You wouldn't be the only person to think along those lines, Casino.
If you could come up with a Democrat to beat Hillary in the way that Obama did, all us punters would be as eternally grateful to you as we are to Mike S for tipping the Senator from Chicago at 50/1 many years ago.
I've scoured the alternatives and the best I can come up with is Joe Biden. Thrillsville.
If I was that good at picking winners, I'd have my own political blog!
It's strange, isn't it? A country as successful and powerful as America, and yet entirely uninspiring candidates on both sides of the political divide.
Sadly, I've checked my birth certificate and am unable to stand.
I agree. Romney was damaged by the GoP nomination process.
The Party has a long record of picking a plausible candidate - eventually - but the persistent flirtation with loonies undermines its credibility.
You may not like the Democrats, but it is a long, long time since they put on the platform anybody as implausible as Caine, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum.
They do it less often but Dennis Kucinich?
Yeah but Democrat crazies are only ever on the stage for the lols the GOP treat their crazies as serious and credible.
I basically agree. I think I once upset a Republican on here by pointing out the maximum combined support for Santorum + Cain + Bachmann among Republicans was 40%(?) and thus 40% of Republicans were crazies.
"Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, Socco. I like her and consider her a distinguished politician but she's a left-leaning liberal who would go down like cold sick in many States, some of them swing States.
The Democrats won't pick her because they know this. She cannot win (unless the GoP pick somebody like Cruz, in which case the Dems could run the office cat and expect to win.)
You could have said the same thing about Obama in 2006. In fact, many did. The voters don't care where someone is on the ideological divide. They only care if you can point to someone's particular position and say "that's ridiculously extreme". Warren doesn't have any of them.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
Michael Gove argues that school children should be taught British values. From now on history lessons will teach kids how to invade countries, sell locals into slavery and nick anything that isn’t nailed down.
That's what they think of this country. When they hear "British" they think of slavery and imperialism first and foremost. They really do hate Britain don't they? No wonder they were so happy to import millions of foreigners. As Neather said, they don't want "mainstream British" culture, they want "true multiculturalism". They'd rather have a go at Britishness than Islamic bigots hating on "white prostitutes".
I used to think that the more right wing posters on here calling the Left traitors who hated this country were being hyperbolic, but I'm starting to think they have a point.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
Have you read the Mail on David Beckham? Or the Telegraph?
Yes I read the Telegraph just after the Guardian, whys that?
"A country as successful and powerful as America, and yet entirely uninspiring candidates on both sides of the political divide."
The UK is not as rich or as powerful but don't we have the same problem with uninspiring candidates? I mean what's the offer next time, Cameron or Miliband - not exactly charismatic or inspirational are they. Perhaps the problem is that our system (including the MSM) now positively discourages anyone who can actually lead from standing for office.
"Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, Socco. I like her and consider her a distinguished politician but she's a left-leaning liberal who would go down like cold sick in many States, some of them swing States.
The Democrats won't pick her because they know this. She cannot win (unless the GoP pick somebody like Cruz, in which case the Dems could run the office cat and expect to win.)
You could have said the same thing about Obama in 2006. In fact, many did. The voters don't care where someone is on the ideological divide. They only care if you can point to someone's particular position and say "that's ridiculously extreme". Warren doesn't have any of them.
O'Malley is also worth a look by the way.
I think they're only worth looking at if Hillary stops running. Most are going to look at the Clinton juggernaut and conclude they'll end up as road kill. There won't be a second Obama lightning don't strike twice etc.
I agree. Romney was damaged by the GoP nomination process.
The Party has a long record of picking a plausible candidate - eventually - but the persistent flirtation with loonies undermines its credibility.
You may not like the Democrats, but it is a long, long time since they put on the platform anybody as implausible as Caine, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum.
They do it less often but Dennis Kucinich?
Kucinich would certainly be the nearest equivalent, but you'd be pushed to find another and he never got within hailing distance of being nominated.
