Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
The original proposal was x number of "best" 3rd placed teams would qualify to the knock-out. Screams, make sure all the big boys get through, while we get 10s of extra games worth of revenue. Would make pretty much the group game irreverent.
8 groups of 6 top two go through? Then R16, QFs, SFs, Final
That's nine games! I think the clubs will say yes to eight games but only if a FIFA weekend is removed from the calendar every other season.
Only five games for 75% of the teams. It does mean lesser teams get more chance to play on the big stage.
Right, but the other 25% of the teams have a disproportionate number of the players who play most club games.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
Just have 16 groups of 4, followed by 8 groups of 4, then back on track. Adds a shit load of extra games and an extra fortnight of footy. And increasing to 64 teams means that even Scotland might qualify. What's not to like?
Oh, 16 groups of 4 followed by a straight knockout from the round of 32 is obviously where FIFA is going. But I think they think they have to go through a 48 team format first.
There is another problem brewing for FIFA. I think it's inevitable that they'll have to play games concurrently in a 48 team world cup, which will lead to broadcasters being upset when their team is clashing with another game featuring Brazil.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
The original proposal was x number of "best" 3rd placed teams would qualify to the knock-out. Screams, make sure all the big boys get through, while we get 10s of extra games worth of revenue. Would make pretty much the group game irreverent.
8 groups of 6 top two go through? Then R16, QFs, SFs, Final
That's nine games! I think the clubs will say yes to eight games but only if a FIFA weekend is removed from the calendar every other season.
Only five games for 75% of the teams. It does mean lesser teams get more chance to play on the big stage.
Right, but the other 25% of the teams have a disproportionate number of the players who play most club games.
All the players play a lot of club games, just not necessarily for big European Clubs.
Who decides? How many votes do the top 10 European clubs have?
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That's the first time I've ever heard the Royal College of Nursing called "greedy union barons". I must find out how much they donate to the Labour Party.
Grade A 100% Daily Mail rhetoric there.
As for measures relating to public schools and non-Dom status, I'm afraid they will resonate among many sections of the population. I'm not going to argue they are right or wrong - the desperation of those anxious to defend the status quo is perhaps telling.
Once again, it's all a matter of perceived "fairness". If it looks unfair, you won't get the electorate to accept it as Kwarteng and Truss discovered. There will be those who think nurses deserve every penny of 19% and those who think everyone richer than them (and especially many times richer than them) can pay a bit more to make it happen.
Once dubbed "the politics of envy", it might perhaps now be "the politics of fairness".
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
Just have 16 groups of 4, followed by 8 groups of 4, then back on track. Adds a shit load of extra games and an extra fortnight of footy. And increasing to 64 teams means that even Scotland might qualify. What's not to like?
Oh, 16 groups of 4 followed by a straight knockout from the round of 32 is obviously where FIFA is going. But I think they think they have to go through a 48 team format first.
There is another problem brewing for FIFA. I think it's inevitable that they'll have to play games concurrently in a 48 team world cup, which will lead to broadcasters being upset when their team is clashing with another game featuring Brazil.
12 groups of 4 needs 72 matches, 60 slots as the last pair of games in each group is concurrent anyway. Using the four games a day format pioneered this year, that's 15 days for the group stage - realistically, 16 as the opening game is standalone as it was this time.
That's only one day longer than it was in 2018.
I don't think it's a coincidence that four games per day was introduced this time - sure, it shortened the group stage which is what everyone else involved wanted with the tournament being mid-European season - but I'm convinced they had their eyes on future events.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
And I'm an idiot.
For the round of 16, we'd have 12 first place teams... And then we'd need four from 16.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
I don't think it's that unfair to be honest. I don't think there are any especially weak teams in the top 48 countries these days. The only issue is that the groups going latter have an advantage, but actually, for scheduling purposes, it would have to be the best two runners up from the first six groups and the best two runners up from the second six groups. It's not fair, but then the draw is never fair anyway, so I don't think it matters too much. And everyone starts the tournament knowing that three wins gets you through.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
And I'm an idiot.
For the round of 16, we'd have 12 first place teams... And then we'd need four from 16.
You're an idiot?! What about the person who liked your post?
An early finish for work and an excursion through the tundra wasteland that is East London - much of the snow which fell five days ago is still lying which is extraordinary and testament to how cold it has been even in the urban heat island.
Kantar, Techne and Omnisis all herding 46-29, 46-28 and 47-26 so a slight recovery for the Conservatives from the depths of the low 20s and a slight easing for Labour from the 50%+ numbers recorded a few weeks ago.
The Stretford & Urmston by-election was pretty much what you would expect in this scenario - swings in "safe" seats to the party holding are often less dramatic than the UNS but a 10.5% move to Labour still reads well. It's a seat where the Conservative vote share remained remarkably consistent from 2005-19 yet last night was a significant drop.
We are probably less than two years from an election so this all looks promising for Labour, doesn't it? Well, yes and no. History tells us Conservative Governments can recover strongly from their midterm trough but that's not always true and given the unprecedented events since the last GE, it's impossible to know.
Some would have you believe the electorate will be gripped by a collective amnesia and the inadequacies of the Opposition will allow the Government to win re-election.
Perhaps.
As we get nearer any vote, there will, quite rightly, be scrutiny of the Labour plans and equally rightly of the Conservative record and plans. What. for example, does a re-elected Sunak Government look like? I've no clue.
