Hopefully the Republicans can see sense and offer America a better choice than Trump. If they do they will sweep to victory
Bolleaux.
They (State Street) are just ensuring everyone gets a fair chance.
By discriminating against white men?
Did you read the story, not the headline?
From what I can work out, they are trying to improve the representation of non white men. So they have set up an approval process where a manager needs to demonstrate they have considered other options before hiring a white man. There is also mention of bonuses being linked to how many minorities and women a manager hires.
This isn't that complicated. It is a policy of valuing racial and sexual identity over individual merit and ability in recruitment decisions. It is a retrograde step away from true equality, but entirely in line with the woke zeitgeist and its alternative vision of equity.
If you don't like this direction of travel, then your only option is to vote republican.
Or it might have something to do with their getting sued a few years back for discriminating against women and African Americans.
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
And so on
What, or who, is/was “Rogerdamus”?
Would it be churlish to say: don't ask @Leon, he only joined in December 2020?
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
And so on
What, or who, is/was “Rogerdamus”?
I believe the coinage was one of @SeanT's (a much missed ex PBer).
Roger (a retired rich lefty tampon advert producer who means well but says silly things, and still occasionally reappears) was the kind of guy who made madly bad predictions. One of his most famous was around the time of the early Credit Crunch, when he predicted the run on Northern Rock bank "would all be forgotten by next Monday"
Sadly, that wasn't the case
He was christened "Rogerdamus" in honour of himself, and also the ludicrously vague and incorrect soothsayer Nostradamus
Silly stuff at the Grand Prix. Pit Arse to try and nick fastest lap. He can't do it so they pit him again again and hold him in the box to create a huge gap so that Arse could finally beat Max on new soft tyres with an empty tank.
Sad, desperate nonsense from a stroppy team out of talent.
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
And so on
What, or who, is/was “Rogerdamus”?
I believe the coinage was one of @SeanT's (a much missed ex PBer).
Roger (a retired rich lefty tampon advert producer who means well but says silly things, and still occasionally reappears) was the kind of guy who made madly bad predictions. One of his most famous was around the time of the early Credit Crunch, when he predicted the run on Northern Rock bank "would all be forgotten by next Monday"
Sadly, that wasn't the case
He was christened "Rogerdamus" in honour of himself, and also the ludicrously vague and incorrect soothsayer Nostradamus
Silly stuff at the Grand Prix. Pit Arse to try and nick fastest lap. He can't do it so they pit him again again and hold him in the box to create a huge gap so that Arse could finally beat Max on new soft tyres with an empty tank.
Sad, desperate nonsense from a stroppy team out of talent.
Just sensible strategy when every point is crucial. And didn't give up any points to do so, so benefitted both Hamilton and team.
Unlike when Red Bull did the same thing earlier in the season, but sacrificed guaranteed Perez points to do so...
His housemaster at Eton noted his belief that he should be treated as “an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else”. He rarely encounters a rule without feeling the urge to break it. Know this and you are well on the way to understanding why the government engaged in grubby scheming to undermine parliament’s anti-corruption safeguards, then brutish bullying of Tory MPs to make them follow the prime minister’s orders.
This could have been a very small footnote in the life of this parliament. It was choices made in Downing Street that turned a lobbying affair involving one former cabinet minister into an utterly disreputable episode for the entire government…highly aggressive whipping, which is alleged to have included threats to cut funding to the constituencies of any Tory MP who refused to fall in with the plot. That’s not parliamentary government – that’s government as an extortion racket.
It was predictable to anyone living outside the Boris Johnson bubble that fiddling with the rules in this nakedly partisan fashion would trigger a tsunami of condemnation. Someone extremely close to events says: “I think it was when he saw the headlines on Wednesday night that Boris decided he had to order the retreat.” All those Tories who went along with the attempt to subvert the standards regime have been left looking stupid for making themselves complicit with the squalid scheme.
People close to Mr Johnson confirm that he ditched the attempt to meddle with the anti-corruption rules because he was taken aback by the scale of the opposition. That is very telling. He failed to appreciate why others would attach importance to standards in public life because he cares so little about them himself. In comparison with many other democracies, and in the absence of a written constitution, Britain lacks all that many checks and balances to curb bad behaviour by the ruling party. The forced retreat over the Paterson affair is not only a very deserved humiliation, it is also a very necessary defeat.
