Sunak knows the euro footy is on this summer doesn't he?
Surely?
He does.
Last time a government with a working majority was replaced by another party with a working majority was 1970 which took place during an international tournament in which England were the tournament favourites.
England cannot be favourites for the Euros, surely. If so that is a lay
We're favourites on Betfair.
I lay England at every tournament, I am not changing my strategy.
11th - in the hope of a patriotic vote surge following a semi final win the night before or 18th as we vote Tory to celebrate Euro glory Flights of fancy
July is a screaming lay. What would be the reason for it? The only one I can see is that it is a response by Sunak personally to an attempted putsch, following his sub Truss ratings.
This post may not age well.
The timing might be good if he's thinking of heading off Reform.
Two thoughts: 1) if the election is not on, this is Gordon Brown levels of in competence at not killing the rumours 2) judging by the levels of angst in my whatsapps from ministers and MPs, a cabinet and/or 1922 committee revolt is not out of the question
We know that Sunak is utterly terrible at politics like rumour-killing. See the way that the "ban all foreign students" thing got out of hand, and now seems to be being rowed back on.
Maybe that's what the announcement is going to be.
Sunak knows the euro footy is on this summer doesn't he?
Surely?
He does.
Last time a government with a working majority was replaced by another party with a working majority was 1970 which took place during an international tournament in which England were the tournament favourites.
England cannot be favourites for the Euros, surely. If so that is a lay
We're favourites on Betfair.
I lay England at every tournament, I am not changing my strategy.
Sunak knows the euro footy is on this summer doesn't he?
Surely?
He does.
Last time a government with a working majority was replaced by another party with a working majority was 1970 which took place during an international tournament in which England were the tournament favourites.
England cannot be favourites for the Euros, surely. If so that is a lay
We're favourites on Betfair.
I lay England at every tournament, I am not changing my strategy.
I'm not sure Sunak is the right chap to benefit from a good England performance at the Euros - too much of a nerd for his euphoria to be credible. Starmer, on the other hand, could capitalise on winning performances from Rice and Saka.
I'm not sure Sunak is the right chap to benefit from a good England performance at the Euros - too much of a nerd for his euphoria to be credible. Starmer, on the other hand, could capitalise on winning performances from Rice and Saka.
The Tories will be at war with the England team over something or other that is perceived as woke.
I'm not sure Sunak is the right chap to benefit from a good England performance at the Euros - too much of a nerd for his euphoria to be credible. Starmer, on the other hand, could capitalise on winning performances from Rice and Saka.
The Tories will be at war with the England team over something or other that is perceived as woke.
Sunak knows the euro footy is on this summer doesn't he?
Surely?
He does.
Last time a government with a working majority was replaced by another party with a working majority was 1970 which took place during an international tournament in which England were the tournament favourites.
England cannot be favourites for the Euros, surely. If so that is a lay
We're favourites on Betfair.
I lay England at every tournament, I am not changing my strategy.
The curse of Harry Kane/Spurs is real.
Absolutely. QF likely, but after that...
After that, England matches are being televised on ITV. And the curse of ITV is real.
On the three days of food etc thing...... 1) who doesn't have three days of food in? 2) 3 weeks is the minimum for disaster prep, as if this useless govt can organise a response in 3 days
"That there is an issue of unknown unknowns. If you don’t know something exists, it’s difficult to ask questions about it."
I am starting to get seriously now
Rumsfeld was actually articulating the point that you need to go out and look for trouble in your organisation. Because trouble is there, and it will find you.
Why did he go looking for trouble in Iraq, then ?
One danger of addressing known unknowns is that it reveals unknown unknowns. But that's not necessarily a reason for not dealing with the known unknowns.
(FWIW, in this case - Iraq - it *was* a reason for not doing it, or certainly for not planning properly for the aftermath; but a specific instance is a poor platform on which to base a general case)
I have always considered that statement by Rumsfeld to be one of the most important made by a politician in modern times and something that should be taught in schools. The 'certainty' with which most people seem to view life and events and the inability to comprehend just how much we don't know is one of our great failings both as individuals and as society.
He also provided an object lesson in the consequences of ignoring such advice.
On the three days of food etc thing...... 1) who doesn't have three days of food in? 2) 3 weeks is the minimum for disaster prep, as if this useless govt can organise a response in 3 days
Announcing it the same day as calling a GE is GENIUS !!!
"That there is an issue of unknown unknowns. If you don’t know something exists, it’s difficult to ask questions about it."
I am starting to get seriously now
Rumsfeld was actually articulating the point that you need to go out and look for trouble in your organisation. Because trouble is there, and it will find you.
Why did he go looking for trouble in Iraq, then ?