The GOP names I listed were all front-runners at some stage. I could reasonably add Palin and Trump, who never formally stood but did lead in the polls at various points.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
Michael Gove argues that school children should be taught British values. From now on history lessons will teach kids how to invade countries, sell locals into slavery and nick anything that isn’t nailed down.
That's what they think of this country. When they hear "British" they think of slavery and imperialism first and foremost. They really do hate Britain don't they? No wonder they were so happy to import millions of foreigners. As Neather said, they don't want "mainstream British" culture, they want "true multiculturalism". They'd rather have a go at Britishness than Islamic bigots hating on "white prostitutes".
I used to think that the more right wing posters on here calling the Left traitors who hated this country were being hyperbolic, but I'm starting to think they have a point.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
I think Russell Howard's Good News is exactly like that - he's a Guardian journalist trying to do stand-up on TV.
My wife thinks he's funny. I react to him like SO does to Jim Davidson.
"Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, Socco. I like her and consider her a distinguished politician but she's a left-leaning liberal who would go down like cold sick in many States, some of them swing States.
The Democrats won't pick her because they know this. She cannot win (unless the GoP pick somebody like Cruz, in which case the Dems could run the office cat and expect to win.)
You could have said the same thing about Obama in 2006. In fact, many did. The voters don't care where someone is on the ideological divide. They only care if you can point to someone's particular position and say "that's ridiculously extreme". Warren doesn't have any of them.
O'Malley is also worth a look by the way.
I think they're only worth looking at if Hillary stops running. Most are going to look at the Clinton juggernaut and conclude they'll end up as road kill. There won't be a second Obama lightning don't strike twice etc.
People run for other reasons that expecting to win. There's still a reasonable chance Warren will run just to get her issue advocacy more attention. She genuinely believes in her causes, and likes to shape the national conversation. O'Malley is still young and will want to get himself on the national radar so that he is talked about for 2024. It's also a nice way to audition for the VP slot.
"A country as successful and powerful as America, and yet entirely uninspiring candidates on both sides of the political divide."
The UK is not as rich or as powerful but don't we have the same problem with uninspiring candidates? I mean what's the offer next time, Cameron or Miliband - not exactly charismatic or inspirational are they. Perhaps the problem is that our system (including the MSM) now positively discourages anyone who can actually lead from standing for office.
The prevailing political orthodoxy is also that Government is in general a bad thing, and so if you are motivated to make a positive difference in the world it must be much more attractive to find some other way of doing so - eg Elon Musk with his plans for Mars, Juliet Davenport who founded Good Energy, whoever it was who created the fairtrade foundation, etc - rather than to become involved in Government and become seen as part of the problem.
A right-wing liberal would argue that this is a sign of success - one can change the country without having to do so via the State, and as a leftie I also welcome an open society that people can change without having permission from the State to do so - but there are clearly some decisions that should be made democratically and collectively, and that doesn't appear to be going so well lately.
"Mr Penning said a decision in March to end Atos's contract early was based on the fact that he had lost faith in the firm. "
I believe that ATOS walked away from the contract as it was "unworkable" amongst other things? Given ATOS's usual response to criticism, I would expect a minor spat to develop
I'm sure the playing fields there were better than the one England will be playing on in Manaus too
Lol!
I think the fields outside my flats will be better than that, Neil.
I am now half-expecting England to play Italy using sweaters for goalposts.
If there is a pitch related incident, like a ball deflecting into goal off a divot or a mole hill which is ultimately deemed responsible for England exiting the competition, the Tabloid headlines of Turfed Out would be unavoidable.
Before we write off the GOP, it should be remembered, they do control The House of Representatives, are on course to do so again post November as per the bookies and the Senate as well.
Edit: That said, my money's still on the Dems to win the big prize in 2016.
"A country as successful and powerful as America, and yet entirely uninspiring candidates on both sides of the political divide."
The UK is not as rich or as powerful but don't we have the same problem with uninspiring candidates? I mean what's the offer next time, Cameron or Miliband - not exactly charismatic or inspirational are they. Perhaps the problem is that our system (including the MSM) now positively discourages anyone who can actually lead from standing for office.
