Those are the three I'm very sure of, with the possible exception of Wallace to Foreign. If he goes to Foreign then he's likely to be next leader, staying at defence would indicate to me he doesn't want the top job - so though he'll be one of the likely early favourites along with Badenoch for Tory leader after next he should be opposed in the market if that's the case.
Good analysis
Not so sure - Leadsom was an early backer and there were rumours she had been promised number eleven, but now the word on the street seems to be that Kwasi is on a promise?
A further complication is that Team Truss might decide to make Rishi an offer to fold early, rather than risk running the last month just in case something does turn up. What would Rishi want?
Even if she doesn't, she as good as promised him a role in her team, during the debate, and there aren't that many jobs she can offer that won't appear a humiliation or demotion. Yet she can hardly make him Chancellor given their differences. Which suggests Rishi will take over from her as FS, despite no obvious prior interest or expertise in foreign affairs (apart from family background, obvs)
Can't help but think he'd make a good foreign Secretary. A smooth manner, a wide knowledge of the world from foreign travel, an easy familiarity with how the rich live and a willingness to say what needs to be said without giving offence, all while not actually doing much on policy, would probably suit his talents rather well.
In fact he'd probably be a much better FS than Truss has been.
The court says the loss of the WhatsApp messages between Vardy and her agent was "deliberate rather than accidental". Essentially the judge did not accept that a mobile phone accidentally fell over the side of a boat in the North Sea shortly after a request was made to search it.
Journalists note Rooney was not successful on her public interest defence, partly because she didn't go to Vardy for comment before publishing her accusation. That said, it's quite hard to explain exactly how damning this judgment is of Vardy. And she'll pick up the bill for it.
Judge concludes Vardy's agent probably leaked the stories to the Sun. But Vardy "knew of and condoned this" and would provide "screenshots of Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press".
The court says the loss of the WhatsApp messages between Vardy and her agent was "deliberate rather than accidental". Essentially the judge did not accept that a mobile phone accidentally fell over the side of a boat in the North Sea shortly after a request was made to search it.
Journalists note Rooney was not successful on her public interest defence, partly because she didn't go to Vardy for comment before publishing her accusation. That said, it's quite hard to explain exactly how damning this judgment is of Vardy. And she'll pick up the bill for it.
Judge concludes Vardy's agent probably leaked the stories to the Sun. But Vardy "knew of and condoned this" and would provide "screenshots of Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press".
It’s epic trolling. Loads of the pictures are of Ukraine and Ukrainians,including the woman just after the girls (probably them too though haven’t seen that confirmed)
The court says the loss of the WhatsApp messages between Vardy and her agent was "deliberate rather than accidental". Essentially the judge did not accept that a mobile phone accidentally fell over the side of a boat in the North Sea shortly after a request was made to search it.
Journalists note Rooney was not successful on her public interest defence, partly because she didn't go to Vardy for comment before publishing her accusation. That said, it's quite hard to explain exactly how damning this judgment is of Vardy. And she'll pick up the bill for it.
Judge concludes Vardy's agent probably leaked the stories to the Sun. But Vardy "knew of and condoned this" and would provide "screenshots of Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press".
The court says the loss of the WhatsApp messages between Vardy and her agent was "deliberate rather than accidental". Essentially the judge did not accept that a mobile phone accidentally fell over the side of a boat in the North Sea shortly after a request was made to search it.
Journalists note Rooney was not successful on her public interest defence, partly because she didn't go to Vardy for comment before publishing her accusation. That said, it's quite hard to explain exactly how damning this judgment is of Vardy. And she'll pick up the bill for it.
Judge concludes Vardy's agent probably leaked the stories to the Sun. But Vardy "knew of and condoned this" and would provide "screenshots of Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press".
It’s epic trolling. Loads of the pictures are of Ukraine and Ukrainians,including the woman just after the girls (probably them too though haven’t seen that confirmed)
The message is, 'We welcome paedophiles, cowards, greedy bastards, those who glorify violent, corrupt criminals and those who take a pervy interest in ballet.'
On topic, I'd strongly challenge Mike's blithe assertion that the nomination is Biden's for the taking.
Actually, should he run, this has 1968 written all over it in letters a mile high.
A fairly unpopular President, whose campaigning skills are hampered by age and infirmity. A youthful and boisterous progressive wing. Ambitious moderates who fear the progressives jumping the queue.
This screams LBJ, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey.
A recent New Hampshire poll showed Biden in the low teens as preferred Democrat candidate (second to Buttigieg but essentially a blanket result). Even more importantly, he was nowhere as second choice. Democrats are looking for someone other than the President.
Mark my words - if Biden stands, someone will do a McCarthy on him. Possibly from the left, but possibly a late middle aged man in a hurry like Cory Booker. Biden will struggle with the physical demands of a New Hampshire campaign, and will falter. Then the pressure on him from inside his own cabinet to clear the effing road will be irresistible.
Elizabeth Warren has been touring the country apparently.
The US President, the Queen and the PM could all be called Elizabeth.
The court says the loss of the WhatsApp messages between Vardy and her agent was "deliberate rather than accidental". Essentially the judge did not accept that a mobile phone accidentally fell over the side of a boat in the North Sea shortly after a request was made to search it.
Journalists note Rooney was not successful on her public interest defence, partly because she didn't go to Vardy for comment before publishing her accusation. That said, it's quite hard to explain exactly how damning this judgment is of Vardy. And she'll pick up the bill for it.
Judge concludes Vardy's agent probably leaked the stories to the Sun. But Vardy "knew of and condoned this" and would provide "screenshots of Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press".
Russia’s ambassador to Ireland has welcomed the intervention of Sabina Higgins, wife of President Michael D Higgins, who has called for a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine.
Yuriy Filatov warned continued support for Ukraine will only mean more Ukrainian deaths
"Until the world persuades President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire and negotiations, the long haul of terrible war will go on. How can there be any winner?"
As horrible as it is for Ukraine, it's in all of our interests that Russia loses even if Ukraine doesn't look much like the winner.
Quite so. Some comments seem to imply war is never justifiable even in defence because war is bad mmkay so always must be halted as soon as possible. (That is very different from a colder acknowledgement about the possibility of a need for ceasefire).
It's like they didnt know the resistance is futile line was from the villains.
OT PB's jet set might be interested in the Telegraph's scientifically-determined (awarding points for 36 criteria) list of the top 60 most beautiful countries. (£££)
In other words they made up 36 numbers for each country, rather than just one. I often meet this thought in the economic and statistical modelling I do professionally - for some reason, making up dozens of numbers and aggregating them seems more robust and professional than just making up one number. Never understood why.
FWIW I think Switzerland should definitely be in the Top 10.
Yes, even if some of the numbers (length of coastline, say) are objective, simply adding them up might still be nonsensical. What would adding a man's height to his salary tell us?
What would be more useful/interesting is working backwards from an objective measure of how popular a country is to visit (number of tourists, say), and then regressing that against other factors - cost, coastline length, castle density, sunshine hours, number of professional orchestras, Koppen climate classification, distance from London, etc, - and seeing which factors were most predictive of tourist numbers.