The last para contains a classic piece of journalistic rhetoric. I want to know what all these checks and balances are, and where, and how cleverly and effectively all these other countries keep a series of massive gigantic venal egos from nicking all the spoons and swiping the non-toffee Quality Street.
Our check is called Parliament, which has supreme unfettered authority to do whatever it likes, and our balance is called General Elections which means that Andrew Rawnsley and I put them there and can kick them out. What, exactly, more does he want? This is pure sermonising.
Whilst i think the main part of the sermon is worth mentioning, I do think you have a point there. I think a lot of commentators have an unfortunate habit of presuming a lack of a written (by which they mean codified in any case, not unwritten) constitution is a major cause of many problems when I just don't think that is the case. Assuming such would solve many issues of political culture is, I think, optimistic verging on misleading.
As has been pointed out by finer individuals than I (there are a few out there), you can have a fantastic written document setting out all manner of rights and checks and balances, but that doesn't mean you'll actually have them.
Silly stuff at the Grand Prix. Pit Arse to try and nick fastest lap. He can't do it so they pit him again again and hold him in the box to create a huge gap so that Arse could finally beat Max on new soft tyres with an empty tank.
Sad, desperate nonsense from a stroppy team out of talent.
Just sensible strategy when every point is crucial. And didn't give up any points to do so, so benefitted both Hamilton and team.
Unlike when Red Bull did the same thing earlier in the season, but sacrificed guaranteed Perez points to do so...
I don't mind pit to push for fastest lap. But doing it twice? Thats the desperation.
Just had a party. It was a fireworks party. We used to do it every year, starting in 2014, but couldn't last year. Because I have three youngish children, it was a party at a time of day which only families with youngish children have parties - I.e. 4 - 8 pm. Still, it was great. 16 adults and 17 children in our house. Felt thrilling. It's probably the largest social gathering I've attended for about 2 years. Happy for several reasons, but primarily: 1) for my daughters, who had a brilliant time and have been denied too much of this sort of thing over the last couple of years. In particular for my oldest daughter, for whom doing the same things that she did last time in the same way is of particular import, and who was quite hurt by missing it last year. 2) the process of setting off the fireworks itself, which is something three of us do together. How those three men self selected is a bit of a mystery - I'm there because it's my house, I suppose, but I'm not sure why it's the other two bar continuity. Still, it's us. And it's one of those occasions where you enjoy someone's company despite any conversation being almost incidental to the occasion. 3) That said, the giddy hubbub of 33 people all talking at once, all excited to actually be at a party was quite intoxicating.
Anyway, another thing which after 2020 I will appreciate even more in the future.
It must be a symptom of Americanisation that many people have lost the ability to articulate the vitues of any other system.
I think it's well-established that corruption scandals don't occur in countries like the USA, Italy, France, Austria, Belgium, which have written constitutions.
The only pols I have seen shouting about it are Simon Coveney, and I think Maros Sefcovic - who have both been EuCo outriders in the past.
Thoughts?
It depends a lot on how it is done. And it's also worth remembering that Article 16 doesn't immediately trigger anything other than talks.
If it is done constructively, that is it is combined with a document on the Trusted Trader program and how it can be put back on track - i.e. we're triggering Article 16 and here's how we get back out of it - then I think it could well have a positive impact.
But my concern is that Boris is following the Macron path: i.e. he's not so much interested in solving the problem, so much as having a fight.
In which case I think it could all get very nasty, and tit-for-tat, and with the EU potentially threatening escalation all the way up to the unravelling of the whole EU-UK FTA.
His housemaster at Eton noted his belief that he should be treated as “an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else”. He rarely encounters a rule without feeling the urge to break it. Know this and you are well on the way to understanding why the government engaged in grubby scheming to undermine parliament’s anti-corruption safeguards, then brutish bullying of Tory MPs to make them follow the prime minister’s orders.
This could have been a very small footnote in the life of this parliament. It was choices made in Downing Street that turned a lobbying affair involving one former cabinet minister into an utterly disreputable episode for the entire government…highly aggressive whipping, which is alleged to have included threats to cut funding to the constituencies of any Tory MP who refused to fall in with the plot. That’s not parliamentary government – that’s government as an extortion racket.
It was predictable to anyone living outside the Boris Johnson bubble that fiddling with the rules in this nakedly partisan fashion would trigger a tsunami of condemnation. Someone extremely close to events says: “I think it was when he saw the headlines on Wednesday night that Boris decided he had to order the retreat.” All those Tories who went along with the attempt to subvert the standards regime have been left looking stupid for making themselves complicit with the squalid scheme.