With two years to go, Starmer is not going to give any hostages to fortune but he will know the Devil will be in the detail. Labour oppositions don't generally win from a radical position (Attlee was the exception under unique circumstances). Starmer may be no Blair - nor should he try to be - but he will know re-assuring the Conservative disillusioned the Labour Party he leads is a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left is the prerequisite.
"History tells us Conservative Governments can recover strongly from their midterm trough"
I don't doubt you but which examples did you have in mind? 1990 - 1992 is the only one I can think of, but that required getting rid of Thatcher.
The Conservatives were third in many polls in 1986 yet still won a 101-seat majority at the 1987 GE. From what little I've read, many were surprised how close Douglas-Hume came in 1964 to defeating Wilson. The Conservatives had lost Orpington in March 1962 and changed Prime Minister the following autumn.
It works the other way as well - Cameron's Conservatives had big leads over Labour in 2008 but couldn't win a majority
Bill Gates uses charitable causes to cover up his own personal malfeasance. It's not an unknown way of hiding in plain sight as a dick head or worse. Jimmy Savile did it too.
If anyone is interested in that stuff, Gate’s ex-wife have some interesting reasons for the divorce.
His friendship with Epstein was chief among the reasons. He's as bad as Prince Andrew but because he gives to the right causes people have decided to ignore it. It's another Jimmy Savile scandal waiting to be blown open.
It fascinating how uninterested large portions of the fourth estate are in regards to just who were buddy buddy with Epstein and just what was the true backstory. He seemed to manage to transform from a minor conman pretending to be a teacher, to secondary figure in a wallstreet ponzi in the late 1980s, to this guy who was all these famous people's bestie.
That's quite a leap of upward mobility.
Yes. Which is why I have a sneaking sympathy with Prince Andrew, who, whilst a sleazy twat, has clearly been thrown to the wolves to satisfy the public, leaving Epstein's other friends to skulk away.
I read an interesting quote of Voltaire's in the comments on John Redwood's blog the other day. To paraphrase - 'If you want to find out who rules you, just find out who you're not allowed to criticise.' The media is obviously encouraged to go ham on Randy Andy - less so on Bill Gates. And it's interesting to me that as a whole the Royal family seems less protected than it once was in this regard. They have always been criticised, but the sustained criticism and seeming determination on the part of the US elite to change the Royal household/power structures in its own image (see M&H) seems new.
The comment was originally made in the context of the Bank of England. UK politicians are regularly ridiculed and hauled over the coals, but the bone-headed decisions of the Bank are treated like Holy writ.
Who am I not allowed to criticise? In the strict sense no-one but:
Nurses. Children. Mary Berry. David Attenborough. HM the late Queen. Reception class teachers. Those who raise awareness. Modern founders of charities. Armed forces charities. James O'Brien. Children's charities. The NHS as opposed to The Government/Dept of Health. Foodbanks. Warm hubs. Religions and their founders except Christianity. Self styled 'Community Leaders'. Scientists.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
What's stopping you supporting the Cons then? Sunak is fiscally sound, they won't touch privilege, they've dropped all the "Boris" nonsense - what's not to like?
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
Just have 16 groups of 4, followed by 8 groups of 4, then back on track. Adds a shit load of extra games and an extra fortnight of footy. And increasing to 64 teams means that even Scotland might qualify. What's not to like?
Oh, 16 groups of 4 followed by a straight knockout from the round of 32 is obviously where FIFA is going. But I think they think they have to go through a 48 team format first.
There is another problem brewing for FIFA. I think it's inevitable that they'll have to play games concurrently in a 48 team world cup, which will lead to broadcasters being upset when their team is clashing with another game featuring Brazil.
12 groups of 4 needs 72 matches, 60 slots as the last pair of games in each group is concurrent anyway. Using the four games a day format pioneered this year, that's 15 days for the group stage - realistically, 16 as the opening game is standalone as it was this time.
That's only one day longer than it was in 2018.
I don't think it's a coincidence that four games per day was introduced this time - sure, it shortened the group stage which is what everyone else involved wanted with the tournament being mid-European season - but I'm convinced they had their eyes on future events.
And four games per day, as a fan, really worked.
Four games per day was great. I had an excellent excuse for doing nothing all weekend.
A bit of a faff trying to watch them when on Teams calls on work days though.
One other thought - with the ideas of groups of 3 established, giving teams only two games guaranteed - could they go to some level of double elimination tournament?
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
Just have 16 groups of 4, followed by 8 groups of 4, then back on track. Adds a shit load of extra games and an extra fortnight of footy. And increasing to 64 teams means that even Scotland might qualify. What's not to like?
Oh, 16 groups of 4 followed by a straight knockout from the round of 32 is obviously where FIFA is going. But I think they think they have to go through a 48 team format first.
There is another problem brewing for FIFA. I think it's inevitable that they'll have to play games concurrently in a 48 team world cup, which will lead to broadcasters being upset when their team is clashing with another game featuring Brazil.
12 groups of 4 needs 72 matches, 60 slots as the last pair of games in each group is concurrent anyway. Using the four games a day format pioneered this year, that's 15 days for the group stage - realistically, 16 as the opening game is standalone as it was this time.
That's only one day longer than it was in 2018.
I don't think it's a coincidence that four games per day was introduced this time - sure, it shortened the group stage which is what everyone else involved wanted with the tournament being mid-European season - but I'm convinced they had their eyes on future events.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
The original proposal was x number of "best" 3rd placed teams would qualify to the knock-out. Screams, make sure all the big boys get through, while we get 10s of extra games worth of revenue. Would make pretty much the group game irreverent.