Then you might find countries which are anomalous and don't fit the model.
Can someone who pays for the Torygraph share their top 10 so that we paupers can join in the debate?
The top 10 was posted by me at 7.37 BST.
1 USA 2 Australia 3 Canada 4 Japan 5 Mexico 6 Norway 7 New Zealand 8 India 9 Italy 10 Peru
The court says the loss of the WhatsApp messages between Vardy and her agent was "deliberate rather than accidental". Essentially the judge did not accept that a mobile phone accidentally fell over the side of a boat in the North Sea shortly after a request was made to search it.
Journalists note Rooney was not successful on her public interest defence, partly because she didn't go to Vardy for comment before publishing her accusation. That said, it's quite hard to explain exactly how damning this judgment is of Vardy. And she'll pick up the bill for it.
Judge concludes Vardy's agent probably leaked the stories to the Sun. But Vardy "knew of and condoned this" and would provide "screenshots of Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press".
It’s epic trolling. Loads of the pictures are of Ukraine and Ukrainians,including the woman just after the girls (probably them too though haven’t seen that confirmed)
The message is, 'We welcome paedophiles, cowards, greedy bastards, those who glorify violent, corrupt criminals and those who take a pervy interest in ballet.'
Such people would fit right in in Putin's Russia.
No comment on what this says about Putin...
Nice shot of horses, mind. but the vodka is shit, and you have to queue for it.
It’s epic trolling. Loads of the pictures are of Ukraine and Ukrainians,including the woman just after the girls (probably them too though haven’t seen that confirmed)
The message is, 'We welcome paedophiles, cowards, greedy bastards, those who glorify violent, corrupt criminals and those who take a pervy interest in ballet.'
Such people would fit right in in Putin's Russia.
No comment on what this says about Putin...
Nice shot of horses, mind. but the vodka is shit, and you have to queue for it.
Bollocks, you're right. I missed out 'alcoholics.'
It’s epic trolling. Loads of the pictures are of Ukraine and Ukrainians,including the woman just after the girls (probably them too though haven’t seen that confirmed)
The message is, 'We welcome paedophiles, cowards, greedy bastards, those who glorify violent, corrupt criminals and those who take a pervy interest in ballet.'
Such people would fit right in in Putin's Russia.
No comment on what this says about Putin...
But no suggestion that people from the DfE would be welcome. Perhaps Putin does have *some* standards....
Those are the three I'm very sure of, with the possible exception of Wallace to Foreign. If he goes to Foreign then he's likely to be next leader, staying at defence would indicate to me he doesn't want the top job - so though he'll be one of the likely early favourites along with Badenoch for Tory leader after next he should be opposed in the market if that's the case.
Good analysis
Not so sure - Leadsom was an early backer and there were rumours she had been promised number eleven, but now the word on the street seems to be that Kwasi is on a promise?
A further complication is that Team Truss might decide to make Rishi an offer to fold early, rather than risk running the last month just in case something does turn up. What would Rishi want?
Even if she doesn't, she as good as promised him a role in her team, during the debate, and there aren't that many jobs she can offer that won't appear a humiliation or demotion. Yet she can hardly make him Chancellor given their differences. Which suggests Rishi will take over from her as FS, despite no obvious prior interest or expertise in foreign affairs (apart from family background, obvs)
I'm not sure the last sentence follows from the first.
I'd say it means she is free and clear, she can offer him something safe in the knowledge he might do a Hunt and refuse.
It’s epic trolling. Loads of the pictures are of Ukraine and Ukrainians,including the woman just after the girls (probably them too though haven’t seen that confirmed)
The message is, 'We welcome paedophiles, cowards, greedy bastards, those who glorify violent, corrupt criminals and those who take a pervy interest in ballet.'
Such people would fit right in in Putin's Russia.
No comment on what this says about Putin...
But no suggestion that people from the DfE would be welcome. Perhaps Putin does have *some* standards....
Really? I would have said they fitted in several of those categories...especially now I've added 'alcoholism.'
Although I've never heard that they have a special interest in ballet.
On topic, I'd strongly challenge Mike's blithe assertion that the nomination is Biden's for the taking.
Actually, should he run, this has 1968 written all over it in letters a mile high.
A fairly unpopular President, whose campaigning skills are hampered by age and infirmity. A youthful and boisterous progressive wing. Ambitious moderates who fear the progressives jumping the queue.
This screams LBJ, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey.
A recent New Hampshire poll showed Biden in the low teens as preferred Democrat candidate (second to Buttigieg but essentially a blanket result). Even more importantly, he was nowhere as second choice. Democrats are looking for someone other than the President.
Mark my words - if Biden stands, someone will do a McCarthy on him. Possibly from the left, but possibly a late middle aged man in a hurry like Cory Booker. Biden will struggle with the physical demands of a New Hampshire campaign, and will falter. Then the pressure on him from inside his own cabinet to clear the effing road will be irresistible.
Agree with all if that aside from the LBJ comparison. Vietnam had riven the Democrats utterly; this is more in sorrow than anger.
I agree the analogy isn't perfect as the progressive view of Biden isn't good but they're just deeply frustrated with his limitations rather than accusing him of killing kids.
But the vast majority of the anti-LBJ vote in the early stages of the 1968 campaign wasn't from student radicals with a hatred of the President. It was from ordinary punters who just weren't sold on a second term - in LBJ's case he'd already been there six years, of course, and was in quite poor health, so there was a huge level of people who didn't hate the incumbent but were just saying "four more years - really?" just as they are now.
Indeed, Biden is in a poorer polling position than LBJ was at this stage, and is probably more vulnerable if his opponent lacks the (for some) dangerously radical air of McCarthy. There are quite a few people in the field who might well see the chance to get a jump on the opposition by diving in, and who aren't seen as maverick outsiders - Booker, Klobucher, Warren (seen as on the left but not terribly scary), Adams, Whitmer, Newsom, even Ossoff or O'Rourke.
That's a load of credible people who have quite a lot to gain going early rather than waiting for a crowded field (headed by people in the Biden administration now) in 2028.
They may also look at 1976 - Ford held off Reagan in the end, but the latter very firmly made himself heir presumptive.
Those are the three I'm very sure of, with the possible exception of Wallace to Foreign. If he goes to Foreign then he's likely to be next leader, staying at defence would indicate to me he doesn't want the top job - so though he'll be one of the likely early favourites along with Badenoch for Tory leader after next he should be opposed in the market if that's the case.
Good analysis
Not so sure - Leadsom was an early backer and there were rumours she had been promised number eleven, but now the word on the street seems to be that Kwasi is on a promise?
A further complication is that Team Truss might decide to make Rishi an offer to fold early, rather than risk running the last month just in case something does turn up. What would Rishi want?
Even if she doesn't, she as good as promised him a role in her team, during the debate, and there aren't that many jobs she can offer that won't appear a humiliation or demotion. Yet she can hardly make him Chancellor given their differences. Which suggests Rishi will take over from her as FS, despite no obvious prior interest or expertise in foreign affairs (apart from family background, obvs)
I'm not sure the last sentence follows from the first.