People close to Mr Johnson confirm that he ditched the attempt to meddle with the anti-corruption rules because he was taken aback by the scale of the opposition. That is very telling. He failed to appreciate why others would attach importance to standards in public life because he cares so little about them himself. In comparison with many other democracies, and in the absence of a written constitution, Britain lacks all that many checks and balances to curb bad behaviour by the ruling party. The forced retreat over the Paterson affair is not only a very deserved humiliation, it is also a very necessary defeat.
The last para contains a classic piece of journalistic rhetoric. I want to know what all these checks and balances are, and where, and how cleverly and effectively all these other countries keep a series of massive gigantic venal egos from nicking all the spoons and swiping the non-toffee Quality Street.
Our check is called Parliament, which has supreme unfettered authority to do whatever it likes, and our balance is called General Elections which means that Andrew Rawnsley and I put them there and can kick them out. What, exactly, more does he want? This is pure sermonising.
Whilst i think the main part of the sermon is worth mentioning, I do think you have a point there. I think a lot of commentators have an unfortunate habit of presuming a lack of a written (by which they mean uncodified in any case, not unwritten) constitution is a major cause of many problems when I just don't think that is the case. Assuming such would solve many issues of political culture is, I think, optimistic verging on misleading.
As has been pointed out by finer individuals than I (there are a few out there), you can have a fantastic written document setting out all manner of rights and checks and balances, but that doesn't mean you'll actually have them.
Like in America, where a chunk of the GOP is utilising the literal text of the constitution to argue that they can ignore/and overturn democratic votes for President based on the fact that (direct) democracy was an optional way of determining state electors in the 18th century.
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
And so on
What, or who, is/was “Rogerdamus”?
I believe the coinage was one of @SeanT's (a much missed ex PBer).
Roger (a retired rich lefty tampon advert producer who means well but says silly things, and still occasionally reappears) was the kind of guy who made madly bad predictions. One of his most famous was around the time of the early Credit Crunch, when he predicted the run on Northern Rock bank "would all be forgotten by next Monday"
Sadly, that wasn't the case
He was christened "Rogerdamus" in honour of himself, and also the ludicrously vague and incorrect soothsayer Nostradamus
I had no idea he’d been around that long
I came on board back in 2005 ( for the Cheadle by-election). Roger was one of the first posters I met. He is part of the fabric.
Just had a party. It was a fireworks party. We used to do it every year, starting in 2014, but couldn't last year. Because I have three youngish children, it was a party at a time of day which only families with youngish children have parties - I.e. 4 - 8 pm. Still, it was great. 16 adults and 17 children in our house. Felt thrilling. It's probably the largest social gathering I've attended for about 2 years. Happy for several reasons, but primarily: 1) for my daughters, who had a brilliant time and have been denied too much of this sort of thing over the last couple of years. In particular for my oldest daughter, for whom doing the same things that she did last time in the same way is of particular import, and who was quite hurt by missing it last year. 2) the process of setting off the fireworks itself, which is something three of us do together. How those three men self selected is a bit of a mystery - I'm there because it's my house, I suppose, but I'm not sure why it's the other two bar continuity. Still, it's us. And it's one of those occasions where you enjoy someone's company despite any conversation being almost incidental to the occasion. 3) That said, the giddy hubbub of 33 people all talking at once, all excited to actually be at a party was quite intoxicating.
Anyway, another thing which after 2020 I will appreciate even more in the future.
Good man. It's time to enjoy life, and Other People, once again
I am so bored of seeing my fellow humans as some kind of threat
It must be a symptom of Americanisation that many people have lost the ability to articulate the vitues of any other system.
I think it's well-established that corruption scandals don't occur in countries like the USA, Italy, France, Austria, Belgium, which have written constitutions.
Corruption scandals happen wherever there is power and money. However, some leaders have strong personal morals and others do not.
Silly stuff at the Grand Prix. Pit Arse to try and nick fastest lap. He can't do it so they pit him again again and hold him in the box to create a huge gap so that Arse could finally beat Max on new soft tyres with an empty tank.
Sad, desperate nonsense from a stroppy team out of talent.
Just sensible strategy when every point is crucial. And didn't give up any points to do so, so benefitted both Hamilton and team.
