politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Six Nations thread

SystemSystem Posts: 11,687
edited January 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Six Nations thread

Wales v England from last year, when Wales defeated England, an epochal defeat that most England fans are either still in denial about or haven’t recovered from.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    edited January 2014
    Good evening, everyone.

    Good piece, Mr. Eagles. Didn't some chap or other tip Wales for the Triple Crown back in November?

    Edited extra bit: if I remember I'll put a piece about the first F1 test tomorrow.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    It seems rude to go O/T so quickly, but I was hanging out with a bunch of NHS consultants yesterday evening and they ended up playing this song (by a cult group among medics - Amateur Transplant). Thought it deserved a wider audience...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM1FgxzAfFo&list=PL75DDAA15AAAB3663
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,002
    Curse of the new thread!
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Given the number of times that Britain thought they were exempt from EU rules only to find those rules being extended into areas they had never been intended (by Britain at least) I think you could probably agree with me that we would be foolish to assume the ECJ will not decide that ECHR membership for the EU also extends to member states.

    This is bound to happen (or rather to be tested) since the first time someone is denied access to the ECHR because of British withdrawal they will appeal to the ECJ as the ultimate arbiter of EU law who will then decide whether or not ECHR legislation still applies top the UK via EU membership./ Would you really want to bet on which way they would decide?

    I see Nick Palmer also shares my views on this.

    I think we need guidance on this one!

    But, to take the example of the prisoners' voting for example. It is not something where we have any treaty obligations to the EU. So, if we left the ECHR, then British courts would simply not recognise the ECHR, were they to attempt to pass judgement on a country that was not a member.

    I take the point that, as regards, things that are under the purview of our treaty obligations with the EU, then we might be bound to defer to the ECHR. But from a straight, mechanistic perspective, I don't see how - so long as the EU treaty was changed, and so long as we had left the ECHR - any British court could recognise the primacy of the ECHR,
  • Options
    TheLastBoyScoutTheLastBoyScout Posts: 675
    I can't work the 6Ns - Wales are too short. Might back England
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,963
    rcs1000 said:

    Curse of the new thread!

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Given the number of times that Britain thought they were exempt from EU rules only to find those rules being extended into areas they had never been intended (by Britain at least) I think you could probably agree with me that we would be foolish to assume the ECJ will not decide that ECHR membership for the EU also extends to member states.

    This is bound to happen (or rather to be tested) since the first time someone is denied access to the ECHR because of British withdrawal they will appeal to the ECJ as the ultimate arbiter of EU law who will then decide whether or not ECHR legislation still applies top the UK via EU membership./ Would you really want to bet on which way they would decide?

    I see Nick Palmer also shares my views on this.

    I think we need guidance on this one!

    But, to take the example of the prisoners' voting for example. It is not something where we have any treaty obligations to the EU. So, if we left the ECHR, then British courts would simply not recognise the ECHR, were they to attempt to pass judgement on a country that was not a member.

    I take the point that, as regards, things that are under the purview of our treaty obligations with the EU, then we might be bound to defer to the ECHR. But from a straight, mechanistic perspective, I don't see how - so long as the EU treaty was changed, and so long as we had left the ECHR - any British court could recognise the primacy of the ECHR,
    Double curse. I replied as well. :-)

    FPT

    We already recognise the primacy of the ECJ and in any disagreement between the EU and member states on points of law they are the final arbiter. I agree it is certainly not clear cut but given their history of always adjudicating on the side of closer union I would be surprised if they did not decide that membership of the EU as a signatory to the ECHR did indeed bind member states to the rules.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scotland to finish 3rd like last year : 18/1 with Coral - take it while you can !
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens'

    Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. Charles, thanks for sharing that :)

    I don't think France will win. Their law banning fly-halves seems to be harming their prospects. England have potential but still haven't settled on a proper first team. Dropping Ashton's a good start. Wales have a very good starting lineup, my concern might be that they've got a lot of union versus club tension at the moment (personally I don't think that'll get in their way much).
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I'm not sure about that. England and Wales should finish ahead of Scotland, and I can see France and/or Ireland doing likewise. Long odds, though.