You have a point. However, I feel the USA has less of an excuse. They have competitive primary elections for their presidential candidates (on both sides) which - in theory - anyone can enter. They don't necessarily need to have big money behind them to start with. They can fight from the grassroots up through "town-hall" politics. The pool is pretty wide.
In the UK, our pool is confined to an MP who is elected to a safe-ish seat, who butters up a few friendly political commentators and then tickles the right tummies with the leadership/backbenchers. It means that those who succeed have to come from the established political class, by definition.
"Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, Socco. I like her and consider her a distinguished politician but she's a left-leaning liberal who would go down like cold sick in many States, some of them swing States.
The Democrats won't pick her because they know this. She cannot win (unless the GoP pick somebody like Cruz, in which case the Dems could run the office cat and expect to win.)
You could have said the same thing about Obama in 2006. In fact, many did. The voters don't care where someone is on the ideological divide. They only care if you can point to someone's particular position and say "that's ridiculously extreme". Warren doesn't have any of them.
O'Malley is also worth a look by the way.
I think they're only worth looking at if Hillary stops running. Most are going to look at the Clinton juggernaut and conclude they'll end up as road kill. There won't be a second Obama lightning don't strike twice etc.
People run for other reasons that expecting to win. There's still a reasonable chance Warren will run just to get her issue advocacy more attention. She genuinely believes in her causes, and likes to shape the national conversation. O'Malley is still young and will want to get himself on the national radar so that he is talked about for 2024. It's also a nice way to audition for the VP slot.
Oh I agree Hillary will get token competition but many will sit it out.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
I think Russell Howard's Good News is exactly like that - he's a Guardian journalist trying to do stand-up on TV.
My wife thinks he's funny. I react to him like SO does to Jim Davidson.
Of course humour and newspaper editorials, like so many other things, are subjective. One mans meat etc
I used to find that kind of "always sarcastic/always finding fault with successful people" approach funny, so just because I have changed my mind I shouldnt have a pop at people who still like it. It just seems to me that old school comics take the mick out of everyone, whereas the more lefty ones only take the mick out of more successful/better looking/richer people.
It was 1/100 in my book that The Guardian would mention Beckhams mispronounciation of "fillet",., and they managed it twice.
Before we write off the GOP, it should be remembered, they do control The House of Representatives, are on course to do so again post November as per the bookies and the Senate as well.
Edit: That said, my money's still on the Dems to win the big prize in 2016.
The GOP have control of the House by 234 to 201 after losing the popular vote by 48.8% to 47.6%.
I seem to recall that J K Rowling is a close friend of Gordon Brown. Perhaps the prompting for the donation came from that quarter, given that he has become much more engaged in the independence debate recently.
They are indeed friends - though perhaps more through Sarah Brown. She is also a donor to the Labour Party.
That does sound more likely as otherwise it entails the idea of Gordon Brown having any friends, which seems very far-fetched.
He strikes me as someone who would have allies, contacts and colleagues, but not friends.
To be fair to Mr Brown I was thinking in terms of temporal sequence - it seems that Ms R and Ms B met when supporting/organising a medical charity (and Ms R has been very active over MS but I dunno if it was that one).
Before we write off the GOP, it should be remembered, they do control The House of Representatives, are on course to do so again post November as per the bookies and the Senate as well.
Edit: That said, my money's still on the Dems to win the big prize in 2016.
The US electorate do go in for a degree of ticket splitting. Having control of congress may not be a boon, plus you probably have to look at statewide voting patterns as opposed to seat tallies.
Before we write off the GOP, it should be remembered, they do control The House of Representatives, are on course to do so again post November as per the bookies and the Senate as well.
Edit: That said, my money's still on the Dems to win the big prize in 2016.
The GOP have control of the House by 234 to 201 after losing the popular vote by 48.8% to 47.6%.
Labour still have something to learn.