I'd say it means she is free and clear, she can offer him something safe in the knowledge he might do a Hunt and refuse.
It would alienate maybe a hundred MPs, who have no clear need to be loyal to her until the next election at least
Those are the three I'm very sure of, with the possible exception of Wallace to Foreign. If he goes to Foreign then he's likely to be next leader, staying at defence would indicate to me he doesn't want the top job - so though he'll be one of the likely early favourites along with Badenoch for Tory leader after next he should be opposed in the market if that's the case.
Good analysis
Not so sure - Leadsom was an early backer and there were rumours she had been promised number eleven, but now the word on the street seems to be that Kwasi is on a promise?
A further complication is that Team Truss might decide to make Rishi an offer to fold early, rather than risk running the last month just in case something does turn up. What would Rishi want?
Even if she doesn't, she as good as promised him a role in her team, during the debate, and there aren't that many jobs she can offer that won't appear a humiliation or demotion. Yet she can hardly make him Chancellor given their differences. Which suggests Rishi will take over from her as FS, despite no obvious prior interest or expertise in foreign affairs (apart from family background, obvs)
Can't help but think he'd make a good foreign Secretary. A smooth manner, a wide knowledge of the world from foreign travel, an easy familiarity with how the rich live and a willingness to say what needs to be said without giving offence, all while not actually doing much on policy, would probably suit his talents rather well.
In fact he'd probably be a much better FS than Truss has been.
And he could quite conveniently work out of the OC, for trade deals with North and South America and the Pacific, making good use of his Green Card.
On topic, I'd strongly challenge Mike's blithe assertion that the nomination is Biden's for the taking.
Actually, should he run, this has 1968 written all over it in letters a mile high.
A fairly unpopular President, whose campaigning skills are hampered by age and infirmity. A youthful and boisterous progressive wing. Ambitious moderates who fear the progressives jumping the queue.
This screams LBJ, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey.
A recent New Hampshire poll showed Biden in the low teens as preferred Democrat candidate (second to Buttigieg but essentially a blanket result). Even more importantly, he was nowhere as second choice. Democrats are looking for someone other than the President.
Mark my words - if Biden stands, someone will do a McCarthy on him. Possibly from the left, but possibly a late middle aged man in a hurry like Cory Booker. Biden will struggle with the physical demands of a New Hampshire campaign, and will falter. Then the pressure on him from inside his own cabinet to clear the effing road will be irresistible.
Agree with all if that aside from the LBJ comparison. Vietnam had riven the Democrats utterly; this is more in sorrow than anger.
I agree the analogy isn't perfect as the progressive view of Biden isn't good but they're just deeply frustrated with his limitations rather than accusing him of killing kids.
But the vast majority of the anti-LBJ vote in the early stages of the 1968 campaign wasn't from student radicals with a hatred of the President. It was from ordinary punters who just weren't sold on a second term - in LBJ's case he'd already been there six years, of course, and was in quite poor health, so there was a huge level of people who didn't hate the incumbent but were just saying "four more years - really?" just as they are now.
Indeed, Biden is in a poorer polling position than LBJ was at this stage, and is probably more vulnerable if his opponent lacks the (for some) dangerously radical air of McCarthy. There are quite a few people in the field who might well see the chance to get a jump on the opposition by diving in, and who aren't seen as maverick outsiders - Booker, Klobucher, Warren (seen as on the left but not terribly scary), Adams, Whitmer, Newsom, even Ossoff or O'Rourke.
That's a load of credible people who have quite a lot to gain going early rather than waiting for a crowded field (headed by people in the Biden administration now) in 2028.
They may also look at 1976 - Ford held off Reagan in the end, but the latter very firmly made himself heir presumptive.
Buttigieg for example is already polling even better in the early primary and caucus states than Reagan was in 1976
Those are the three I'm very sure of, with the possible exception of Wallace to Foreign. If he goes to Foreign then he's likely to be next leader, staying at defence would indicate to me he doesn't want the top job - so though he'll be one of the likely early favourites along with Badenoch for Tory leader after next he should be opposed in the market if that's the case.
Good analysis
Not so sure - Leadsom was an early backer and there were rumours she had been promised number eleven, but now the word on the street seems to be that Kwasi is on a promise?
A further complication is that Team Truss might decide to make Rishi an offer to fold early, rather than risk running the last month just in case something does turn up. What would Rishi want?
Even if she doesn't, she as good as promised him a role in her team, during the debate, and there aren't that many jobs she can offer that won't appear a humiliation or demotion. Yet she can hardly make him Chancellor given their differences. Which suggests Rishi will take over from her as FS, despite no obvious prior interest or expertise in foreign affairs (apart from family background, obvs)
I'm not sure the last sentence follows from the first.
I'd say it means she is free and clear, she can offer him something safe in the knowledge he might do a Hunt and refuse.
It would alienate maybe a hundred MPs, who have no clear need to be loyal to her until the next election at least
I agree with the view this their last throw of the dice. Truss ain't going anywhere so can upset them a bit.
And how much would they be personally loyal anyway? She has to reward her allies (hence the JRM worries) but be sensible on policies and include some Sunakites and the mass of them should be wary but content.
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
On topic, I'd strongly challenge Mike's blithe assertion that the nomination is Biden's for the taking.
Actually, should he run, this has 1968 written all over it in letters a mile high.
A fairly unpopular President, whose campaigning skills are hampered by age and infirmity. A youthful and boisterous progressive wing. Ambitious moderates who fear the progressives jumping the queue.
This screams LBJ, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey.
A recent New Hampshire poll showed Biden in the low teens as preferred Democrat candidate (second to Buttigieg but essentially a blanket result). Even more importantly, he was nowhere as second choice. Democrats are looking for someone other than the President.
Mark my words - if Biden stands, someone will do a McCarthy on him. Possibly from the left, but possibly a late middle aged man in a hurry like Cory Booker. Biden will struggle with the physical demands of a New Hampshire campaign, and will falter. Then the pressure on him from inside his own cabinet to clear the effing road will be irresistible.
Agree with all if that aside from the LBJ comparison. Vietnam had riven the Democrats utterly; this is more in sorrow than anger.
I agree the analogy isn't perfect as the progressive view of Biden isn't good but they're just deeply frustrated with his limitations rather than accusing him of killing kids.
But the vast majority of the anti-LBJ vote in the early stages of the 1968 campaign wasn't from student radicals with a hatred of the President. It was from ordinary punters who just weren't sold on a second term - in LBJ's case he'd already been there six years, of course, and was in quite poor health, so there was a huge level of people who didn't hate the incumbent but were just saying "four more years - really?" just as they are now.
Indeed, Biden is in a poorer polling position than LBJ was at this stage, and is probably more vulnerable if his opponent lacks the (for some) dangerously radical air of McCarthy. There are quite a few people in the field who might well see the chance to get a jump on the opposition by diving in, and who aren't seen as maverick outsiders - Booker, Klobucher, Warren (seen as on the left but not terribly scary), Adams, Whitmer, Newsom, even Ossoff or O'Rourke.