8 groups of 6 top two go through? Then R16, QFs, SFs, Final
They want a round of 32 and your structure would require 256 matches played vs 112 currently. There's no time in the calendar for a 5-6 week tournament.
Pretty outstanding achievement for a soi-disant free-speech advocate to be criticised by the UN for curbing the free press less than a month* into the job! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63996061
(*Edit - OK, it's taken about a month and a half.)
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
And I'm an idiot.
For the round of 16, we'd have 12 first place teams... And then we'd need four from 16.
You're an idiot?! What about the person who liked your post?
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
Just have 16 groups of 4, followed by 8 groups of 4, then back on track. Adds a shit load of extra games and an extra fortnight of footy. And increasing to 64 teams means that even Scotland might qualify. What's not to like?
Oh, 16 groups of 4 followed by a straight knockout from the round of 32 is obviously where FIFA is going. But I think they think they have to go through a 48 team format first.
There is another problem brewing for FIFA. I think it's inevitable that they'll have to play games concurrently in a 48 team world cup, which will lead to broadcasters being upset when their team is clashing with another game featuring Brazil.
12 groups of 4 needs 72 matches, 60 slots as the last pair of games in each group is concurrent anyway. Using the four games a day format pioneered this year, that's 15 days for the group stage - realistically, 16 as the opening game is standalone as it was this time.
That's only one day longer than it was in 2018.
I don't think it's a coincidence that four games per day was introduced this time - sure, it shortened the group stage which is what everyone else involved wanted with the tournament being mid-European season - but I'm convinced they had their eyes on future events.
And four games per day, as a fan, really worked.
It's on again - and pretty firmly too.
You're getting really quite tedious now, you know that?
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
Just have 16 groups of 4, followed by 8 groups of 4, then back on track. Adds a shit load of extra games and an extra fortnight of footy. And increasing to 64 teams means that even Scotland might qualify. What's not to like?
Oh, 16 groups of 4 followed by a straight knockout from the round of 32 is obviously where FIFA is going. But I think they think they have to go through a 48 team format first.
There is another problem brewing for FIFA. I think it's inevitable that they'll have to play games concurrently in a 48 team world cup, which will lead to broadcasters being upset when their team is clashing with another game featuring Brazil.
12 groups of 4 needs 72 matches, 60 slots as the last pair of games in each group is concurrent anyway. Using the four games a day format pioneered this year, that's 15 days for the group stage - realistically, 16 as the opening game is standalone as it was this time.
That's only one day longer than it was in 2018.
I don't think it's a coincidence that four games per day was introduced this time - sure, it shortened the group stage which is what everyone else involved wanted with the tournament being mid-European season - but I'm convinced they had their eyes on future events.
And four games per day, as a fan, really worked.
And the next problem is the climate. Player welfare is a bigger thing today than it was in 1994 or 1986. Qatar in December worked okay, but North America in June won't be good.
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Big Train boasts about 12 of my favourite TV sketches of all time. A work of peerless genius. It is amazing it is not better known. The best TV sketch show ever?
BTW, in addition to the small matter of whether France or Argentina become world champions, there are four players, two on each team, with a chance to get the Golden Boot. Messi and Mbappe on 5, Alvarez and Giroud on 4.
I reckon France for the cup, Messi for most goals.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
I don't think it's that unfair to be honest. I don't think there are any especially weak teams in the top 48 countries these days. The only issue is that the groups going latter have an advantage, but actually, for scheduling purposes, it would have to be the best two runners up from the first six groups and the best two runners up from the second six groups. It's not fair, but then the draw is never fair anyway, so I don't think it matters too much. And everyone starts the tournament knowing that three wins gets you through.
16 groups of 3 with the group winners going through to a knockout phase. Think I'd go with that.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
FIFA isn't going to consider a group format where only group winners are guaranteed to qualify - especially in four team groups. Too much chance of groups of death whittling out the big teams too early.
Just have 16 groups of 4, followed by 8 groups of 4, then back on track. Adds a shit load of extra games and an extra fortnight of footy. And increasing to 64 teams means that even Scotland might qualify. What's not to like?
Oh, 16 groups of 4 followed by a straight knockout from the round of 32 is obviously where FIFA is going. But I think they think they have to go through a 48 team format first.
There is another problem brewing for FIFA. I think it's inevitable that they'll have to play games concurrently in a 48 team world cup, which will lead to broadcasters being upset when their team is clashing with another game featuring Brazil.
12 groups of 4 needs 72 matches, 60 slots as the last pair of games in each group is concurrent anyway. Using the four games a day format pioneered this year, that's 15 days for the group stage - realistically, 16 as the opening game is standalone as it was this time.
That's only one day longer than it was in 2018.
I don't think it's a coincidence that four games per day was introduced this time - sure, it shortened the group stage which is what everyone else involved wanted with the tournament being mid-European season - but I'm convinced they had their eyes on future events.
And four games per day, as a fan, really worked.
It's on again - and pretty firmly too.
You're getting really quite tedious now, you know that?
-7.7°C here last night, it's not got above freezing all day.
The hot and cold pipes to our en-suite froze last night (they usually do if it gets below -6) but for the first time ever they have not defrosted during the day :-(
Plastic pipes so the have never spilt (they will one day though). Must get this properly sorted instead of forgetting about it until the next time.
I woke up this morning to my bath 1/4rd full of water backing up the frozen pipes. Had a quick breakfast and then went to empty the bath and found it about 1inch below the top and about to flood. Quite a lot of hoofing water from the bath to the loo ensued. Two calls to plumbers were both met with 'there's nothing much we can do'.