Even still, a party with voter repellent politicians, to lose by only 1.2% is an achievement.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
Michael Gove argues that school children should be taught British values. From now on history lessons will teach kids how to invade countries, sell locals into slavery and nick anything that isn’t nailed down.
That's what they think of this country. When they hear "British" they think of slavery and imperialism first and foremost. They really do hate Britain don't they? No wonder they were so happy to import millions of foreigners. As Neather said, they don't want "mainstream British" culture, they want "true multiculturalism". They'd rather have a go at Britishness than Islamic bigots hating on "white prostitutes".
I used to think that the more right wing posters on here calling the Left traitors who hated this country were being hyperbolic, but I'm starting to think they have a point.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
Have you read the Mail on David Beckham? Or the Telegraph?
Yes I read the Telegraph just after the Guardian, whys that?
Did you read either?
It's not just "lefty" journalists that sneer at Beckham's accent or what they see as his pretensions. It happens in the Telegraph, the Mail, the Times and the Express too. It's a case of middle class journalists laughing at a working class boy whose talent has made him a multi-millionaire - probably because they are jealous.
Complacency and a lack of ambition from pupils has led to Wales being the worst performing in the UK in international education tests, it is claimed.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) education chief Andreas Schleicher said pupils must try harder....
Mr Schleicher's comments come as First Minister Carwyn Jones gives a speech in Cardiff on the evaluations.
The education chief told BBC Radio Wales: "I think, in part, it's because other education systems have improved their performance and in relative terms Wales has declined.
"It's also been an actual slippage and there's sort of less aspiration and less ambition in the system.
"You can expect a lower performance from disadvantaged schools but the fact that even schools in well-off areas of Wales don't live up to other schools in similar conditions shows that there is a bit of complacency in the system.".....
Mr Schleicher criticised Wales for a lack of long-term vision for education.
He said: "Your education system today is your economy tomorrow.
"There's a very, very close linkage between the skills that people develop in school and what they're able to do later in life. Our economies are evolving very rapidly. The demand for better skills, for the right skills.
"The knowledge economy no longer pays you for what you know... it pays you for what you can do with what you know."
Having watched DP on BBC2 today, I am left wondering how such a nasty piece of work as Chris Bryant ended up as a priest. Was there no quality control or did he undergo a Damascene conversion on becoming a Labour MP?
Before we write off the GOP, it should be remembered, they do control The House of Representatives, are on course to do so again post November as per the bookies and the Senate as well.
Edit: That said, my money's still on the Dems to win the big prize in 2016.
The GOP have control of the House by 234 to 201 after losing the popular vote by 48.8% to 47.6%.
Labour still have something to learn.
England produced an even more skewed result in 2005.
The nature of the seats being contested should give the Republicans control of the Senate in November, although the playing field will favour the Democrats in 2016 (and the Republicans again in 2018).
Having watched DP on BBC2 today, I am left wondering how such a nasty piece of work as Chris Bryant ended up as a priest. Was there no quality control or did he undergo a Damascene conversion on becoming a Labour MP?
Before we write off the GOP, it should be remembered, they do control The House of Representatives, are on course to do so again post November as per the bookies and the Senate as well.
Edit: That said, my money's still on the Dems to win the big prize in 2016.
The GOP have control of the House by 234 to 201 after losing the popular vote by 48.8% to 47.6%.
Labour still have something to learn.
Even still, a party with voter repellent politicians, to lose by only 1.2% is an achievement.
Nobody cares about the individual politicians in the House. The GOP does worse the more high profile the candidate is.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
Michael Gove argues that school children should be taught British values. From now on history lessons will teach kids how to invade countries, sell locals into slavery and nick anything that isn’t nailed down.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
Have you read the Mail on David Beckham? Or the Telegraph?
Yes I read the Telegraph just after the Guardian, whys that?
Did you read either?