    Mr. Johnno, Prince Charles has the right to hold opinions, but for a future monarch to espouse views of a political nature is perhaps unwise.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2014
    Apparently John Bercow made some pro-Anne McIntosh comments in the Commons yesterday, which strikes me as a bit odd:

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/anne-mcintosh-bercow-backs-yorkshire-mp-in-deselection-row-1-6407460

    "Turning to the MP, he said: “If I may - I don’t want to embarrass you - say it is further reflection of the very important work you do here on behalf of your constituents and others. You are a fine chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and we much appreciate the work you do in this House.”

    As Tory MPs cheered their support for the MP, Mr Bercow added: “I hope the cheers for that proposition will be noted in the North of England.”"
  • Options
    CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Gove hasn't renewed Sally Morgan's contract - chair of ofsted. Will be interesting to see who takes her place.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,963
    Tykejohnno said:

    Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens'

    Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html

    I did find it highly amusing this afternoon whilst waiting at the airport to read the incredible level of scientific illiteracy being displayed by Hugh in his desperate attempts to try and defend anthropogenic global warming. Clearly he has no concept of either basic scientific method nor (perhaps more understandably) of feedback mechanisms.

    I suspect that even those who adhere to AGW would cringe at his lack of understanding.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Flashman (deceased), I'm not sure about that. England and Wales should finish ahead of Scotland, and I can see France and/or Ireland doing likewise. Long odds, though.

    Mr. Johnno, Prince Charles has the right to hold opinions, but for a future monarch to espouse views of a political nature is perhaps unwise.

    2 wins and Italy win a match is all it took last year.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,343
    AndyJS said:

    Apparently John Bercow made some pro-Anne McIntosh comments in the Commons yesterday, which strikes me as a bit odd:

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/anne-mcintosh-bercow-backs-yorkshire-mp-in-deselection-row-1-6407460

    "Turning to the MP, he said: “If I may - I don’t want to embarrass you - say it is further reflection of the very important work you do here on behalf of your constituents and others. You are a fine chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and we much appreciate the work you do in this House.”

    As Tory MPs cheered their support for the MP, Mr Bercow added: “I hope the cheers for that proposition will be noted in the North of England.”"

    Many MPs see the Speaker (any Speaker, not just JB) as a sort of neutral spokesperson to defend them against unreasonable attack from Government, press or anyone else. And anyway it's human to say something nice about someone you work with whose job is under threat.

    BTW, I entirely agree with Charles about AGW, but I do wish he'd shut up. He has no particular qualifications in the area and is misusing his automatic access to the media to push his view. Imagine if a future government took a different policy on AGW when he was King?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Well, quite, Mr. Flashman (deceased). I hope I feel like a fool for having not followed your tip.
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Tykejohnno said:

    Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens'

    Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html

    Are they better or worse than homeopathy deniers, does he think?

    What an utter arse.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. Palmer, quite. Someone might say FU.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    NickPalmer said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently John Bercow made some pro-Anne McIntosh comments in the Commons yesterday, which strikes me as a bit odd:

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/anne-mcintosh-bercow-backs-yorkshire-mp-in-deselection-row-1-6407460

    "Turning to the MP, he said: “If I may - I don’t want to embarrass you - say it is further reflection of the very important work you do here on behalf of your constituents and others. You are a fine chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and we much appreciate the work you do in this House.”

    As Tory MPs cheered their support for the MP, Mr Bercow added: “I hope the cheers for that proposition will be noted in the North of England.”"

    Many MPs see the Speaker (any Speaker, not just JB) as a sort of neutral spokesperson to defend them against unreasonable attack from Government, press or anyone else. And anyway it's human to say something nice about someone you work with whose job is under threat.

    BTW, I entirely agree with Charles about AGW, but I do wish he'd shut up. He has no particular qualifications in the area and is misusing his automatic access to the media to push his view. Imagine if a future government took a different policy on AGW when he was King?
    Having qualifications in this area seems no guarantee that the individual in question is much more reliable than anyone else.
  • Options
    FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Wales is like the Oirish team from many-a-moon's ago. Inflated, special but limited in the pool of genetics. A sort of like Norfolk.