Unlike when Red Bull did the same thing earlier in the season, but sacrificed guaranteed Perez points to do so...
I don't mind pit to push for fastest lap. But doing it twice? Thats the desperation.
Don't see what's so desperate about it. Red Bull would have done exactly the same thing if roles were reversed.
On topic: I think any government strategist worth their salt would wonder for a moment whether Southend West and North Shropshire could be scheduled on the same day. Any attack on sleaze could be blunted as a reckless and dangerous coarsening of the debate. The only queasy feeling one might feel in that position is that it might be seen as too transparent, it might backfire.
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
And so on
What, or who, is/was “Rogerdamus”?
I believe the coinage was one of @SeanT's (a much missed ex PBer).
Roger (a retired rich lefty tampon advert producer who means well but says silly things, and still occasionally reappears) was the kind of guy who made madly bad predictions. One of his most famous was around the time of the early Credit Crunch, when he predicted the run on Northern Rock bank "would all be forgotten by next Monday"
Sadly, that wasn't the case
He was christened "Rogerdamus" in honour of himself, and also the ludicrously vague and incorrect soothsayer Nostradamus
Most famously, when OGH posted the article "Could this man be the next President of the United States?" (about Obama), the first response was from Roger and was succinct:
"No"
However, those people who followed his Oscar bets over the years will have made very good money. I don't think there's been a single year when he didn't nail three quarters of the awards.
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
And so on
What, or who, is/was “Rogerdamus”?
Would it be churlish to say: don't ask @Leon, he only joined in December 2020?
This one has lasted a lot longer than most of the others, tbf
His housemaster at Eton noted his belief that he should be treated as “an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else”. He rarely encounters a rule without feeling the urge to break it. Know this and you are well on the way to understanding why the government engaged in grubby scheming to undermine parliament’s anti-corruption safeguards, then brutish bullying of Tory MPs to make them follow the prime minister’s orders.
This could have been a very small footnote in the life of this parliament. It was choices made in Downing Street that turned a lobbying affair involving one former cabinet minister into an utterly disreputable episode for the entire government…highly aggressive whipping, which is alleged to have included threats to cut funding to the constituencies of any Tory MP who refused to fall in with the plot. That’s not parliamentary government – that’s government as an extortion racket.
It was predictable to anyone living outside the Boris Johnson bubble that fiddling with the rules in this nakedly partisan fashion would trigger a tsunami of condemnation. Someone extremely close to events says: “I think it was when he saw the headlines on Wednesday night that Boris decided he had to order the retreat.” All those Tories who went along with the attempt to subvert the standards regime have been left looking stupid for making themselves complicit with the squalid scheme.
People close to Mr Johnson confirm that he ditched the attempt to meddle with the anti-corruption rules because he was taken aback by the scale of the opposition. That is very telling. He failed to appreciate why others would attach importance to standards in public life because he cares so little about them himself. In comparison with many other democracies, and in the absence of a written constitution, Britain lacks all that many checks and balances to curb bad behaviour by the ruling party. The forced retreat over the Paterson affair is not only a very deserved humiliation, it is also a very necessary defeat.
The last para contains a classic piece of journalistic rhetoric. I want to know what all these checks and balances are, and where, and how cleverly and effectively all these other countries keep a series of massive gigantic venal egos from nicking all the spoons and swiping the non-toffee Quality Street.
Our check is called Parliament, which has supreme unfettered authority to do whatever it likes, and our balance is called General Elections which means that Andrew Rawnsley and I put them there and can kick them out. What, exactly, more does he want? This is pure sermonising.
Whilst i think the main part of the sermon is worth mentioning, I do think you have a point there. I think a lot of commentators have an unfortunate habit of presuming a lack of a written (by which they mean codified in any case, not unwritten) constitution is a major cause of many problems when I just don't think that is the case. Assuming such would solve many issues of political culture is, I think, optimistic verging on misleading.
As has been pointed out by finer individuals than I (there are a few out there), you can have a fantastic written document setting out all manner of rights and checks and balances, but that doesn't mean you'll actually have them.
The problem with a "written" constitution with "checks and balances" is that who reads and interprets what's written ultimately becomes more important than what is actually written. In the USA you have that with a completely politicised SCOTUS, in the EU you have that with a completely politicised ECJ.