Thankfully it's been a bit milder as the day went on and eventually the pipes under the bath gave a huge long gurgle and the remaining water drained away. But I keep going to check on it now just in case the same thing happens.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
A walk through any town centre at kicking out time on a Friday or Saturday night will tell you that the UK has a serious problem with a certain drug, and it's sold quite openly in a number of drug shops known as "pubs".
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
I don't think it's that unfair to be honest. I don't think there are any especially weak teams in the top 48 countries these days. The only issue is that the groups going latter have an advantage, but actually, for scheduling purposes, it would have to be the best two runners up from the first six groups and the best two runners up from the second six groups. It's not fair, but then the draw is never fair anyway, so I don't think it matters too much. And everyone starts the tournament knowing that three wins gets you through.
16 groups of 3 with the group winners going through to a knockout phase. Think I'd go with that.
That keeps the total number of games at the current 63(*) and removes the incentive for the last game in a group to be colluded on but it comes close to making it a knockout right from game 1.
I doubt they could do that for 2026 - I'd imagine 79 total games is already in contracts so it could be exceeded but would be difficult to drop below.
(*) I never count the pointless glorified friendly for the losing semi finalists which they really should abolish.
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Big Train boasts about 12 of my favourite TV sketches of all time. A work of peerless genius. It is amazing it is not better known. The best TV sketch show ever?
Haha, I loved Big Train; was talking about it yesterday with a colleague, funnily enough. The police sketch artist was great ("Cheeks like two shoals of fish separating") but also the wanking in the office bit and my fave of all, the Stare Out Contest; a genius affectionate parody of sport commentary (the winning factor being good sport Barry Davies taking part).
PS: "You do realise I'm an *evil* hypnotist?"
EDIT because I've also just remembered Kevin Eldon's brilliant war-hostage George Martin.
To be fair to the Conservatives, a much better poll from People Polling which shows the Labour lead "slashed" (isn't that term overused?) from 27 points to 21 points.
Labour leads with 45% (-2), the Conservatives have leapt forward spectacularly to 24% (+4) with the LDs on 7, Reform on 7 and the Greens on 6.
Baxter those numbers and Labour has a wafer thin majority of 230 - add on a bit of tactical (we all love a bit of tactical, don't we?) voting and it's a majority of 266.
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
They seem an up and coming mafia.
Saggers said: “They have shown that you don’t have to be greedy to dominate drug markets. They’ve gone down the route of sustainable prices, good quality.”
Mohammed Qasim, a research fellow at Leeds Beckett University who studys drug dealers, described the Albanian business approach as “fantastic”, adding: “If they were on Dragon’s Den with this model, all the dragons would be giving them money.”
There was an episode of the EconTalk podcast a few years ago about the business and economics of the Mexican drug cartels taking over day-to-day drug dealing in the states. In a similar-sounding way - they had just come along, offered a no-hassle, timely, pleasant, good value version of dealing and cleaned up against all the skeezy, borderline 'you might get robbed or shot' dealers.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
I don't think it's that unfair to be honest. I don't think there are any especially weak teams in the top 48 countries these days. The only issue is that the groups going latter have an advantage, but actually, for scheduling purposes, it would have to be the best two runners up from the first six groups and the best two runners up from the second six groups. It's not fair, but then the draw is never fair anyway, so I don't think it matters too much. And everyone starts the tournament knowing that three wins gets you through.
16 groups of 3 with the group winners going through to a knockout phase. Think I'd go with that.
That would actually mean the finalists play only six games. They had groups of three in 1982. Obviously if it's just the winner going through, that eliminates the potential for collusion. But there is still the issue of having to wait a long time between games for some teams. I think groups of four are preferable and we'd get plenty of drama with some second placed teams going through.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
Problem? It’s a marvellous opportunity.
“When we pick the groups, how much would you pay to be in the group that includes the South Sandwich Isles, Malta and Pitcairn? Or rather how much would pay not to be in the same group as Germany, Argentina and France?”
Liz Truss condemns 'categorically untrue' claims that 'traces of suspected cocaine were found after summer parties in her grace-and-favour Chevening mansion'
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
I don't think it's that unfair to be honest. I don't think there are any especially weak teams in the top 48 countries these days. The only issue is that the groups going latter have an advantage, but actually, for scheduling purposes, it would have to be the best two runners up from the first six groups and the best two runners up from the second six groups. It's not fair, but then the draw is never fair anyway, so I don't think it matters too much. And everyone starts the tournament knowing that three wins gets you through.
16 groups of 3 with the group winners going through to a knockout phase. Think I'd go with that.
That keeps the total number of games at the current 63(*) and removes the incentive for the last game in a group to be colluded on but it comes close to making it a knockout right from game 1.
I doubt they could do that for 2026 - I'd imagine 79 total games is already in contracts so it could be exceeded but would be difficult to drop below.
(*) I never count the pointless glorified friendly for the losing semi finalists which they really should abolish.
What IS the plan then? A last 32 knockout with only the bottom teams from groups of 3 not making it?
If so I think that's bloated and flaccid (if one can be both).
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
Nice $4.5 million for Chrimbo prezzies. Selling 45k from a single collection even at the peak madness wasn't easy, in todays market quite impressive grift really.