    Expect England, France (bitter at-the-mo') and Italy to shake things up. All three countries contribute to weaker European [Union] nations and - boy - do their folk resent it....
  • Options
    TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    Ishmael_X said:

    Tykejohnno said:

    Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens'

    Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html

    Are they better or worse than homeopathy deniers, does he think?

    What an utter arse.

    I wonder if he as a opinion on in/out of the EU ;-)

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Palmer, quite. Someone might say FU.

    Say FU to whom?
  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    I thought the script is England are valiant in defeat, Scotland are plucky losers, the Irish are entertaining, the Italians are underdogs, the French are just French and the Welsh are superstars once more.

    So who gets the wooden spoon!
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. JS, a reference to this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGdXUuVKwow

    In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch cannot be seen to be indispute with the democratically elected government of the day. I very much doubt anything of this sort will happen, but Charles' utterances tend to diminish rather than inspire confidence. His rumoured desire to change the coronation vow from "Defender of the Faith" to "Defender of Faith" is also troubling.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    On topic and for reference, current international rankings:

    1 New Zealand (93.81)
    2 South Africa (89.34)
    3 Australia (86.88)
    4 England (85.70)
    5 France (80.87)
    6 Wales (80.19)
    7 Ireland (79.33)
    8 Samoa (77.34)
    9 Scotland (76.56)
    10 Argentina (76.44)
    11 Fiji (74.21)
    12 Tonga (73.21)
    13 Italy (73.13)

    I'm not sure what to make of those. They seem about as accurate as the footballing equivalents.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,797
    Unless I missed it, it doesn't look like there is a market on how many times commentators will insist Italy are strong upfront and formidible scrummagers, only to see their scrum collapse or be dominated in nearly every game. It's something that feels like it happens every year.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,987
    Mr. Easterross, probably the Italians. But, underestimating them is a mistake. They've beaten almost every team in the tournament at least once.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,797
    david_herdson said:

    On topic and for reference, current international rankings:

    1 New Zealand (93.81)
    2 South Africa (89.34)
    3 Australia (86.88)
    4 England (85.70)
    5 France (80.87)
    6 Wales (80.19)
    7 Ireland (79.33)
    8 Samoa (77.34)
    9 Scotland (76.56)
    10 Argentina (76.44)
    11 Fiji (74.21)
    12 Tonga (73.21)
    13 Italy (73.13)

    I'm not sure what to make of those. They seem about as accurate as the footballing equivalents.

    Argentina have certainly taken a slide. It seems only yesterday they were up to 3rd. I think they are generally more accurate than the Football rankings - I thought the Rugby ranking system is weighted depending on the opposition, so you cannot just win a whole bunch of games against crap teams and be high ranking. (If football works that way, it doesn't seem like it)
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,797
    Morris_Dancer said:



    Mr. Johnno, Prince Charles has the right to hold opinions, but for a future monarch to espouse views of a political nature is perhaps unwise.

    Quite. I see no reason to get angry about it either way; if he oversteps the line he will face the consequences later, if he doesn't he won't.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    IIRC Charles spoke out against the fox hunting ban and had to be rebuked by HMTQ.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "14 people enter race to become Labour's parliamentary candidate for Cleethorpes at next General Election"

    http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/14-people-enter-race-Labour-s-parliamentary/story-20528473-detail/story.html#ixzz2s14pdNDS
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Am I missing something here or is Miliband proposing to more-or-less hand selection of Labour leaders over to members of trade unions?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25992825

    (I note the "phased in over five years" comment, by the way, which may well mean "kite-flying which may well never happen and certainly booted to the other side of the election as far as implementation goes").
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    david_herdson said:

    Am I missing something here or is Miliband proposing to more-or-less hand selection of Labour leaders over to members of trade unions?

    It solves the problem of MPs picking the "wrong" brother again...
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    kle4 said:

    david_herdson said:

    On topic and for reference, current international rankings:

    1 New Zealand (93.81)
    2 South Africa (89.34)
    3 Australia (86.88)
    4 England (85.70)
    5 France (80.87)
    6 Wales (80.19)
    7 Ireland (79.33)
    8 Samoa (77.34)
    9 Scotland (76.56)
    10 Argentina (76.44)
    11 Fiji (74.21)
    12 Tonga (73.21)
    13 Italy (73.13)

    I'm not sure what to make of those. They seem about as accurate as the footballing equivalents.