In the UK the rules are written by the people we elect, but if we dislike what they're doing we chuck them out. That means that we are the ones in charge, not Justices confirmed for life because they match a predecessor government's agenda.
His housemaster at Eton noted his belief that he should be treated as “an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else”. He rarely encounters a rule without feeling the urge to break it. Know this and you are well on the way to understanding why the government engaged in grubby scheming to undermine parliament’s anti-corruption safeguards, then brutish bullying of Tory MPs to make them follow the prime minister’s orders.
This could have been a very small footnote in the life of this parliament. It was choices made in Downing Street that turned a lobbying affair involving one former cabinet minister into an utterly disreputable episode for the entire government…highly aggressive whipping, which is alleged to have included threats to cut funding to the constituencies of any Tory MP who refused to fall in with the plot. That’s not parliamentary government – that’s government as an extortion racket.
It was predictable to anyone living outside the Boris Johnson bubble that fiddling with the rules in this nakedly partisan fashion would trigger a tsunami of condemnation. Someone extremely close to events says: “I think it was when he saw the headlines on Wednesday night that Boris decided he had to order the retreat.” All those Tories who went along with the attempt to subvert the standards regime have been left looking stupid for making themselves complicit with the squalid scheme.
People close to Mr Johnson confirm that he ditched the attempt to meddle with the anti-corruption rules because he was taken aback by the scale of the opposition. That is very telling. He failed to appreciate why others would attach importance to standards in public life because he cares so little about them himself. In comparison with many other democracies, and in the absence of a written constitution, Britain lacks all that many checks and balances to curb bad behaviour by the ruling party. The forced retreat over the Paterson affair is not only a very deserved humiliation, it is also a very necessary defeat.
The last para contains a classic piece of journalistic rhetoric. I want to know what all these checks and balances are, and where, and how cleverly and effectively all these other countries keep a series of massive gigantic venal egos from nicking all the spoons and swiping the non-toffee Quality Street.
Our check is called Parliament, which has supreme unfettered authority to do whatever it likes, and our balance is called General Elections which means that Andrew Rawnsley and I put them there and can kick them out. What, exactly, more does he want? This is pure sermonising.
So in Japan certain kinds of political corruption are illegal, and will be investigated by the police, resulting in jail time. There's also a kind of grand jury system where random voters can recommend prosecutions if they think someone is dropping the ball through political pressure or whatever. The government can change the law, but it has to go through the Upper House, which is designed to have some independence.
This is generally what checks and balances look like: Ultimately the system to be changed by changing the law, but that's a slightly more ponderous process, and since the key institutions are independent they're harder for a determined government to quietly sabotage. There are also limits on how the law can be changed in the constitution, which itself can also be changed, but you have to go back and check with the voters.
His housemaster at Eton noted his belief that he should be treated as “an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else”. He rarely encounters a rule without feeling the urge to break it. Know this and you are well on the way to understanding why the government engaged in grubby scheming to undermine parliament’s anti-corruption safeguards, then brutish bullying of Tory MPs to make them follow the prime minister’s orders.
This could have been a very small footnote in the life of this parliament. It was choices made in Downing Street that turned a lobbying affair involving one former cabinet minister into an utterly disreputable episode for the entire government…highly aggressive whipping, which is alleged to have included threats to cut funding to the constituencies of any Tory MP who refused to fall in with the plot. That’s not parliamentary government – that’s government as an extortion racket.
It was predictable to anyone living outside the Boris Johnson bubble that fiddling with the rules in this nakedly partisan fashion would trigger a tsunami of condemnation. Someone extremely close to events says: “I think it was when he saw the headlines on Wednesday night that Boris decided he had to order the retreat.” All those Tories who went along with the attempt to subvert the standards regime have been left looking stupid for making themselves complicit with the squalid scheme.
People close to Mr Johnson confirm that he ditched the attempt to meddle with the anti-corruption rules because he was taken aback by the scale of the opposition. That is very telling. He failed to appreciate why others would attach importance to standards in public life because he cares so little about them himself. In comparison with many other democracies, and in the absence of a written constitution, Britain lacks all that many checks and balances to curb bad behaviour by the ruling party. The forced retreat over the Paterson affair is not only a very deserved humiliation, it is also a very necessary defeat.
The last para contains a classic piece of journalistic rhetoric. I want to know what all these checks and balances are, and where, and how cleverly and effectively all these other countries keep a series of massive gigantic venal egos from nicking all the spoons and swiping the non-toffee Quality Street.