That's a load of credible people who have quite a lot to gain going early rather than waiting for a crowded field (headed by people in the Biden administration now) in 2028.
They may also look at 1976 - Ford held off Reagan in the end, but the latter very firmly made himself heir presumptive.
The real comparison will be Biden's desire to run - or lack of it. LBJ knew the gig was up.
How's O'Rourke polling ? Last I looked he'd slightly narrowed the gap to Abbott.
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
I would guess this would be perjury, as in, they lied to the judge about what had happened, which is up to five years.
ComRes buck the recent trend and shove the Tories back under 30 in the Independent 42 Lab 29 Con 12 LD Fieldwork 23 to 24 July Out of line with the others recently but a klaxon for the Tories
We’re all assuming that the new PM will get a honeymoon poll boost (both Brown and May did), but what is she doesn’t? What if the Conservatives under Truss poll over 10 points behind Labour, month after month after month? How long will the party put up with that? 6 months? 12 months? 18 months?
Her failure to be the first choice of the vast majority of her colleagues suggests the shorter end. However. They can't keep doing this endlessly, can they?
Unless Truss personally does something heinous (lying to Parliament to give a random example), they are stuck with her until the election.
If she polls poorly, the argument (and it's not without merit) from Team Truss will be terrible economic legacy and turning round the supertanker. Enough Tory MPs will either buy that, or at least say that the impression of chaos created by a new contest would be worse. A few, particularly in safer seats, will also reason the next election isn't a bad one to lose (in office a long time, bad outlook, regroup from the other benches).
This really is their last roll of the dice - if it turns out poorly then they'll lose the election and just need to rebuild from opposition.
Well, it might be quite easy to "no confidence" Liz Truss given that in the final MPs' ballot, she got only 115 votes, against Rishi's 137 and Penny Mordaunt's 103. Rishi's backers could vonc Truss on their own, leaving aside Mordaunt's. It is not like 2019 where Boris got more than half MPs' votes and then purged a lot who had voted against him, and then topped up with a lot of new MPs at the general election.
A leadership election and a VONC are totally different things (see Johnson's ludicrous claim that his fairly narrow VONC win in the Spring showed he was MORE popular than in the leadership election in 2019).
With a VONC, you're not asking if the incumbent is the best possible person for the job. You're asking if there is benefit in plunging your party into chaos on the basis you MIGHT emerge stronger. And the chaos will look even worse if it's the second time within a year or 18 months.
Tory MPs just aren't going to do it again (merely on poor polling as opposed to some a major scandal engulfing Truss personally). The view will simply be that they need to do the best they can with the leader they have and, if that means losing in 2024, try to lose narrowly and regroup in opposition (and if you don't like Truss as a Tory MP, at least you can comfort yourself that she'll be gone at that point). Poor polling alone simply won't trigger a successful VONC between now and 2024..
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
I would guess this would be perjury, as in, they lied to the judge about what had happened, which is up to five years.
A big difference in balance of probabilities for a criminal trial applies surely?
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
I would guess this would be perjury, as in, they lied to the judge about what had happened, which is up to five years.
A big difference in balance of probabilities for a criminal trial applies surely?
Which is why I don't think it will happen.
However, circumstantial evidence can be considered putting things beyond reasonable doubt in default of other evidence if there is enough of it. And since that wasn't the only piece of evidence that mysteriously vanished with a patently untrue story to cover its absence, if the DPP were feeling vindictive she might be prosecuted.
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
I would guess this would be perjury, as in, they lied to the judge about what had happened, which is up to five years.
A big difference in balance of probabilities for a criminal trial applies surely?
Which is why I don't think it will happen.
However, circumstantial evidence can be considered putting things beyond reasonable doubt in default of other evidence if there is enough of it. And since that wasn't the only piece of evidence that mysteriously vanished with a patently untrue story to cover its absence, if the DPP were feeling vindictive she might be prosecuted.
Courts are massively clogged up and the DPP are underfunded, surely the lesson here is not to prosecute Vardy but to not start expensive court cases you won't win. That should apply to the DPP too.
On topic, I'd strongly challenge Mike's blithe assertion that the nomination is Biden's for the taking.
Actually, should he run, this has 1968 written all over it in letters a mile high.
A fairly unpopular President, whose campaigning skills are hampered by age and infirmity. A youthful and boisterous progressive wing. Ambitious moderates who fear the progressives jumping the queue.
This screams LBJ, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey.
A recent New Hampshire poll showed Biden in the low teens as preferred Democrat candidate (second to Buttigieg but essentially a blanket result). Even more importantly, he was nowhere as second choice. Democrats are looking for someone other than the President.
Mark my words - if Biden stands, someone will do a McCarthy on him. Possibly from the left, but possibly a late middle aged man in a hurry like Cory Booker. Biden will struggle with the physical demands of a New Hampshire campaign, and will falter. Then the pressure on him from inside his own cabinet to clear the effing road will be irresistible.
Agree with all if that aside from the LBJ comparison. Vietnam had riven the Democrats utterly; this is more in sorrow than anger.
I agree the analogy isn't perfect as the progressive view of Biden isn't good but they're just deeply frustrated with his limitations rather than accusing him of killing kids.
But the vast majority of the anti-LBJ vote in the early stages of the 1968 campaign wasn't from student radicals with a hatred of the President. It was from ordinary punters who just weren't sold on a second term - in LBJ's case he'd already been there six years, of course, and was in quite poor health, so there was a huge level of people who didn't hate the incumbent but were just saying "four more years - really?" just as they are now.
Indeed, Biden is in a poorer polling position than LBJ was at this stage, and is probably more vulnerable if his opponent lacks the (for some) dangerously radical air of McCarthy. There are quite a few people in the field who might well see the chance to get a jump on the opposition by diving in, and who aren't seen as maverick outsiders - Booker, Klobucher, Warren (seen as on the left but not terribly scary), Adams, Whitmer, Newsom, even Ossoff or O'Rourke.
That's a load of credible people who have quite a lot to gain going early rather than waiting for a crowded field (headed by people in the Biden administration now) in 2028.
They may also look at 1976 - Ford held off Reagan in the end, but the latter very firmly made himself heir presumptive.
The real comparison will be Biden's desire to run - or lack of it. LBJ knew the gig was up.
How's O'Rourke polling ? Last I looked he'd slightly narrowed the gap to Abbott.
LBJ wouldn't have been Democratic nominee in 1968 if he'd had more "desire" though. He had sufficient desire to run. But then McCarthy holed him below the water-line and Kennedy jumped in to avoid McCarthy getting the jump on him. Johnson was finished at that point. Whether he'd had the "desire" to carry on at that stage or (as it turns out) not was relevant to how it panned out. But there wasn't any realistic route to the nomination regardless of level of desire the second Kennedy declared.
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
I would guess this would be perjury, as in, they lied to the judge about what had happened, which is up to five years.
A big difference in balance of probabilities for a criminal trial applies surely?