    Argentina have certainly taken a slide. It seems only yesterday they were up to 3rd. I think they are generally more accurate than the Football rankings - I thought the Rugby ranking system is weighted depending on the opposition, so you cannot just win a whole bunch of games against crap teams and be high ranking. (If football works that way, it doesn't seem like it)
    That's good if so, though it will perpetuate the top teams remaining in high places (relatively speaking) also, even if they keep losing. Though I note that Italy aren't far off being overtaken by Georgia as sixth-ranked European team. And as an aside, the second division six nations (the European Nations Cup, held over two seasons) also resumes tomorrow.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    david_herdson said:

    Am I missing something here or is Miliband proposing to more-or-less hand selection of Labour leaders over to members of trade unions?

    Yes, that is to say he will end up with the diametric opposite of what he said he was trying to achieve. This is what we can expect from all his other flagship announcements, of course.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Anne McIntosh to contest next election as independent according to this report:

    http://www.minsterfm.com/news/local/1193752/malton-mp-to-stand-as-independent--after-deselection-by-conservatives/
  • Options
    WelshBertieWelshBertie Posts: 124
    I beg to differ with Neil but Ireland's hardest match is next week. They're also missing their best player in Sean O'Brien. While the 2/1 for Wales is stingy they should almost have a first choice squad in terms of injury returns by next week. England could possibly get close but I can't see any of the other teams being able to cope with the physical brutality the Welsh have in abundance (and that's just the backs!) Plus in wet, difficult conditions the kicker will be key. Which is where Halfpenny and Farrell will reap the rewards.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    AndyJS said:

    Anne McIntosh to contest next election as independent according to this report:

    http://www.minsterfm.com/news/local/1193752/malton-mp-to-stand-as-independent--after-deselection-by-conservatives/

    The report quotes Ladbrokes as offering:

    1/20 Conservatives
    20/1 Anne McIntosh
    25/1 UKIP

    At least one of those odds looks out to me - if McIntosh does stand an outside chance, then the size of the split vote (and, presumably, intra-Tory action), should open up the field to others, particularly UKIP.

    I wonder what would happen if McIntosh stood for UKIP? A deselection like this is probably their best chance of gaining an MP before 2015 - it was how the Referendum Party gained one.
  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    david_herdson said:

    Am I missing something here or Miliband proposing to more-or-less hand selection of Labour leaders over to members of trade unions?

    hi

    Yes, that is to say he will end up with the diametric opposite of what he said he was trying to achieve. This is what we can expect from all his other flagship announcements, of course.
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    david_herdson said:

    Am I missing something here or is Miliband proposing to more-or-less hand selection of Labour leaders over to members of trade unions?

    Yes, that is to say he will end up with the diametric opposite of what he said he was trying to achieve. This is what we can expect from all his other flagship announcements, of course.
    How is that then? The article says union members will only be able to vote if they choose to pay Labour, a bit like how anyone else would
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,343
    david_herdson said:

    AndyJS said:

    Anne McIntosh to contest next election as independent according to this report:

    http://www.minsterfm.com/news/local/1193752/malton-mp-to-stand-as-independent--after-deselection-by-conservatives/

    The report quotes Ladbrokes as offering:

    1/20 Conservatives
    20/1 Anne McIntosh
    25/1 UKIP

    At least one of those odds looks out to me - if McIntosh does stand an outside chance, then the size of the split vote (and, presumably, intra-Tory action), should open up the field to others, particularly UKIP.

    I wonder what would happen if McIntosh stood for UKIP? A deselection like this is probably their best chance of gaining an MP before 2015 - it was how the Referendum Party gained one.
    IIRC she's pro-EU. The report sounds a bit premature - wasn't she going to fight the full selection vote?