Our check is called Parliament, which has supreme unfettered authority to do whatever it likes, and our balance is called General Elections which means that Andrew Rawnsley and I put them there and can kick them out. What, exactly, more does he want? This is pure sermonising.
Whilst i think the main part of the sermon is worth mentioning, I do think you have a point there. I think a lot of commentators have an unfortunate habit of presuming a lack of a written (by which they mean codified in any case, not unwritten) constitution is a major cause of many problems when I just don't think that is the case. Assuming such would solve many issues of political culture is, I think, optimistic verging on misleading.
As has been pointed out by finer individuals than I (there are a few out there), you can have a fantastic written document setting out all manner of rights and checks and balances, but that doesn't mean you'll actually have them.
Yes.
Ultimately there are no guarantees for what 'the view form nowhere' might regard as decent behaviour from the top. There are only better and worse ones. Ours, FWIW, broadly says this: if you want to know what people want, try asking them; if you want to know who wants to run the country, allow everyone to stand for parliament, and allow people to elect and de-elect them. If you want people to know what they are voting about, allow a free press.
Of course it doesn't work very well. But what works better?
Just seen Marr what a useless nonentity Starmer is.
Attacking sleaze you need to be squeaky clean Lab isnt
Moron
If he defected to the Tories would you vote Labour again?
I thought BJO had defected to the Tories. Only by voting for the Tories can he bring about True Socialism or some bollox.
Who is BJO?
Who is BJO? I'm shocked! One of the individuals whose experience arguably made this site as a community? Remember Tunisia?
Its been my worst week since Tunisia for me
My mum died last Saturday after a fall 6 days earlier.
Very traumatic and I dont recommend to anyone watching someone close to you gasping for their final breaths.
She was 90 but her care in the last week was horrendously poor.
Condolences, BJO. Even if she was 90, it will have been a shock. Too many of my elderly relatives have died following a fall. It always seems such an unnecessary way to go.
More importantly, who is OGH? That one took me years to work out.
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH Lagershed Rogerdamus Baxtered "Martin Day" The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq Subsamples, a case history Nits
And so on
What, or who, is/was “Rogerdamus”?
I believe the coinage was one of @SeanT's (a much missed ex PBer).
Roger (a retired rich lefty tampon advert producer who means well but says silly things, and still occasionally reappears) was the kind of guy who made madly bad predictions. One of his most famous was around the time of the early Credit Crunch, when he predicted the run on Northern Rock bank "would all be forgotten by next Monday"
Sadly, that wasn't the case
He was christened "Rogerdamus" in honour of himself, and also the ludicrously vague and incorrect soothsayer Nostradamus
Most famously, when OGH posted the article "Could this man be the next President of the United States?" (about Obama), the first response was from Roger and was succinct:
"No"
However, those people who followed his Oscar bets over the years will have made very good money. I don't think there's been a single year when he didn't nail three quarters of the awards.
Oh indeed, Yes. Rogrdamus makes, or made, quite excellent Oscar predictions. I hope he returns in 2022 to do the same
He's an educational mix. Terrible as a clairvoyant on most things, yet genuinely and acutely perceptive in his field of expertise - cinematic arts
His housemaster at Eton noted his belief that he should be treated as “an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else”. He rarely encounters a rule without feeling the urge to break it. Know this and you are well on the way to understanding why the government engaged in grubby scheming to undermine parliament’s anti-corruption safeguards, then brutish bullying of Tory MPs to make them follow the prime minister’s orders.
This could have been a very small footnote in the life of this parliament. It was choices made in Downing Street that turned a lobbying affair involving one former cabinet minister into an utterly disreputable episode for the entire government…highly aggressive whipping, which is alleged to have included threats to cut funding to the constituencies of any Tory MP who refused to fall in with the plot. That’s not parliamentary government – that’s government as an extortion racket.
It was predictable to anyone living outside the Boris Johnson bubble that fiddling with the rules in this nakedly partisan fashion would trigger a tsunami of condemnation. Someone extremely close to events says: “I think it was when he saw the headlines on Wednesday night that Boris decided he had to order the retreat.” All those Tories who went along with the attempt to subvert the standards regime have been left looking stupid for making themselves complicit with the squalid scheme.