Which is why I don't think it will happen.
However, circumstantial evidence can be considered putting things beyond reasonable doubt in default of other evidence if there is enough of it. And since that wasn't the only piece of evidence that mysteriously vanished with a patently untrue story to cover its absence, if the DPP were feeling vindictive she might be prosecuted.
Not gonna happen. It is very common in civil trials for the judgment to find one party lied through their teeth, without prosecutions ensuing. And in this case I don't think the most outrageous porkies were uttered under oath. The lady who dropped her fone overboard was too poorly to give evidence, poor thing.
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
I would guess this would be perjury, as in, they lied to the judge about what had happened, which is up to five years.
A big difference in balance of probabilities for a criminal trial applies surely?
Which is why I don't think it will happen.
However, circumstantial evidence can be considered putting things beyond reasonable doubt in default of other evidence if there is enough of it. And since that wasn't the only piece of evidence that mysteriously vanished with a patently untrue story to cover its absence, if the DPP were feeling vindictive she might be prosecuted.
Courts are massively clogged up and the DPP are underfunded, surely the lesson here is not to prosecute Vardy but to not start expensive court cases you won't win. That should apply to the DPP too.
Oh, I don't think there's much doubt they would win.
Whether it's worth it is a very different question. Seriously, what more punishment could they give her than a £3 million fine, being branded a liar, accused of selling out all her friends, damaging her husband's career, and destroying her own potential for future earnings?
And the satisfaction of knowing that's entirely her own fault?
There are times when people who lie to courts should be prosecuted. E.g. Lord Browne should have been. This does not appear to me to be one of them.
What are the Telegraph’s criteria for beauty? How the fuck do you end up with Canada 3rd?
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
I would guess this would be perjury, as in, they lied to the judge about what had happened, which is up to five years.
A big difference in balance of probabilities for a criminal trial applies surely?
Which is why I don't think it will happen.
However, circumstantial evidence can be considered putting things beyond reasonable doubt in default of other evidence if there is enough of it. And since that wasn't the only piece of evidence that mysteriously vanished with a patently untrue story to cover its absence, if the DPP were feeling vindictive she might be prosecuted.
Courts are massively clogged up and the DPP are underfunded, surely the lesson here is not to prosecute Vardy but to not start expensive court cases you won't win. That should apply to the DPP too.
Oh, I don't think there's much doubt they would win.
Whether it's worth it is a very different question. Seriously, what more punishment could they give her than a £3 million fine, being branded a liar, accused of selling out all her friends, damaging her husband's career, and destroying her own potential for future earnings?
There are times when people who lie to courts should be prosecuted. E.g. Lord Browne should have been. This does not appear to me to be one of them.
There is a yuge gap between balance of probs vs beyond reasonable doubt, there's a jury in the mix, and as noted above the most eyepopping fibs were not necessarily uttered in court and under oath. Not a slam dunk.
What are the Telegraph’s criteria for beauty? How the fuck do you end up with Canada 3rd?
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
The Fraser Valley and Columbia Country are beautiful. As are the Rockies around Kamloops.
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
I would guess this would be perjury, as in, they lied to the judge about what had happened, which is up to five years.
A big difference in balance of probabilities for a criminal trial applies surely?
Which is why I don't think it will happen.
However, circumstantial evidence can be considered putting things beyond reasonable doubt in default of other evidence if there is enough of it. And since that wasn't the only piece of evidence that mysteriously vanished with a patently untrue story to cover its absence, if the DPP were feeling vindictive she might be prosecuted.
Courts are massively clogged up and the DPP are underfunded, surely the lesson here is not to prosecute Vardy but to not start expensive court cases you won't win. That should apply to the DPP too.
Oh, I don't think there's much doubt they would win.
Whether it's worth it is a very different question. Seriously, what more punishment could they give her than a £3 million fine, being branded a liar, accused of selling out all her friends, damaging her husband's career, and destroying her own potential for future earnings?
There are times when people who lie to courts should be prosecuted. E.g. Lord Browne should have been. This does not appear to me to be one of them.
There is a yuge gap between balance of probs vs beyond reasonable doubt, there's a jury in the mix, and as noted above the most eyepopping fibs were not necessarily uttered in court and under oath. Not a slam dunk.
The jury's the reason why they'd win. Do you think any jury would accept what she said after this judgement?
Yes, I know they're meant to have no prior knowledge, but that simply wouldn't happen. Albeit that's arguably the best reason not to prosecute - a proper process couldn't be followed.
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
Rebekah Vardy nods in weary resignation. 'Guys, this ain't going to end well for you either...'
No one's suggesting locking her up, are they ?
What's the maximum sentence for destroying evidence?
I would guess this would be perjury, as in, they lied to the judge about what had happened, which is up to five years.
A big difference in balance of probabilities for a criminal trial applies surely?
Which is why I don't think it will happen.
However, circumstantial evidence can be considered putting things beyond reasonable doubt in default of other evidence if there is enough of it. And since that wasn't the only piece of evidence that mysteriously vanished with a patently untrue story to cover its absence, if the DPP were feeling vindictive she might be prosecuted.
Courts are massively clogged up and the DPP are underfunded, surely the lesson here is not to prosecute Vardy but to not start expensive court cases you won't win. That should apply to the DPP too.
Oh, I don't think there's much doubt they would win.
Whether it's worth it is a very different question. Seriously, what more punishment could they give her than a £3 million fine, being branded a liar, accused of selling out all her friends, damaging her husband's career, and destroying her own potential for future earnings?
And the satisfaction of knowing that's entirely her own fault?
There are times when people who lie to courts should be prosecuted. E.g. Lord Browne should have been. This does not appear to me to be one of them.
I disagree that a prosecution would be successful.
It isn't uncommon at all in civil litigation for a judge to say he/she didn't believe a witness' evidence. Indeed, a judge often has no choice - accounts contradict each other, and it can't simply be poor memories. It simply doesn't follow that there's a good prospect of proving *beyond reasonable doubt* that the person lied. The reason these cases rarely come forward is not simply that losing is punishment enough but that prospects of conviction are low.
Archer was of course successfully prosecuted, but his was a really clear case of perverting the course of justive by falsifying diaries and so on.
What are the Telegraph’s criteria for beauty? How the fuck do you end up with Canada 3rd?
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
The Fraser Valley and Columbia Country are beautiful. As are the Rockies around Kamloops.
Sure. But many dozens of other countries can boast similar beauty - and with more beautiful culture and a better climate and more variety and lovelier towns and the rest
In Europe alone I’d say France, Italy, UK, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Greece, Russia, and Montenegro! are more beautiful than Canada
Canada should be in the 20-30 range. Alongside Ireland or Namibia
fuck it here’s my list of the top ten most beautiful countries on earth based on criteria I’ve plucked from my colon
1. France 2. China 3. India 4. Italy 5. Montenegro 6. Japan 7. USA 8. Switzerland 9. UK 10. Chile
I hope that settles things
What kind of Socialist Remainer Traitor has France at one and England at nine?