One danger of addressing known unknowns is that it reveals unknown unknowns. But that's not necessarily a reason for not dealing with the known unknowns.
(FWIW, in this case - Iraq - it *was* a reason for not doing it, or certainly for not planning properly for the aftermath; but a specific instance is a poor platform on which to base a general case)
I have always considered that statement by Rumsfeld to be one of the most important made by a politician in modern times and something that should be taught in schools. The 'certainty' with which most people seem to view life and events and the inability to comprehend just how much we don't know is one of our great failings both as individuals and as society.
Couldn't agree more. And IIRC it was met by sustained mockery and derision at the time.
The destruction of Paula Vennells is so awesomely brutal that it could destroy her. We've just watched some of it, and my better half stated that if she were Vennells she'd take drastic steps to not have to return tomorrow.
I'm not sure Sunak is the right chap to benefit from a good England performance at the Euros - too much of a nerd for his euphoria to be credible. Starmer, on the other hand, could capitalise on winning performances from Rice and Saka.
If it's 11 July it will be just after a possible SF loss and everyone will blame Rishi! Just like 1970!
Another really poor interview by Emma Barnett on Today this morning, this time with the Chancellor. She really does like her own voice far too much.
I'm definitely not a fan of the "Macro policies are all very well but Mrs Trellis from North Wales has emailed to say' thing. How do we know that Mrs Trellis isn't just the shadow Chancellor making things up? Or the producer?
Keep that nonsense on Radio 5 please.
She was using a particular example to make a general point which the Chancellor didn't really answer.
You might not like the way she framed the question, but the twin issues of housing costs, and actual changes in standard of living for large sectors of the workforce are perfectly valid ones to raise.
I note you ignored the point about rental costs rising 9% in the last year. Which is somewhat at odds with 2.3% inflation.
That's why individuals' experiences matter.
This is true but the way in which she did it - a long speech in place of a short incisive question - never ever works in eliciting either truth or development of an argument. The BBC seems to major on two sorts of discussions: luvvie ones (Woman's Hour) in which the interviewee can do nothing wrong, and Today style ones in which they can do nothing right. all the interesting stuff is in the grey area in the middle, which requires being properly briefed and researched and using questions and the answers to develop the journey towards some degree of enlightenment.
Speculation continues to ramp up in Westminster that Rishi Sunak could choose to cut & run today for a summer snap election…
We revealed in @FT last Sat that Tory bosses were exploring funding for a pre-recess poll…
Usual caveats apply, of course - we’ve all been here before!
Really don't see it. The Tories are still about 20 points behind in the polls and CCHQ / No 10 can point a credible path to some form of recovery over the summer, as inflation and interest rates ease a bit. You do not call an election you'll get hammered in if things might get better by waiting.
(That last point changes in the autumn / winter, as the potential for waiting shortens from quarters to months to weeks, and the downside of waiting - disruption over Xmas, being accused of squatting in No 10, taking repeated hits in the Commons with nothing to do - increase)
She wasn't in with much of a chance - most complex Bishopric in England, no Episcopal experience, and up against a former Chief Nursing Officer of England.
Speculation continues to ramp up in Westminster that Rishi Sunak could choose to cut & run today for a summer snap election…
We revealed in @FT last Sat that Tory bosses were exploring funding for a pre-recess poll…
Usual caveats apply, of course - we’ve all been here before!
Really don't see it. The Tories are still about 20 points behind in the polls and CCHQ / No 10 can point a credible path to some form of recovery over the summer, as inflation and interest rates ease a bit. You do not call an election you'll get hammered in if things might get better by waiting.
(That last point changes in the autumn / winter, as the potential for waiting shortens from quarters to months to weeks, and the downside of waiting - disruption over Xmas, being accused of squatting in No 10, taking repeated hits in the Commons with nothing to do - increase)
Yeah they are behind but the numbers are inexorably widening. Both cons and ref are indecline now... it could become cataclysmic
"That there is an issue of unknown unknowns. If you don’t know something exists, it’s difficult to ask questions about it."
I am starting to get seriously now
Rumsfeld was actually articulating the point that you need to go out and look for trouble in your organisation. Because trouble is there, and it will find you.
Why did he go looking for trouble in Iraq, then ?
One danger of addressing known unknowns is that it reveals unknown unknowns. But that's not necessarily a reason for not dealing with the known unknowns.
(FWIW, in this case - Iraq - it *was* a reason for not doing it, or certainly for not planning properly for the aftermath; but a specific instance is a poor platform on which to base a general case)
I have always considered that statement by Rumsfeld to be one of the most important made by a politician in modern times and something that should be taught in schools. The 'certainty' with which most people seem to view life and events and the inability to comprehend just how much we don't know is one of our great failings both as individuals and as society.