People close to Mr Johnson confirm that he ditched the attempt to meddle with the anti-corruption rules because he was taken aback by the scale of the opposition. That is very telling. He failed to appreciate why others would attach importance to standards in public life because he cares so little about them himself. In comparison with many other democracies, and in the absence of a written constitution, Britain lacks all that many checks and balances to curb bad behaviour by the ruling party. The forced retreat over the Paterson affair is not only a very deserved humiliation, it is also a very necessary defeat.
The last para contains a classic piece of journalistic rhetoric. I want to know what all these checks and balances are, and where, and how cleverly and effectively all these other countries keep a series of massive gigantic venal egos from nicking all the spoons and swiping the non-toffee Quality Street.
Our check is called Parliament, which has supreme unfettered authority to do whatever it likes, and our balance is called General Elections which means that Andrew Rawnsley and I put them there and can kick them out. What, exactly, more does he want? This is pure sermonising.
Whilst i think the main part of the sermon is worth mentioning, I do think you have a point there. I think a lot of commentators have an unfortunate habit of presuming a lack of a written (by which they mean codified in any case, not unwritten) constitution is a major cause of many problems when I just don't think that is the case. Assuming such would solve many issues of political culture is, I think, optimistic verging on misleading.
As has been pointed out by finer individuals than I (there are a few out there), you can have a fantastic written document setting out all manner of rights and checks and balances, but that doesn't mean you'll actually have them.
The problem with a "written" constitution with "checks and balances" is that who reads and interprets what's written ultimately becomes more important than what is actually written. In the USA you have that with a completely politicised SCOTUS, in the EU you have that with a completely politicised ECJ.
In the UK the rules are written by the people we elect, but if we dislike what they're doing we chuck them out. That means that we are the ones in charge, not Justices confirmed for life because they match a predecessor government's agenda.
Honestly I think it is a lot simpler than that. It's treated as a bit of a truism in some fields that problems are never about people but about processes, and you can design better processes. But as someone who has to design and help people navigate processes, I can tell you absolutely that a lot of the the time the problem is people.
Comments
If only RLB had won! Then we would have a path to True Socialism...
Any leader that doesnt attack democracy or Socialists would probably get my vote.
That man is not SKS
The issue will perhaps become more like one in which a resistible force meets a moveable object, in which a soggy seedy set of Tories can't win, Labour can't win (maths decides that) and no-one wants the Lab/LD/G/SNP circus, especially because of its insoluble dilemmas over the union, and (which may emerge before the election) post-Brexit policy.
In both the current facts and that future scenario I can find no factor which shows the dial is biased in any way towards or against Tories being 326+ or 325- next time.
The continuing certainty is that Labour at 6/1 or thereabouts is nonsense.
I do not think the LibDems are going to win North Shropshire, and I think 10s are very ungenerous.
With that said: it's entirely possible that (a) the LibDems leapfrog the Labour Party, and (b) the Conservative vote is well down.
I could easily see Cons getting 17-18,000 votes, with the LDs at 10,000, and Labour at 6,000.
The Greens really should be going all out here, because if you want to be a player in a FPTP world, then you need to start winning elections. I suspect, however, that they will (as so often) fail to contest North Shropshire, and end up with their vote down on the General Election.
Stand him next to Big G Northwales and Big Rich, and they all seem.. normal sized.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
This blog does triplicate answers.
Although I will admit what he says and what he does are two different things.
6'1 and 110 kilos and good blood pressure readings, so very happy
My mum died last Saturday after a fall 6 days earlier.
Very traumatic and I dont recommend to anyone watching someone close to you gasping for their final breaths.
She was 90 but her care in the last week was horrendously poor.
I think the thought in question will be 'Third is better than DNF.'
The only pols I have seen shouting about it are Simon Coveney, and I think Maros Sefcovic - who have both been EuCo outriders in the past.
Thoughts?
I held my Mother's hand as she passed away
Very emotional but privileged as well
All the very best
No problems mate
+++++
An actual problem
OGH should install a Guide To PB Lexicon at the top right, so that new commenters can easily frequent themselves with the arcane lingo and acronyms we use
OGH
Lagershed
Rogerdamus
Baxtered
"Martin Day"
The life and times of Rod Crosby, Esq
Subsamples, a case history
Nits
And so on
Our check is called Parliament, which has supreme unfettered authority to do whatever it likes, and our balance is called General Elections which means that Andrew Rawnsley and I put them there and can kick them out. What, exactly, more does he want? This is pure sermonising.