France is 100 times more beautiful than England. The only thing saving the Yookay from total humiliation in such a list is Wales, Scotland and the stolen bit of Ireland.
What are the Telegraph’s criteria for beauty? How the fuck do you end up with Canada 3rd?
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
Nah they've got this one - the Rockies are stupendously fabulous, fantastic, majestic, awesome.
I remember going in short order from the Candadian Rockies to Mull. Very interesting contrast. The Rockies are enormous, vast in scale, very overwhelming; Mull, meanwhile was in comparison no less awesome but you realised on a much more restrained level, much more understated.
fuck it here’s my list of the top ten most beautiful countries on earth based on criteria I’ve plucked from my colon
1. France 2. China 3. India 4. Italy 5. Montenegro 6. Japan 7. USA 8. Switzerland 9. UK 10. Chile
I hope that settles things
What kind of Socialist Remainer Traitor has France at one and England at nine?
France is 100 times more beautiful than England. The only thing saving the Yookay from total humiliation in such a list is Wales, Scotland and the stolen bit of Ireland.
The Lakes say hi. Likewise the Cotswolds the marches the dales the West Country the Thames valley Northumbria and Cornwall
England is paradoxical. It has some shockingly ugly bits and some painfully banal bits, but it has managed to preserve some of the most stunning places on the planet
What are the Telegraph’s criteria for beauty? How the fuck do you end up with Canada 3rd?
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
Nah they've got this one - the Rockies are stupendously fabulous, fantastic, majestic, awesome.
I remember going in short order from the Candadian Rockies to Mull. Very interesting contrast. The Rockies are enormous, vast in scale, very overwhelming; Mull, meanwhile was in comparison no less awesome but you realised on a much more restrained level, much more understated.
Such a list, that said, is ridiculous.
I’ve seen the rockies. Several times. The alps in all their manifestations are infinitely more beautiful - nothing in Canada matches the dolomites, for example
Plus at the foot of the Dolomites you get utterly exquisite towns with gorgeous medieval castles. To put it politely this is not the case in Canada
fuck it here’s my list of the top ten most beautiful countries on earth based on criteria I’ve plucked from my colon
1. France 2. China 3. India 4. Italy 5. Montenegro 6. Japan 7. USA 8. Switzerland 9. UK 10. Chile
I hope that settles things
What kind of Socialist Remainer Traitor has France at one and England at nine?
France is 100 times more beautiful than England. The only thing saving the Yookay from total humiliation in such a list is Wales, Scotland and the stolen bit of Ireland.
Why do you use the term “Yookay”?
Does it have some alternative meeting in Scottish Nat circles?
fuck it here’s my list of the top ten most beautiful countries on earth based on criteria I’ve plucked from my colon
1. France 2. China 3. India 4. Italy 5. Montenegro 6. Japan 7. USA 8. Switzerland 9. UK 10. Chile
I hope that settles things
What the hell?
I kno you haven’t been to NZ, but that’s no reason to exclude it from the list.
Also LOL, Montenegro which is about 2 square kilometres.
One of the criteria I plucked from my ass was “preferably compact”
It’s all very well a country being beautiful but if it’s the size of Asia and you have to travel 4000 miles between the nice bits then fuck that
Have you been to tiny Montenegro? Acre for acre it is easily one of the most beautiful places on earth - you go from soaring dinaric alps to stunning Med coastline in 10km
What are the Telegraph’s criteria for beauty? How the fuck do you end up with Canada 3rd?
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
Nah they've got this one - the Rockies are stupendously fabulous, fantastic, majestic, awesome.
I remember going in short order from the Candadian Rockies to Mull. Very interesting contrast. The Rockies are enormous, vast in scale, very overwhelming; Mull, meanwhile was in comparison no less awesome but you realised on a much more restrained level, much more understated.
Such a list, that said, is ridiculous.
I’ve seen the rockies. Several times. The alps in all their manifestations are infinitely more beautiful - nothing in Canada matches the dolomites, for example
Plus at the foot of the Dolomites you get utterly exquisite towns with gorgeous medieval castles. To put it politely this is not the case in Canada
The rockies are quite meh
Nah - you're wrong on this. The rockies are breathtaking. I certainly look out over the alps and think that's nice but the rockies are on a different scale.
As for the towns, that is another reason why the list is bonkers. Are we talking Broadway, Worcestershire or Hartlepool - what's included here? You would have to assign a value to every element of a country, add it up and give it a final score. It is not even like a 10 best films or mini-series so absurd is the idea.
On topic, I'd strongly challenge Mike's blithe assertion that the nomination is Biden's for the taking.
Actually, should he run, this has 1968 written all over it in letters a mile high.
A fairly unpopular President, whose campaigning skills are hampered by age and infirmity. A youthful and boisterous progressive wing. Ambitious moderates who fear the progressives jumping the queue.
This screams LBJ, Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey.
A recent New Hampshire poll showed Biden in the low teens as preferred Democrat candidate (second to Buttigieg but essentially a blanket result). Even more importantly, he was nowhere as second choice. Democrats are looking for someone other than the President.
Mark my words - if Biden stands, someone will do a McCarthy on him. Possibly from the left, but possibly a late middle aged man in a hurry like Cory Booker. Biden will struggle with the physical demands of a New Hampshire campaign, and will falter. Then the pressure on him from inside his own cabinet to clear the effing road will be irresistible.
Agree with all if that aside from the LBJ comparison. Vietnam had riven the Democrats utterly; this is more in sorrow than anger.
I agree the analogy isn't perfect as the progressive view of Biden isn't good but they're just deeply frustrated with his limitations rather than accusing him of killing kids.
But the vast majority of the anti-LBJ vote in the early stages of the 1968 campaign wasn't from student radicals with a hatred of the President. It was from ordinary punters who just weren't sold on a second term - in LBJ's case he'd already been there six years, of course, and was in quite poor health, so there was a huge level of people who didn't hate the incumbent but were just saying "four more years - really?" just as they are now.
Indeed, Biden is in a poorer polling position than LBJ was at this stage, and is probably more vulnerable if his opponent lacks the (for some) dangerously radical air of McCarthy. There are quite a few people in the field who might well see the chance to get a jump on the opposition by diving in, and who aren't seen as maverick outsiders - Booker, Klobucher, Warren (seen as on the left but not terribly scary), Adams, Whitmer, Newsom, even Ossoff or O'Rourke.
That's a load of credible people who have quite a lot to gain going early rather than waiting for a crowded field (headed by people in the Biden administration now) in 2028.
They may also look at 1976 - Ford held off Reagan in the end, but the latter very firmly made himself heir presumptive.
The real comparison will be Biden's desire to run - or lack of it. LBJ knew the gig was up.
How's O'Rourke polling ? Last I looked he'd slightly narrowed the gap to Abbott.
What are the Telegraph’s criteria for beauty? How the fuck do you end up with Canada 3rd?
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
Nah they've got this one - the Rockies are stupendously fabulous, fantastic, majestic, awesome.