Liz Truss condemns 'categorically untrue' claims that 'traces of suspected cocaine were found after summer parties in her grace-and-favour Chevening mansion'
Liz Truss condemns 'categorically untrue' claims that 'traces of suspected cocaine were found after summer parties in her grace-and-favour Chevening mansion'
-7.7°C here last night, it's not got above freezing all day.
The hot and cold pipes to our en-suite froze last night (they usually do if it gets below -6) but for the first time ever they have not defrosted during the day :-(
Plastic pipes so the have never spilt (they will one day though). Must get this properly sorted instead of forgetting about it until the next time.
I woke up this morning to my bath 1/4rd full of water backing up the frozen pipes. Had a quick breakfast and then went to empty the bath and found it about 1inch below the top and about to flood. Quite a lot of hoofing water from the bath to the loo ensued. Two calls to plumbers were both met with 'there's nothing much we can do'.
Thankfully it's been a bit milder as the day went on and eventually the pipes under the bath gave a huge long gurgle and the remaining water drained away. But I keep going to check on it now just in case the same thing happens.
Here in East London it's been very cold for the past nine days - we've not been above 5c at any point since December 7th. We've had some very cold nights (-7c at City Airport last night). The fact much of Sunday's snowfall remains in situ speaks volumes - usually in London, the snow falls and quickly melts but it's stayed where it fell and this will rival the December 2010 fall for longevity and intensity.
We've got above freezing briefly most days with only one ice day (Sunday 11th) where the temperature remained below freezing all day. Today, with a short lived maximum of 3c has been the warmest of the entire week.
Nice $4.5 million for Chrimbo prezzies. Selling 45k from a single collection even at the peak madness wasn't easy, in todays market quite impressive grift really.
The force is strong with the GREAT PATRIOTS OF MAGA.
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
I don't think it's that unfair to be honest. I don't think there are any especially weak teams in the top 48 countries these days. The only issue is that the groups going latter have an advantage, but actually, for scheduling purposes, it would have to be the best two runners up from the first six groups and the best two runners up from the second six groups. It's not fair, but then the draw is never fair anyway, so I don't think it matters too much. And everyone starts the tournament knowing that three wins gets you through.
16 groups of 3 with the group winners going through to a knockout phase. Think I'd go with that.
That keeps the total number of games at the current 63(*) and removes the incentive for the last game in a group to be colluded on but it comes close to making it a knockout right from game 1.
I doubt they could do that for 2026 - I'd imagine 79 total games is already in contracts so it could be exceeded but would be difficult to drop below.
(*) I never count the pointless glorified friendly for the losing semi finalists which they really should abolish.
What IS the plan then? A last 32 knockout with only the bottom teams from groups of 3 not making it?
If so I think that's bloated and flaccid (if one can be both).
That's the current plan, yes. It's also a really bad idea but nobody has yet come up with a better plan...
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Big Train boasts about 12 of my favourite TV sketches of all time. A work of peerless genius. It is amazing it is not better known. The best TV sketch show ever?
Haha, I loved Big Train; was talking about it yesterday with a colleague, funnily enough. The police sketch artist was great ("Cheeks like two shoals of fish separating") but also the wanking in the office bit and my fave of all, the Stare Out Contest; a genius affectionate parody of sport commentary (the winning factor being good sport Barry Davies taking part).
PS: "You do realise I'm an *evil* hypnotist?"
EDIT because I've also just remembered Kevin Eldon's brilliant war-hostage George Martin.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Big Train boasts about 12 of my favourite TV sketches of all time. A work of peerless genius. It is amazing it is not better known. The best TV sketch show ever?
For me, it ties with 'Jam', which was much more hit'n'miss, but also took a lot more risks. The arguing with thick people sketch sometimes comes to mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGex0kLgNok&t=5s
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
It's not a good thing if it creates more problems than it solves, which is undoubtedly the case with the criminalisation of drugs.
On the subject of ranking second placed teams in tournaments, it's interesting to note that Man Utd got a very tough draw in the 1998-99 Champions League (though, some might think that they shouldn't have been it as they weren't champions...) and progressed as the second best runner up:
I'm actually by nature optimistic about human nature. Stories like that dent my confidence.
Perhaps most of them were bought as ironic Christmas presents. Eg last year I received a Cliff Richard calendar. I think that was ironic. Bad news all round if it wasn't.
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Big Train boasts about 12 of my favourite TV sketches of all time. A work of peerless genius. It is amazing it is not better known. The best TV sketch show ever?
Haha, I loved Big Train; was talking about it yesterday with a colleague, funnily enough. The police sketch artist was great ("Cheeks like two shoals of fish separating") but also the wanking in the office bit and my fave of all, the Stare Out Contest; a genius affectionate parody of sport commentary (the winning factor being good sport Barry Davies taking part).
PS: "You do realise I'm an *evil* hypnotist?"
EDIT because I've also just remembered Kevin Eldon's brilliant war-hostage George Martin.
Or a dozen others. Part of it is the brilliant actors - what a line-up. All stars. All superb at deadpan
I work in marketing; me and a mate have a running joke about the bit where the guy in the editing suite puts "Rocking All Over The World" over a funeral scene; the deadpan persuasion is classic creative agency nonsense.
It was a genuinely seminal (proper use) programme; a lot of actors early in their career and a real sense of creative comedic fecundity about it.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
It's not a good thing if it creates more problems than it solves, which is undoubtedly the case with the criminalisation of drugs.
Zero tolerance doesn’t work. They have a drug problem in North Korea.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
Sure if you want to fill the prisons with people who aren't hurting anyone at huge expense. While allowing far more dangerous substances to be consumed legally.