It's not just "lefty" journalists that sneer at Beckham's accent or what they see as his pretensions. It happens in the Telegraph, the Mail, the Times and the Express too. It's a case of middle class journalists laughing at a working class boy whose talent has made him a multi-millionaire - probably because they are jealous.
Well I read the Telegraph and The Guardian and The Telegraph seemed more positive.
To be honest, my main beef was when Beckham mispronounced "fillet" as "fillay".. I wasnt 100% sure it was "fillet" myself but felt a bit embarrassed for him... maybe my resentment of The Guardian was that I just KNEW (apols for caps) that they would mention it, and they did twice. Apart from that they weren't too bad, just not as positive as The Telegraph
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
I think Russell Howard's Good News is exactly like that - he's a Guardian journalist trying to do stand-up on TV.
My wife thinks he's funny. I react to him like SO does to Jim Davidson.
Of course humour and newspaper editorials, like so many other things, are subjective. One mans meat etc
I used to find that kind of "always sarcastic/always finding fault with successful people" approach funny, so just because I have changed my mind I shouldnt have a pop at people who still like it. It just seems to me that old school comics take the mick out of everyone, whereas the more lefty ones only take the mick out of more successful/better looking/richer people.
It was 1/100 in my book that The Guardian would mention Beckhams mispronounciation of "fillet",., and they managed it twice.
Did he just used the American pronunciation, though, which would be understandable for someone living in LA for so long, and nothing to do with IQ?
@Sean_F "Plans to scale back the UK's regular Army and increase reservists come with "significant risks" to its operational abilities, the National Audit Office has warned."
"The spending watchdog's report said the decision was taken without "appropriate testing of feasibility".
"A country as successful and powerful as America, and yet entirely uninspiring candidates on both sides of the political divide."
The UK is not as rich or as powerful but don't we have the same problem with uninspiring candidates? I mean what's the offer next time, Cameron or Miliband - not exactly charismatic or inspirational are they. Perhaps the problem is that our system (including the MSM) now positively discourages anyone who can actually lead from standing for office.
You have a point. However, I feel the USA has less of an excuse. They have competitive primary elections for their presidential candidates (on both sides) which - in theory - anyone can enter. They don't necessarily need to have big money behind them to start with. They can fight from the grassroots up through "town-hall" politics. The pool is pretty wide.
In the UK, our pool is confined to an MP who is elected to a safe-ish seat, who butters up a few friendly political commentators and then tickles the right tummies with the leadership/backbenchers. It means that those who succeed have to come from the established political class, by definition.
The fact that the route to a position where one can make a real difference at the national level in the UK is through becoming an MP and then flogging one's way up through the party of one's choice is not really an attractive proposition to anyone with some charisma and leadership. Maybe if we went toward the American system with a directly elected PM then we might encourage from a wider talent pool and may get someone worth voting for.
On the money issue, I think you are being over generous. Without serious dosh to spend nobody stands a chance of getting anywhere in the US system and I read that the same, albeit on a much smaller scale, is now the case for a prospective MP in the UK.
To take Mr. Me's point that clever and good people are now finding other ways to make a difference (e.g. setting-up Fair Trade organisations). Yes, they are but despite all the good they do it is still meddling around the edges. Helpful but not decisive, and to expand their influence they need to lobby those with the actual power, that is to say they need to go grovelling to the uncharismatic thickos who are prepared to play the party game. It is an inversion of where the power should lie if the best results are to be achieved.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
I think Russell Howard's Good News is exactly like that - he's a Guardian journalist trying to do stand-up on TV.
My wife thinks he's funny. I react to him like SO does to Jim Davidson.
Of course humour and newspaper editorials, like so many other things, are subjective. One mans meat etc
I used to find that kind of "always sarcastic/always finding fault with successful people" approach funny, so just because I have changed my mind I shouldnt have a pop at people who still like it. It just seems to me that old school comics take the mick out of everyone, whereas the more lefty ones only take the mick out of more successful/better looking/richer people.
It was 1/100 in my book that The Guardian would mention Beckhams mispronounciation of "fillet",., and they managed it twice.