  • Options
    saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Looking at the referee list, at least England don't appear to be playing against 16 in any of the matches. No freaking Steve Walsh who won it for Wales 2 years ago.
    If England win tomorrow against the cheese eating surrender monkeys they've got a real chance and with Nigel Owen's they have got the best current ref who will actually be fair.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    david_herdson said:

    Am I missing something here or is Miliband proposing to more-or-less hand selection of Labour leaders over to members of trade unions?

    Yes, that is to say he will end up with the diametric opposite of what he said he was trying to achieve. This is what we can expect from all his other flagship announcements, of course.

    Isn't it exactly what was promised? Union members have to specifically opt to pay a discounted membership fee to join Labour and they get one vote in the leadership election. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and very different to the current situation. Each individual will be a Labour member. All members get one vote.

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2014
    Female Tory MPs seem to be disappearing at a rate of knots at the moment:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25979148

    "Labour seized on Ms McIntosh's de-selection to suggest that David Cameron had a problem with retaining female MPs in his party.

    "His silence speaks volumes at a time when many people are asking why the Conservative Party is so out of touch," shadow minister Jon Ashworth said.

    "With Anne McIntosh deselected, the Tories look set to lose their only female MP in the whole of Yorkshire and the Humber.""
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    England's front row was found out against Wales last year. It needs to have become a lot more resilient and street smart. The backs generally also have to get a bit more creative in their lines and movement. Wales look the favourites as they are strong across the park, but I have a feeling the winner of tomorrow's game in Paris may well end up winning the tournament.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    SouthamObserver said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    david_herdson said:

    Am I missing something here or is Miliband proposing to more-or-less hand selection of Labour leaders over to members of trade unions?

    Yes, that is to say he will end up with the diametric opposite of what he said he was trying to achieve. This is what we can expect from all his other flagship announcements, of course.

    Isn't it exactly what was promised? Union members have to specifically opt to pay a discounted membership fee to join Labour and they get one vote in the leadership election. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and very different to the current situation. Each individual will be a Labour member. All members get one vote.

    It sounds very reasonable, but what makes me slightly twitchy is there is a 5 year delay before implementing the union bit (presumably the rest will be implemented immediately).

    That means that - assuming that there was a leadership challenge against Miliband after the next election - he'd just need the unions to win...
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    NickPalmer said:

    david_herdson said:

    AndyJS said:

    Anne McIntosh to contest next election as independent according to this report:

    http://www.minsterfm.com/news/local/1193752/malton-mp-to-stand-as-independent--after-deselection-by-conservatives/

    The report quotes Ladbrokes as offering:

    1/20 Conservatives
    20/1 Anne McIntosh
    25/1 UKIP

    At least one of those odds looks out to me - if McIntosh does stand an outside chance, then the size of the split vote (and, presumably, intra-Tory action), should open up the field to others, particularly UKIP.

    I wonder what would happen if McIntosh stood for UKIP? A deselection like this is probably their best chance of gaining an MP before 2015 - it was how the Referendum Party gained one.
    IIRC she's pro-EU. The report sounds a bit premature - wasn't she going to fight the full selection vote?

    Fair enough if she's pro-EU. It was the result of the full (de-)selection vote announced today.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    SouthamObserver said:

    Isn't it exactly what was promised? Union members have to specifically opt to pay a discounted membership fee to join Labour and they get one vote in the leadership election. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and very different to the current situation. Each individual will be a Labour member. All members get one vote.

    Yeah, right.

    In the real world, this is how it will work, as explained by someone who actually knows about this stuff:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100257403/ed-milibands-trade-union-reforms-arent-a-loosening-of-control-theyre-a-power-grab/
  • Options
    saddosaddo Posts: 534
    SouthamObserver said:

    England's front row was found out against Wales last year. It needs to have become a lot more resilient and street smart. The backs generally also have to get a bit more creative in their lines and movement. Wales look the favourites as they are strong across the park, but I have a feeling the winner of tomorrow's game in Paris may well end up winning the tournament.