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Big Train boasts about 12 of my favourite TV sketches of all time. A work of peerless genius. It is amazing it is not better known. The best TV sketch show ever?
Haha, I loved Big Train; was talking about it yesterday with a colleague, funnily enough. The police sketch artist was great ("Cheeks like two shoals of fish separating") but also the wanking in the office bit and my fave of all, the Stare Out Contest; a genius affectionate parody of sport commentary (the winning factor being good sport Barry Davies taking part).
PS: "You do realise I'm an *evil* hypnotist?"
EDIT because I've also just remembered Kevin Eldon's brilliant war-hostage George Martin.
Liz Truss condemns 'categorically untrue' claims that 'traces of suspected cocaine were found after summer parties in her grace-and-favour Chevening mansion'
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
Raphael Varane and Ibrahima Konate are the latest players to fall victim to a virus that is sweeping through the France squad ahead of Sunday’s World Cup Final.
The French have introduced social distancing measures to try and halt its spread but five players have now been diagnosed – with Adrien Rabiot, Dayot Upamecano and Kingsley Coman all affected. Konate is understood to be more ill than Varane.
Liz Truss condemns 'categorically untrue' claims that 'traces of suspected cocaine were found after summer parties in her grace-and-favour Chevening mansion'
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Big Train boasts about 12 of my favourite TV sketches of all time. A work of peerless genius. It is amazing it is not better known. The best TV sketch show ever?
Haha, I loved Big Train; was talking about it yesterday with a colleague, funnily enough. The police sketch artist was great ("Cheeks like two shoals of fish separating") but also the wanking in the office bit and my fave of all, the Stare Out Contest; a genius affectionate parody of sport commentary (the winning factor being good sport Barry Davies taking part).
PS: "You do realise I'm an *evil* hypnotist?"
EDIT because I've also just remembered Kevin Eldon's brilliant war-hostage George Martin.
Or a dozen others. Part of it is the brilliant actors - what a line-up. All stars. All superb at deadpan
I work in marketing; me and a mate have a running joke about the bit where the guy in the editing suite puts "Rocking All Over The World" over a funeral scene; the deadpan persuasion is classic creative agency nonsense.
It was a genuinely seminal (proper use) programme; a lot of actors early in their career and a real sense of creative comedic fecundity about it.
I also liked its contemporary 'The Sketch Show' - less clever than Big Train, slightly sillier, but a similar set up: 5 young and gifted comedians who couldn't not be funny.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
Policing drugs is hard because responsibility is spread out by amount, with small quantities the responsibility of the local nick, then up through the local drug squad, to the Yard, to Regional Crime Squad, National Crime Agency and HMRC, but also by area, with geographically extended supply chains (county lines).
Even aside from those considerations, a decade of Tory governments' efficiency savings in the justice system mean that the small dealers disrupted by your zero tolerance approach will be back on the streets the following day, out on bail for a trial that won't happen for two years, or more likely cautioned.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Raphael Varane and Ibrahima Konate are the latest players to fall victim to a virus that is sweeping through the France squad ahead of Sunday’s World Cup Final.
The French have introduced social distancing measures to try and halt its spread but five players have now been diagnosed – with Adrien Rabiot, Dayot Upamecano and Kingsley Coman all affected. Konate is understood to be more ill than Varane.
Raphael Varane and Ibrahima Konate are the latest players to fall victim to a virus that is sweeping through the France squad ahead of Sunday’s World Cup Final.
The French have introduced social distancing measures to try and halt its spread but five players have now been diagnosed – with Adrien Rabiot, Dayot Upamecano and Kingsley Coman all affected. Konate is understood to be more ill than Varane.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
I think most people caught with drugs would opt to pay the penalty notice. Of those that opt for a trial, if there was a big issue with juries passing not guilty verdicts that flew in the face of incontrovertible proof, the issue would need to be looked at again.
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Big Train boasts about 12 of my favourite TV sketches of all time. A work of peerless genius. It is amazing it is not better known. The best TV sketch show ever?
For me, it ties with 'Jam', which was much more hit'n'miss, but also took a lot more risks. The arguing with thick people sketch sometimes comes to mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGex0kLgNok&t=5s
I remember 'The Gush'...
Chris Morris was involved in Big Train too, I think.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "This is about looking at what we have put in, what we have got out."
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "This is about looking at what we have put in, what we have got out."
My God.
Reads more like somebody is just having a big whinge to the media because they have been asked to do some extra work over Christmas, and that Boris would never have asked them to do such things.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
I admit defeat on the joke front.
Everything you say is funnier than anything I've ever said.
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
It works where the offence is one which pretty much everyone agrees should be illegal: such as vandalism, theft, etc.
It is more troublesome when there is a substantial minority of people who think the behavior should not be illegal, and another group feels minor infractions should not be worthy of jail time.
It used to be the case that the death penalty was mandatory in the UK for murder. The consequence of this was that juries, if they felt murder was too severe a punishment, would rather let defendants walk free than send them to their deaths.
Of course, one could get rid of jury trials.
But there is a reason why we're tried by our peers, instead of the police just deciding that we're guilty.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That's the first time I've ever heard the Royal College of Nursing called "greedy union barons". I must find out how much they donate to the Labour Party.
Grade A 100% Daily Mail rhetoric there.
As for measures relating to public schools and non-Dom status, I'm afraid they will resonate among many sections of the population. I'm not going to argue they are right or wrong - the desperation of those anxious to defend the status quo is perhaps telling.