I agree, but wanted to say so rather than just liking because the thing that got me at the time was he was ridiculed for what he said, yet it was a very clear logical statement that most people should be able to grasp.
I agree it should be taught in school together with other basic logic. Things may have changed since I was in school over 50 years ago, so apologies if it is taught, but in my day there was no logic taught. I did not do any logic at O level or A level Maths and only did it in my 2nd and 3rd year Maths degree as a selected subject.
Basic logic is probably more useful than basic calculus at GCSE level. Again apologies if I am out of touch with the current curriculum.
The destruction of Paula Vennells is so awesomely brutal that it could destroy her. We've just watched some of it, and my better half stated that if she were Vennells she'd take drastic steps to not have to return tomorrow.
She been living with this for years, Al. Personally, I couldn't cope with it, but one option I would consider is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. She could have fully supported the Inquiry. She's had ample opportunity to assist, and consistently declined to do so.
Two thoughts: 1) if the election is not on, this is Gordon Brown levels of in competence at not killing the rumours 2) judging by the levels of angst in my whatsapps from ministers and MPs, a cabinet and/or 1922 committee revolt is not out of the question
We know that Sunak is utterly terrible at politics like rumour-killing. See the way that the "ban all foreign students" thing got out of hand, and now seems to be being rowed back on.
Maybe that's what the announcement is going to be.
You could have stopped after:
We know that Sunak is utterly terrible at politics
Off topic, but possibly pertinent to problems in other nations:
"The release of the annual Social Security trustees’ report is usually the occasion for some dolorous lament that we have inched another year closer to disaster. This year, however, I have good news! The industrious actuaries at the Social Security Administration, having ground through all the data, now think our nation’s looming entitlement meltdown looks slightly less catastrophic than it did last year.
They now forecast that the combined Social Security Trust Funds won’t be exhausted until 2035, a year later than they expected in 2023. They also see some improvement in the program’s long-term finances, primarily because of more favorable assumptions about productivity growth and disability rates — though that happy news is, they write, “partially offset by a decrease in the assumed long-term total fertility rate,” which has now gone from 2 children per woman to 1.9." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/14/social-security-fix-birthrates/ source: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2024/
Comments
See
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9921/
Flights of fancy
Maybe that's what the announcement is going to be.
Starmer, on the other hand, could capitalise on winning performances from Rice and Saka.
Here = complete silence from the J-Dog and then, after a pause, "try to compose yourself and continue".
Awesome.
https://bishopspalace.org.uk/attractions/palace/#:~:text=The Bishop's Palace and Gardens,open for all to enjoy.
1) who doesn't have three days of food in?
2) 3 weeks is the minimum for disaster prep, as if this useless govt can organise a response in 3 days
This entire section suggests a man viewing events with his own particular version of certainty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Military_decisions_in_the_wake_of_9/11
I'm sad.
(That last point changes in the autumn / winter, as the potential for waiting shortens from quarters to months to weeks, and the downside of waiting - disruption over Xmas, being accused of squatting in No 10, taking repeated hits in the Commons with nothing to do - increase)
NEW THREAD
Just realised it's the iguanodon, in this book from my childhood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_Don't_Die
We've mentioned it several times.
She wasn't in with much of a chance - most complex Bishopric in England, no Episcopal experience, and up against a former Chief Nursing Officer of England.
I agree it should be taught in school together with other basic logic. Things may have changed since I was in school over 50 years ago, so apologies if it is taught, but in my day there was no logic taught. I did not do any logic at O level or A level Maths and only did it in my 2nd and 3rd year Maths degree as a selected subject.
Basic logic is probably more useful than basic calculus at GCSE level. Again apologies if I am out of touch with the current curriculum.
Sorry, but my sympathy with her is minimal.
Bullseye.
I've several times noted that this is characteristic of almost every witness regarding exculpatory versus inconvenient information.
We know that Sunak is utterly terrible at politics
"The release of the annual Social Security trustees’ report is usually the occasion for some dolorous lament that we have inched another year closer to disaster. This year, however, I have good news! The industrious actuaries at the Social Security Administration, having ground through all the data, now think our nation’s looming entitlement meltdown looks slightly less catastrophic than it did last year.
They now forecast that the combined Social Security Trust Funds won’t be exhausted until 2035, a year later than they expected in 2023. They also see some improvement in the program’s long-term finances, primarily because of more favorable assumptions about productivity growth and disability rates — though that happy news is, they write, “partially offset by a decrease in the assumed long-term total fertility rate,” which has now gone from 2 children per woman to 1.9."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/14/social-security-fix-birthrates/
source: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2024/
The last time the TFR was that high? 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
And the trend is not encouraging.