I remember going in short order from the Candadian Rockies to Mull. Very interesting contrast. The Rockies are enormous, vast in scale, very overwhelming; Mull, meanwhile was in comparison no less awesome but you realised on a much more restrained level, much more understated.
Such a list, that said, is ridiculous.
I’ve seen the rockies. Several times. The alps in all their manifestations are infinitely more beautiful - nothing in Canada matches the dolomites, for example
Plus at the foot of the Dolomites you get utterly exquisite towns with gorgeous medieval castles. To put it politely this is not the case in Canada
The rockies are quite meh
Nah - you're wrong on this. The rockies are breathtaking. I certainly look out over the alps and think that's nice but the rockies are on a different scale.
As for the towns, that is another reason why the list is bonkers. Are we talking Broadway, Worcestershire or Hartlepool - what's included here? You would have to assign a value to every element of a country, add it up and give it a final score. It is not even like a 10 best films or mini-series so absurd is the idea.
No, I’m right. And I’ve travelled much much more then you so you must yield. I am simply right. Sorry
fuck it here’s my list of the top ten most beautiful countries on earth based on criteria I’ve plucked from my colon
1. France 2. China 3. India 4. Italy 5. Montenegro 6. Japan 7. USA 8. Switzerland 9. UK 10. Chile
I hope that settles things
What kind of Socialist Remainer Traitor has France at one and England at nine?
France is 100 times more beautiful than England. The only thing saving the Yookay from total humiliation in such a list is Wales, Scotland and the stolen bit of Ireland.
Why do you use the term “Yookay”?
Does it have some alternative meeting in Scottish Nat circles?
What are the Telegraph’s criteria for beauty? How the fuck do you end up with Canada 3rd?
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
Nah they've got this one - the Rockies are stupendously fabulous, fantastic, majestic, awesome.
I remember going in short order from the Candadian Rockies to Mull. Very interesting contrast. The Rockies are enormous, vast in scale, very overwhelming; Mull, meanwhile was in comparison no less awesome but you realised on a much more restrained level, much more understated.
Such a list, that said, is ridiculous.
I’ve seen the rockies. Several times. The alps in all their manifestations are infinitely more beautiful - nothing in Canada matches the dolomites, for example
Plus at the foot of the Dolomites you get utterly exquisite towns with gorgeous medieval castles. To put it politely this is not the case in Canada
The rockies are quite meh
Nah - you're wrong on this. The rockies are breathtaking. I certainly look out over the alps and think that's nice but the rockies are on a different scale.
As for the towns, that is another reason why the list is bonkers. Are we talking Broadway, Worcestershire or Hartlepool - what's included here? You would have to assign a value to every element of a country, add it up and give it a final score. It is not even like a 10 best films or mini-series so absurd is the idea.
No, I’m right. And I’ve travelled much much more then you so you must yield. I am simply right. Sorry
I'm not at all sure you have travelled more than me. In fact I think I have travelled more than you so actually much as I respect your somewhat sheltered, parochial view, I must assert my rightness.
If anyone can find something that matches that in - lol - the rockies - then good luck. The rockies are nice big mountains and there are great views but they won’t have that lovely little medieval hamlet at the bottom, will they? With the church? And the tiny tavern selling cold Cimbrian beer and excellent smoked ham. And that’s what makes the heart sing at the beauty. This is why 5 trillion people want to go to Italy and about 2 people mistakenly wander into Canada once a decade
This is an unfair test really - almost any country in Europe will be more beautiful than almost any country outside Europe because of the accumulation of culture on top of the natural beauty
fuck it here’s my list of the top ten most beautiful countries on earth based on criteria I’ve plucked from my colon
1. France 2. China 3. India 4. Italy 5. Montenegro 6. Japan 7. USA 8. Switzerland 9. UK 10. Chile
I hope that settles things
What kind of Socialist Remainer Traitor has France at one and England at nine?
France is 100 times more beautiful than England. The only thing saving the Yookay from total humiliation in such a list is Wales, Scotland and the stolen bit of Ireland.
Why do you use the term “Yookay”?
Does it have some alternative meeting in Scottish Nat circles?
Yoon is term used for Unionists by Indy supporters. The opposite is probably "Nat".
Comes from loon I reckon, which means a younger person where I'm from but I think an idiot/fool elsewhere in Scotland?
What are the Telegraph’s criteria for beauty? How the fuck do you end up with Canada 3rd?
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
Nah they've got this one - the Rockies are stupendously fabulous, fantastic, majestic, awesome.
I remember going in short order from the Candadian Rockies to Mull. Very interesting contrast. The Rockies are enormous, vast in scale, very overwhelming; Mull, meanwhile was in comparison no less awesome but you realised on a much more restrained level, much more understated.
Such a list, that said, is ridiculous.
I’ve seen the rockies. Several times. The alps in all their manifestations are infinitely more beautiful - nothing in Canada matches the dolomites, for example
Plus at the foot of the Dolomites you get utterly exquisite towns with gorgeous medieval castles. To put it politely this is not the case in Canada
The rockies are quite meh
Nah - you're wrong on this. The rockies are breathtaking. I certainly look out over the alps and think that's nice but the rockies are on a different scale.
As for the towns, that is another reason why the list is bonkers. Are we talking Broadway, Worcestershire or Hartlepool - what's included here? You would have to assign a value to every element of a country, add it up and give it a final score. It is not even like a 10 best films or mini-series so absurd is the idea.
No, I’m right. And I’ve travelled much much more then you so you must yield. I am simply right. Sorry
I'm not at all sure you have travelled more than me. In fact I think I have travelled more than you so actually much as I respect your somewhat sheltered, parochial view, I must assert my rightness.
Well if they don’t like the decision, they need to get out and vote!
US turnout is abysmal in mid-terms anyway, you shouldn’t complain about the government if you didn’t exercise your right to vote.
At this rate, Republicans take the House and the Senate in November, and Biden is a totally lame duck for two years.
On state Senate polls in key races the Democrats will hold the Senate even if the GOP take the House
If you look at 538's all-in polling averages in the Presidential in the run up to November 2020, July 2020 may not be necessarily a good indicator of the final result three months later.
EG July 2020 538 had
Wisconsin......Biden by 8 Michigan.......Biden by 8 Florida..........Biden by 3 (!) Ohio.............almost dead heat (!) Arizona.........Biden by 4 Texas............Biden by 1 (!).
Comments
In fact he'd probably be a much better FS than Truss has been.
Should be all costs to the defence though.
The legal bills might be ten times that.
The judge's remarks seem to imply it won't be peppercorn.
Such people would fit right in in Putin's Russia.
No comment on what this says about Putin...
It's like they didnt know the resistance is futile line was from the villains.
Australia is a wonderful country but it is not more beautiful than France. And Canada is not more beautiful than China
China encompasses the Himalayas, for a start. Perhaps the most majestic scenery on earth
This was Vardy suing Rooney and failing. No counterclaim that I am aware of. So no damages at all.
I'd say it means she is free and clear, she can offer him something safe in the knowledge he might do a Hunt and refuse.
Although I've never heard that they have a special interest in ballet.