Once again, it's all a matter of perceived "fairness". If it looks unfair, you won't get the electorate to accept it as Kwarteng and Truss discovered. There will be those who think nurses deserve every penny of 19% and those who think everyone richer than them (and especially many times richer than them) can pay a bit more to make it happen.
Once dubbed "the politics of envy", it might perhaps now be "the politics of fairness".
“Grade A 100% Daily Mail rhetoric there”
I may have been busy the last few weeks, but not on Mars. I know you, and all the likes you are getting for your post are wrong because, firstly, on one hand, look how supportive The Express has been of the nurses on its front pages this week, but, on the other hand, are you ignorant so unhappy the rest of the Union movement are with the Nurses 19% demand, a gift horse to Tory propaganda machine that undermines all the strikers.
So the express back the nurses. Many other striking unions not happy with the 19% demand. It’s not nearly as straightforward as you make out is it?
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
I admit defeat on the joke front.
Everything you say is funnier than anything I've ever said.
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
What has the fact construction work being conducted or not got anything to do with trespassing onto private land? Also under the original judgement, does that mean if somebody downs tools and pops off for the lunch break, its ok?
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
Greedy unions? The conservatives have been farting about since the summer searching for a leader and trashing the economy when they could have been sorting this out.
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
What has the fact construction work being conducted or not got anything to do with trespassing onto private land? Also under the original judgement, does that mean if somebody downs tools and pops off for the lunch break, its ok?
Also, there was no construction work going on because they'd get sued to shit if anything happened to the trespassers.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
It works where the offence is one which pretty much everyone agrees should be illegal: such as vandalism, theft, etc.
It is more troublesome when there is a substantial minority of people who think the behavior should not be illegal, and another group feels minor infractions should not be worthy of jail time.
It used to be the case that the death penalty was mandatory in the UK for murder. The consequence of this was that juries, if they felt murder was too severe a punishment, would rather let defendants walk free than send them to their deaths.
Of course, one could get rid of jury trials.
But there is a reason why we're tried by our peers, instead of the police just deciding that we're guilty.
In countries where police/legal procedure consisted of “shoot anyone you feel like”, drugs have failed to be eliminated.
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
Swampy is still a thing? Wasn't he around in the 90s?
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
Swampy is still a thing? Wasn't he around in the 90s?
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
It works where the offence is one which pretty much everyone agrees should be illegal: such as vandalism, theft, etc.
It is more troublesome when there is a substantial minority of people who think the behavior should not be illegal, and another group feels minor infractions should not be worthy of jail time.
It used to be the case that the death penalty was mandatory in the UK for murder. The consequence of this was that juries, if they felt murder was too severe a punishment, would rather let defendants walk free than send them to their deaths.
Of course, one could get rid of jury trials.
But there is a reason why we're tried by our peers, instead of the police just deciding that we're guilty.
In countries where police/legal procedure consisted of “shoot anyone you feel like”, drugs have failed to be eliminated.
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
Swampy is still a thing? Wasn't he around in the 90s?
Yeah, he has never grown up....
I think of the 90s eco-nutters every time I drive up ior down the M3 through Twyford Down.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
I admit defeat on the joke front.
Everything you say is funnier than anything I've ever said.
Well that's a fairly low bar to clear.
I hate to break this to you, but my comment wasn't entirely meant as a compliment.
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
Swampy is still a thing? Wasn't he around in the 90s?
Yeah, he has never grown up....
I think of the 90s eco-nutters every time I drive up ior down the M3 through Twyford Down.
Well if you are really unlucky you might well see the same dickheads now walking slowly down it, the difference this time is the police will be walking with them handing out teas, coffees and biscuits to them.
Meanwhile, in other news: In a joint statement issued with Ms Fulani, Buckingham Palace described Friday's reconcilation between the two women as "filled with warmth and understanding". Lady Susan has "pledged to deepen her awareness of the sensitivities involved" and the Royal Households would continue to "focus on inclusion and diversity", the statement said. The Royal Households made a commitment to training programmes, including "examining what can be learnt from Sistah Space". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64005705
The last bit makes it sound as though the Royal Households will be looking to sell off stuff produced by the King's close relations, on the basis of a 50-50 split. Come to think of it, maybe they could teach Sistah Space a thing or two?
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "This is about looking at what we have put in, what we have got out."
My God.
I'd be more understanding if it was a serious attempt at some scenario-based planning. The costs won't end with the fighting - the reconstruction of Ukraine is going to cost billions - the country's economy has been seriously damaged and there's the small matter of whatever economic and political relationship we can have with Russia after the fighting.
Will the end of the fighting have beneficial effects elsewhere on the global economy? Some have talked positively about the fall in oil prices and the impact on pump prices. Is that based on over supply from OPEC or is it more about a fall in demand as global economies weaken? The form is easily resolved, the latter is more of a concern.
The massive rush of pent-up demand post-Covid has ended and economies are starting to contract not helped by some societal impacts from the pandemic in terms of workforce numbers.
Comments
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
Who decides? How many votes do the top 10 European clubs have?
Grade A 100% Daily Mail rhetoric there.
As for measures relating to public schools and non-Dom status, I'm afraid they will resonate among many sections of the population. I'm not going to argue they are right or wrong - the desperation of those anxious to defend the status quo is perhaps telling.
Once again, it's all a matter of perceived "fairness". If it looks unfair, you won't get the electorate to accept it as Kwarteng and Truss discovered. There will be those who think nurses deserve every penny of 19% and those who think everyone richer than them (and especially many times richer than them) can pay a bit more to make it happen.