    They got reffed off the park in the first half and no team can win with the scrum going backwards all the time. Wales may well have won a fair fight any way but England really had no chance.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2014
    "One Night in Bangkok" must be one of the worst songs ever composed by Abba's Benny Andersson and Björn Ulvaeus, although Murray Head's vocals don't help:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=umpYWG0DqwQ&amp

    "Siam's going to be witness to the ultimate test of cerebral fitness"
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930
    English not pupils first language in one in every nine schools

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10611050/Revealed-The-one-in-nine-schools-where-English-is-not-first-language.html
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Isn't it exactly what was promised? Union members have to specifically opt to pay a discounted membership fee to join Labour and they get one vote in the leadership election. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and very different to the current situation. Each individual will be a Labour member. All members get one vote.

    Yeah, right.

    In the real world, this is how it will work, as explained by someone who actually knows about this stuff:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100257403/ed-milibands-trade-union-reforms-arent-a-loosening-of-control-theyre-a-power-grab/
    Like a stopped clock...
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2014
    *** Betting Post ***

    There's an interesting snippet, with betting implications, in Ed Miliband's plans for the Labour Party:

    Changes to London mayoral selection - Labour's candidate to be selected in the same way as the party leader

    i.e. not an open primary, as had previously been mooted, but instead effectively handing the selection over to the unions. That means the Labour mayoral candidate will be a machine politician with good union links and who works hard on the union and activist circuit.

    Ladies and gentlemen, top up on your Sadiq Khan bets.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited January 2014
    G'nite all. But first, in honour of the planned 2 day Tube strike next week, the song that made Amateur Transplants famous: London Underground

    (nb: not to be played by the sensitive or in front of children)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHn-g7T9f9A

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Is there a Yougov out yet ?>
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    *** Betting Post ***

    There's an interesting snippet, with betting implications, in Ed Miliband's plans for the Labour Party:

    Changes to London mayoral selection - Labour's candidate to be selected in the same way as the party leader

    i.e. not an open primary, as had previously been mooted, but instead effectively handing the selection over to the unions. That means the Labour mayoral candidate will be a machine politician with good union links and who works hard on the union and activist circuit.

    Ladies and gentlemen, top up on your Sadiq Khan bets.

    Quite happy with my £45 on Sadiq at 12-1, Thanks :)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Also got £25 on Tessa at 12s too. And some smaller covering bet on Lammy, and Coe !
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Isn't it exactly what was promised? Union members have to specifically opt to pay a discounted membership fee to join Labour and they get one vote in the leadership election. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and very different to the current situation. Each individual will be a Labour member. All members get one vote.

    Yeah, right.

    In the real world, this is how it will work, as explained by someone who actually knows about this stuff:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100257403/ed-milibands-trade-union-reforms-arent-a-loosening-of-control-theyre-a-power-grab/

    Hilarious!!

  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2014
    Pulpstar said:

    Also got £25 on Tessa at 12s too. And some smaller covering bet on Lammy, and Coe !

    It won't be Tessa, and probably not Lammy, under the proposed system.

    It might well be a Tory, of course; an entire year of PM Miliband should ensure that. But you can always trade out if you've backed the right Labour candidate (happy memories of getting on Ken last time at fantastic odds...)
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    SouthamObserver said:

    Hilarious!!

    Yes, and accurate.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    SouthamObserver said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Isn't it exactly what was promised? Union members have to specifically opt to pay a discounted membership fee to join Labour and they get one vote in the leadership election. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and very different to the current situation. Each individual will be a Labour member. All members get one vote.

    Yeah, right.

    In the real world, this is how it will work, as explained by someone who actually knows about this stuff:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100257403/ed-milibands-trade-union-reforms-arent-a-loosening-of-control-theyre-a-power-grab/

    Hilarious!!

    I think Dan is right on this one. The thing is though noone outside the internal machine of the Labour party could give two hoots about this story, so there is no real cost to Ed.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,703
    Perspective on Ed's reforms from LabourList:

    http://labourlist.org/2014/01/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-ed-milibands-party-reforms/

    And the Guardian:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/31/ed-miliband-labour-trade-union-reforms
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    ukipwebmaster ‏@ukipwebmaster
    .....and then they came for the Mini Cheddars! http://dailym.ai/1iU9AQj
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    *** Betting Post ***

    There's an interesting snippet, with betting implications, in Ed Miliband's plans for the Labour Party:

    Changes to London mayoral selection - Labour's candidate to be selected in the same way as the party leader

    i.e. not an open primary, as had previously been mooted, but instead effectively handing the selection over to the unions. That means the Labour mayoral candidate will be a machine politician with good union links and who works hard on the union and activist circuit.