And losing...
But the vast majority of the anti-LBJ vote in the early stages of the 1968 campaign wasn't from student radicals with a hatred of the President. It was from ordinary punters who just weren't sold on a second term - in LBJ's case he'd already been there six years, of course, and was in quite poor health, so there was a huge level of people who didn't hate the incumbent but were just saying "four more years - really?" just as they are now.
Indeed, Biden is in a poorer polling position than LBJ was at this stage, and is probably more vulnerable if his opponent lacks the (for some) dangerously radical air of McCarthy. There are quite a few people in the field who might well see the chance to get a jump on the opposition by diving in, and who aren't seen as maverick outsiders - Booker, Klobucher, Warren (seen as on the left but not terribly scary), Adams, Whitmer, Newsom, even Ossoff or O'Rourke.
That's a load of credible people who have quite a lot to gain going early rather than waiting for a crowded field (headed by people in the Biden administration now) in 2028.
They may also look at 1976 - Ford held off Reagan in the end, but the latter very firmly made himself heir presumptive.
But yes, head and shoulders better!
Stats for Lefties Tweets next time somebody here posts them as a good source of information
And how much would they be personally loyal anyway? She has to reward her allies (hence the JRM worries) but be sensible on policies and include some Sunakites and the mass of them should be wary but content.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/29/abortion-roe-midterms-poll/
DHS watchdog was alerted in February to unavailable records of top officials, but did nothing to alert or investigate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/28/homeland-security-texts-jan6/
The penalties for the unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records or the attempt to do so, include a fine, imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 641 and 2071).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/1230.12
LBJ knew the gig was up.
How's O'Rourke polling ? Last I looked he'd slightly narrowed the gap to Abbott.
With a VONC, you're not asking if the incumbent is the best possible person for the job. You're asking if there is benefit in plunging your party into chaos on the basis you MIGHT emerge stronger. And the chaos will look even worse if it's the second time within a year or 18 months.
Tory MPs just aren't going to do it again (merely on poor polling as opposed to some a major scandal engulfing Truss personally). The view will simply be that they need to do the best they can with the leader they have and, if that means losing in 2024, try to lose narrowly and regroup in opposition (and if you don't like Truss as a Tory MP, at least you can comfort yourself that she'll be gone at that point). Poor polling alone simply won't trigger a successful VONC between now and 2024..
1. France
2. China
3. India
4. Italy
5. Montenegro
6. Japan
7. USA
8. Switzerland
9. UK
10. Chile
I hope that settles things
US turnout is abysmal in mid-terms anyway, you shouldn’t complain about the government if you didn’t exercise your right to vote.
At this rate, Republicans take the House and the Senate in November, and Biden is a totally lame duck for two years.
However, circumstantial evidence can be considered putting things beyond reasonable doubt in default of other evidence if there is enough of it. And since that wasn't the only piece of evidence that mysteriously vanished with a patently untrue story to cover its absence, if the DPP were feeling vindictive she might be prosecuted.
I was tempted to include Finland for the lolz
IN YOUR FACE: “COUNTRIES”
Whether it's worth it is a very different question. Seriously, what more punishment could they give her than a £3 million fine, being branded a liar, accused of selling out all her friends, damaging her husband's career, and destroying her own potential for future earnings?
And the satisfaction of knowing that's entirely her own fault?
There are times when people who lie to courts should be prosecuted. E.g. Lord Browne should have been. This does not appear to me to be one of them.
Study Shows Lifetime EV Emissions Are 50% Lower Than Conventional Vehicles
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/27/ucs-study-shows-lifetime-ev-emissions-are-50-lower-than-conventional-vehicles/
The only thing I can think of is “vast impressive tracts of ice and snow that almost no one wants to visit” but in that case Greenland should be in the top 3 because it is all of that and more magnificent
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/
Yes, I know they're meant to have no prior knowledge, but that simply wouldn't happen. Albeit that's arguably the best reason not to prosecute - a proper process couldn't be followed.
It isn't uncommon at all in civil litigation for a judge to say he/she didn't believe a witness' evidence. Indeed, a judge often has no choice - accounts contradict each other, and it can't simply be poor memories. It simply doesn't follow that there's a good prospect of proving *beyond reasonable doubt* that the person lied. The reason these cases rarely come forward is not simply that losing is punishment enough but that prospects of conviction are low.
Archer was of course successfully prosecuted, but his was a really clear case of perverting the course of justive by falsifying diaries and so on.
In Europe alone I’d say France, Italy, UK, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Greece, Russia, and Montenegro! are more beautiful than Canada
Canada should be in the 20-30 range. Alongside Ireland or Namibia
I remember going in short order from the Candadian Rockies to Mull. Very interesting contrast. The Rockies are enormous, vast in scale, very overwhelming; Mull, meanwhile was in comparison no less awesome but you realised on a much more restrained level, much more understated.
Such a list, that said, is ridiculous.
https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brdemountable/h2e71ac23#h2e71ac23
England is paradoxical. It has some shockingly ugly bits and some painfully banal bits, but it has managed to preserve some of the most stunning places on the planet
And anyway this is about the UK
I know you haven’t been to NZ, but that’s no reason to exclude it from the list.
Also LOL, Montenegro which is about 2 square kilometres.
Plus at the foot of the Dolomites you get utterly exquisite towns with gorgeous medieval castles. To put it politely this is not the case in Canada
The rockies are quite meh
'The money could have been far better spent helping others': Coleen Rooney.
But, the money was used to help others.
Lawyers.
Does it have some alternative meeting in Scottish Nat circles?
It’s all very well a country being beautiful but if it’s the size of Asia and you have to travel 4000 miles between the nice bits then fuck that
Have you been to tiny Montenegro? Acre for acre it is easily one of the most beautiful places on earth - you go from soaring dinaric alps to stunning Med coastline in 10km
As for the towns, that is another reason why the list is bonkers. Are we talking Broadway, Worcestershire or Hartlepool - what's included here? You would have to assign a value to every element of a country, add it up and give it a final score. It is not even like a 10 best films or mini-series so absurd is the idea.
If anyone can find something that matches that in - lol - the rockies - then good luck. The rockies are nice big mountains and there are great views but they won’t have that lovely little medieval hamlet at the bottom, will they? With the church? And the tiny tavern selling cold Cimbrian beer and excellent smoked ham. And that’s what makes the heart sing at the beauty. This is why 5 trillion people want to go to Italy and about 2 people mistakenly wander into Canada once a decade
This is an unfair test really - almost any country in Europe will be more beautiful than almost any country outside Europe because of the accumulation of culture on top of the natural beauty
Comes from loon I reckon, which means a younger person where I'm from but I think an idiot/fool elsewhere in Scotland?
But given people tend to vote early in postal contests, absent something major this will be all but wrapped up in 2 weeks.
EG July 2020 538 had
Wisconsin......Biden by 8
Michigan.......Biden by 8
Florida..........Biden by 3 (!)
Ohio.............almost dead heat (!)
Arizona.........Biden by 4
Texas............Biden by 1 (!).