Once dubbed "the politics of envy", it might perhaps now be "the politics of fairness".
That's only one day longer than it was in 2018.
I don't think it's a coincidence that four games per day was introduced this time - sure, it shortened the group stage which is what everyone else involved wanted with the tournament being mid-European season - but I'm convinced they had their eyes on future events.
And four games per day, as a fan, really worked.
For the round of 16, we'd have 12 first place teams... And then we'd need four from 16.
It works the other way as well - Cameron's Conservatives had big leads over Labour in 2008 but couldn't win a majority
A bit of a faff trying to watch them when on Teams calls on work days though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63996061
(*Edit - OK, it's taken about a month and a half.)
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
Even the title sketch was genius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyj5cv5FPWA
I reckon France for the cup, Messi for most goals.
Thankfully it's been a bit milder as the day went on and eventually the pipes under the bath gave a huge long gurgle and the remaining water drained away. But I keep going to check on it now just in case the same thing happens.
I doubt they could do that for 2026 - I'd imagine 79 total games is already in contracts so it could be exceeded but would be difficult to drop below.
(*) I never count the pointless glorified friendly for the losing semi finalists which they really should abolish.
PS: "You do realise I'm an *evil* hypnotist?"
EDIT because I've also just remembered Kevin Eldon's brilliant war-hostage George Martin.
Labour leads with 45% (-2), the Conservatives have leapt forward spectacularly to 24% (+4) with the LDs on 7, Reform on 7 and the Greens on 6.
Baxter those numbers and Labour has a wafer thin majority of 230 - add on a bit of tactical (we all love a bit of tactical, don't we?) voting and it's a majority of 266.
“When we pick the groups, how much would you pay to be in the group that includes the South Sandwich Isles, Malta and Pitcairn? Or rather how much would pay not to be in the same group as Germany, Argentina and France?”
It’s FIFA. The cheques will write themselves…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11546681/Liz-Truss-condemns-untrue-claims-traces-suspected-cocaine-Chevening.html
Have the Guardian been sold a dodgy story by somebody or do they have the receipts?
If so I think that's bloated and flaccid (if one can be both).
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3777969-trumps-digital-cards-sell-out-within-a-day/
Plenty of suckers left.
We've got above freezing briefly most days with only one ice day (Sunday 11th) where the temperature remained below freezing all day. Today, with a short lived maximum of 3c has been the warmest of the entire week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxEhKjUwqAQ
or Starting Blocks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GmmAUbfhMU
Or a dozen others. Part of it is the brilliant actors - what a line-up. All stars. All superb at deadpan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998–99_UEFA_Champions_League#Ranking_of_second-placed_teams
It was a genuinely seminal (proper use) programme; a lot of actors early in their career and a real sense of creative comedic fecundity about it.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
The French have introduced social distancing measures to try and halt its spread but five players have now been diagnosed – with Adrien Rabiot, Dayot Upamecano and Kingsley Coman all affected. Konate is understood to be more ill than Varane.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-cup/2022/12/16/france-camp-chaos-raphael-varane-ibrahima-konate-among-players/
https://youtu.be/TR5yDZO4nZE
Even aside from those considerations, a decade of Tory governments' efficiency savings in the justice system mean that the small dealers disrupted by your zero tolerance approach will be back on the streets the following day, out on bail for a trial that won't happen for two years, or more likely cautioned.
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Chris Morris was involved in Big Train too, I think.
My God.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
Everything you say is funnier than anything I've ever said.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/16/hs2-protesters-occupied-tunnel-euston-station-london-face-retrial
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
It is more troublesome when there is a substantial minority of people who think the behavior should not be illegal, and another group feels minor infractions should not be worthy of jail time.
It used to be the case that the death penalty was mandatory in the UK for murder. The consequence of this was that juries, if they felt murder was too severe a punishment, would rather let defendants walk free than send them to their deaths.
Of course, one could get rid of jury trials.
But there is a reason why we're tried by our peers, instead of the police just deciding that we're guilty.
I may have been busy the last few weeks, but not on Mars. I know you, and all the likes you are getting for your post are wrong because, firstly, on one hand, look how supportive The Express has been of the nurses on its front pages this week, but, on the other hand, are you ignorant so unhappy the rest of the Union movement are with the Nurses 19% demand, a gift horse to Tory propaganda machine that undermines all the strikers.
So the express back the nurses. Many other striking unions not happy with the 19% demand. It’s not nearly as straightforward as you make out is it?
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
In a joint statement issued with Ms Fulani, Buckingham Palace described Friday's reconcilation between the two women as "filled with warmth and understanding".
Lady Susan has "pledged to deepen her awareness of the sensitivities involved" and the Royal Households would continue to "focus on inclusion and diversity", the statement said.
The Royal Households made a commitment to training programmes, including "examining what can be learnt from Sistah Space".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64005705
The last bit makes it sound as though the Royal Households will be looking to sell off stuff produced by the King's close relations, on the basis of a 50-50 split. Come to think of it, maybe they could teach Sistah Space a thing or two?
Will the end of the fighting have beneficial effects elsewhere on the global economy? Some have talked positively about the fall in oil prices and the impact on pump prices. Is that based on over supply from OPEC or is it more about a fall in demand as global economies weaken? The form is easily resolved, the latter is more of a concern.
The massive rush of pent-up demand post-Covid has ended and economies are starting to contract not helped by some societal impacts from the pandemic in terms of workforce numbers.