Big PB Sympathies
This isn't that complicated. It is a policy of valuing racial and sexual identity over individual merit and ability in recruitment decisions. It is a retrograde step away from true equality, but entirely in line with the woke zeitgeist and its alternative vision of equity.
If you don't like this direction of travel, then your only option is to vote republican.
Sorry to hear that - must have been really tough for you :-(
But all I got was "These Are Things Man Was Not Meant to Know"
I am taking a break now till after funeral on 18th
Thanks for the condolences, back at the end of November.
Thought it might be @TSE spontaneously combusting, but it was just fireworks.
Anyway, I'm drained. See you in the morning.
Roger (a retired rich lefty tampon advert producer who means well but says silly things, and still occasionally reappears) was the kind of guy who made madly bad predictions. One of his most famous was around the time of the early Credit Crunch, when he predicted the run on Northern Rock bank "would all be forgotten by next Monday"
Sadly, that wasn't the case
He was christened "Rogerdamus" in honour of himself, and also the ludicrously vague and incorrect soothsayer Nostradamus
Sad, desperate nonsense from a stroppy team out of talent.
Unlike when Red Bull did the same thing earlier in the season, but sacrificed guaranteed Perez points to do so...
As has been pointed out by finer individuals than I (there are a few out there), you can have a fantastic written document setting out all manner of rights and checks and balances, but that doesn't mean you'll actually have them.
It was a fireworks party. We used to do it every year, starting in 2014, but couldn't last year.
Because I have three youngish children, it was a party at a time of day which only families with youngish children have parties - I.e. 4 - 8 pm.
Still, it was great. 16 adults and 17 children in our house. Felt thrilling. It's probably the largest social gathering I've attended for about 2 years.
Happy for several reasons, but primarily:
1) for my daughters, who had a brilliant time and have been denied too much of this sort of thing over the last couple of years. In particular for my oldest daughter, for whom doing the same things that she did last time in the same way is of particular import, and who was quite hurt by missing it last year.
2) the process of setting off the fireworks itself, which is something three of us do together. How those three men self selected is a bit of a mystery - I'm there because it's my house, I suppose, but I'm not sure why it's the other two bar continuity. Still, it's us. And it's one of those occasions where you enjoy someone's company despite any conversation being almost incidental to the occasion.
3) That said, the giddy hubbub of 33 people all talking at once, all excited to actually be at a party was quite intoxicating.
Anyway, another thing which after 2020 I will appreciate even more in the future.
It must be a symptom of Americanisation that many people have lost the ability to articulate the vitues of any other system.
I think it's well-established that corruption scandals don't occur in countries like the USA, Italy, France, Austria, Belgium, which have written constitutions.
If it is done constructively, that is it is combined with a document on the Trusted Trader program and how it can be put back on track - i.e. we're triggering Article 16 and here's how we get back out of it - then I think it could well have a positive impact.
But my concern is that Boris is following the Macron path: i.e. he's not so much interested in solving the problem, so much as having a fight.
In which case I think it could all get very nasty, and tit-for-tat, and with the EU potentially threatening escalation all the way up to the unravelling of the whole EU-UK FTA.
I am so bored of seeing my fellow humans as some kind of threat
Corruption scandals happen wherever there is power and money. However, some leaders have strong personal morals and others do not.
"No"
However, those people who followed his Oscar bets over the years will have made very good money. I don't think there's been a single year when he didn't nail three quarters of the awards.
In the UK the rules are written by the people we elect, but if we dislike what they're doing we chuck them out. That means that we are the ones in charge, not Justices confirmed for life because they match a predecessor government's agenda.
This is generally what checks and balances look like: Ultimately the system to be changed by changing the law, but that's a slightly more ponderous process, and since the key institutions are independent they're harder for a determined government to quietly sabotage. There are also limits on how the law can be changed in the constitution, which itself can also be changed, but you have to go back and check with the voters.
Ultimately there are no guarantees for what 'the view form nowhere' might regard as decent behaviour from the top. There are only better and worse ones. Ours, FWIW, broadly says this: if you want to know what people want, try asking them; if you want to know who wants to run the country, allow everyone to stand for parliament, and allow people to elect and de-elect them. If you want people to know what they are voting about, allow a free press.
Of course it doesn't work very well. But what works better?
He's an educational mix. Terrible as a clairvoyant on most things, yet genuinely and acutely perceptive in his field of expertise - cinematic arts