    Ladies and gentlemen, top up on your Sadiq Khan bets.

    Sarah13 wrote (Random comment in the Telegraph)

    The unions have got their place man as leader of the labour party, len mcluskey is busy cozying up to the likes of the mayor of Tower Hamlets in order to get more people signed up to the unions, len mcluskey's 16 year olds for the vote will be put into action following the next election etc etc.

    http://www.johnbiggsformayor.com/manifesto.html
    • Expect employers to work with and respect the role of trade unions.

    @SadiqKhan
    Next Mayor of Tower Hamlets @johnbiggs4mayor speaking at @londonlabourpty reception #lab13 pic.twitter.com/9Vwo0bwLO7

    Current mayor:
    Lutfur Rahman
    Political party Independent
    (formerly Labour)
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Hilarious!!

    Yes, and accurate.

    One of the major flaws in Dan's analysis is that he was writing before the details of the plan were announced or known to him. It is based on his not necessarily disinterested interpretation of a Today interview with Paul Kenny. If he had waited he would have known that the unions will no longer act as conduits of information. All communication will be directly between Labour and those who specifically choose to become members. Thus, one of the central premises if his "analysis" is entirely wrong. I am afraid it's one member, one vote. Sorry.

    Just because you want it to be otherwise Richard does not mean it is.

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It looks like there may have been just two homicides in Greater London during January:

    http://www.murdermap.co.uk/Investigate.asp
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,937
    CarlottaVance said:

    Perspective on Ed's reforms from LabourList:

    http://labourlist.org/2014/01/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-ed-milibands-party-reforms/

    And the Guardian:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/31/ed-miliband-labour-trade-union-reforms

    Well, indeed. The Labour List piece is very helpful. Richard should read it.

  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    I'm backing England -11 at 8/1 with Ladbrokes. I don't know that we'll beat France, but if we do that doesn't seem a huge margin to win by. I'm almost certainly betting with heart rather than head, but last time I tried the other way was a bet on Wales to beat Scotland by more than 7, as part of a handicap treble. They were the only losers of the three, winning by four, and I had the filthy experience of cheering Wales to score more. They still won, but I lost money... Urrghh..
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    SouthamObserver said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Hilarious!!

    Yes, and accurate.

    One of the major flaws in Dan's analysis is that he was writing before the details of the plan were announced or known to him. It is based on his not necessarily disinterested interpretation of a Today interview with Paul Kenny. If he had waited he would have known that the unions will no longer act as conduits of information. All communication will be directly between Labour and those who specifically choose to become members. Thus, one of the central premises if his "analysis" is entirely wrong. I am afraid it's one member, one vote. Sorry.

    Just because you want it to be otherwise Richard does not mean it is.

    Richard, Fitalass & co. have this innate ability to read what they want to believe regardless of what is actually written or meant to be. To use a completely lop-sided, hate-filled individual like Hodges who cannot forgive EdM because he beat DM, as their refernece point says it all.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    MikeK said:

    ukipwebmaster ‏@ukipwebmaster
    .....and then they came for the Mini Cheddars! http://dailym.ai/1iU9AQj

    What a nonsense.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930
    David Cameron gives Haim the thumbs up

    http://youtu.be/4N1FqYwDH9I
  • Options
    compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    Not been on today, however, I assume this was given a huge squirrel treatment.

    http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/40048/
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,930
    At least Bob Crow is earning his salary, working all the hours God sends to avert the tube strike next week

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549825/High-life-Bob-lobster-red-baron-With-members-set-bring-misery-commuters-week-rail-union-boss-Crow-escapes-sip-cocktails-Rio-sunshine.html
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Tykejohnno said:

    Prince Charles: climate change deniers are 'headless chickens'

    Prince Charles, who has campaigned for years to reduce global warming, labels climate change deniers the 'headless chicken brigade'

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html

    I did find it highly amusing this afternoon whilst waiting at the airport to read the incredible level of scientific illiteracy being displayed by Hugh in his desperate attempts to try and defend anthropogenic global warming. Clearly he has no concept of either basic scientific method nor (perhaps more understandably) of feedback mechanisms.

    I suspect that even those who adhere to AGW would cringe at his lack of understanding.
    Hugh was more sinned against than sinning.

    The claim that the Krakatoa eruption of 1883 emitted more carbon dioxide than human activity in all of human history was particularly special.

    For those who might be tempted to place any credibility on the statement, the ice core measurements completely fail to identify a massive spike in carbon dioxide levels at the time of the Krakatoa eruption - or indeed the bigger still Tambora eruption of 1815.
  • Options
    compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Isn't it exactly what was promised? Union members have to specifically opt to pay a discounted membership fee to join Labour and they get one vote in the leadership election. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me and very different to the current situation. Each individual will be a Labour member. All members get one vote.

    Yeah, right.

    In the real world, this is how it will work, as explained by someone who actually knows about this stuff:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100257403/ed-milibands-trade-union-reforms-arent-a-loosening-of-control-theyre-a-power-grab/
    I see Dan Hodges has taken the poll showing Labour 10% ahead well. That it very long winded way to say Dan has spat his dummy out.

    Wonder if Dan Hodges will self implode when Labour win the next election.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    I see TSE had backed Ireland again, the ****er.
    WelshBertie said:

    I beg to differ with Neil but Ireland's hardest match is next week.

    I see why you might think that "Welsh"Bertie ;) But every Ireland rugby fan knows that France is our achilles heel. Regardless of form you can rely on Ireland to tank against France (whereas even in the lean days we were good for an away victory in Cardiff Arms Park). If that sounds less than reasoned then I can only say it's the thinking of someone who has endured 25+ French defeats over the years for a measly 4 ... yes 4! ... wins in either Dublin or Paris.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    AndyJS said:

    IIRC Charles spoke out against the fox hunting ban and had to be rebuked by HMTQ.

    I dont know what's more surprising, Charles coming out against fox hunting or the fact that the Queen is reading his posts on pbc!

  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    I just had a quick look at the Populus poll details. The Labour lead among women is 14%. Only 4% with men.

    Why do women not like the Tories ?
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    surbiton said:


    Why do women not like the Tories ?

    They're tainted by coalition with Rennard's Lib Dems.
  • Options
    FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    WelshBertie said:

    ...Which is where Halfpenny and Farrell will reap the rewards.

    Not sure of the "hap'ney" providence but Farrell sounds as [Anglo-Norman-Celtic] heroic enough for me. England are the second-best but can surprise.... *

    [1000th post: Yet nothing has happened....] :(

    :watch-sterling-and-oil-prices:
  • Options
    FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    FYI:

    http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/02/01/the-currency-question-just-got-harder-for-yes-this-week/

    Cannae git da staff.....
  • Options
    Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    It didn't take long....

    Michael Moore is out saying that the Atlanta snowjam this week was caused by global warming.

    It was actually caused by every worker and parent of a school kid inside the perimeter highway getting on the roads at exactly the same time because of incoming snow, which froze and made matters worse.

    If anything it proves that 6 lanes each way on an urban interstate isn't enough - we need more lanes, and more interstates.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Tim_B

    Isnt it possible that the traffic chaos was caused by Michael Moore himself seeing as he's such a lardarse? The only "comedian" I've ever walked out on!
  • Options
    redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    surbiton said:

    I just had a quick look at the Populus poll details. The Labour lead among women is 14%. Only 4% with men.

    Why do women not like the Tories ?

    Women have to pay the bills.

  • Options
    FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Off-topic:

    Junior: Password reset? What is the phrase that the cow-dung of the Southern Netherlands use...?

    On-topic:

    Look at the Euro:

    Germany does well (as it is at-or-about parity with the $PPP) but the rest suffer. If Scotland is so 'rich' why should the "rUK" be penalised by an economic monetary policy that does not seek to redress the Service-Account deficit.

    The facts are: Scotland is off-to-the-unknown. Why the Scots people wish to dictate to the English on how post-independence will factor-out is somewhat 'Eugène Terre'Blanche'....
  • Options
    GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Test
This discussion has been closed.