Did he just used the American pronunciation, though, which would be understandable for someone living in LA for so long, and nothing to do with IQ?
He said "Fillay" as in "I fillayed a fish"
To be fair he said it three times so I thought it must be ok or the BBC would have edited it
Having watched DP on BBC2 today, I am left wondering how such a nasty piece of work as Chris Bryant ended up as a priest. Was there no quality control or did he undergo a Damascene conversion on becoming a Labour MP?
Some priests are pieces of work.
Out of approximately 20 priests in the CofE and RC that I have met, none were as nasty as Bryant.
I'm not interested in reading the Guardian article mentioned, but it wouldn't be the first time that a journalist has chosen the easy option of sneering, rather than the more interesting option of finding out what lay behind it. Some journalists are still able/willing to go to that effort, though, in the Guardian as much as anywhere else.
EDIT: It is ironic - given the modern attempts to protect the French language from English - that the British English pronunciation of words like "fillet" and "claret" preserve the medieval French pronunciation, from which the modern French has deviated...
@Sean_F "It generally determines historical outcomes."
Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?
It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.
I think to Cameron and his modern Conservative party it shows the need for increasing the size of the DfID budget even more and cutting defence back further.
P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.
@Sean_F "It generally determines historical outcomes."
Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?
It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.
I think to Cameron and his modern Conservative party it shows the need for increasing the size of the DfID budget even more and cutting defence back further.
P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.
We should build more dreadnoughts and airships, and bring back the mounted cavalry!
YES remain dead in the water, completely becalmed.
Tick tock ....
***** Betting Post *****
That 41% 'Yes' figure after excluding Don't Knows makes Ladbrokes' offer of 9/2 for their 35% - 40% 'Yes' vote band appear very attractive indeed imho, especially when one considers this is a whopping great 50% improvement on Victor Chandler's 3/1 odds for his LOWER and NARROWER 35% - 39% 'Yes' vote band. I'm on but DYOR!
Labours Immigration Coffee Mornings against Racism seem a little bit bizarre to me, I mean won't most people be at work? I'm just struggling to see this as anything but cosmetic. I just don't understand what they're meant to be for.
"Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, Socco. I like her and consider her a distinguished politician but she's a left-leaning liberal who would go down like cold sick in many States, some of them swing States.
The Democrats won't pick her because they know this. She cannot win (unless the GoP pick somebody like Cruz, in which case the Dems could run the office cat and expect to win.)
You could have said the same thing about Obama in 2006. In fact, many did. The voters don't care where someone is on the ideological divide. They only care if you can point to someone's particular position and say "that's ridiculously extreme". Warren doesn't have any of them.
O'Malley is also worth a look by the way.
I think they're only worth looking at if Hillary stops running. Most are going to look at the Clinton juggernaut and conclude they'll end up as road kill. There won't be a second Obama lightning don't strike twice etc.
People run for other reasons that expecting to win. There's still a reasonable chance Warren will run just to get her issue advocacy more attention. She genuinely believes in her causes, and likes to shape the national conversation. O'Malley is still young and will want to get himself on the national radar so that he is talked about for 2024. It's also a nice way to audition for the VP slot.
I doubt that O'Malley would be Hillary's VP candidate - unbalance the ticket (NE Liberals). Shame though, as I think he's great.
@Sean_F "It generally determines historical outcomes."
Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?
It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.
I think to Cameron and his modern Conservative party it shows the need for increasing the size of the DfID budget even more and cutting defence back further.
P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.
You are doing the same mistake as the soviets did in the cold war, defence spending and military exercises don't matter when the primary weapons the other guy has are nukes. You can waste billions and trillions on conventional weapons but they won't deter any nuclear power, also the alliances are clear from the NATO side so no state is going to attack NATO due to America, Britain and France having nukes. You can happy drive your self to bankruptcy soviet style by defence spending based on useless paranoia that they other side is poised to invade any moment now.
To give you an idea that the russians know this and laugh (TSE might love this one):
It's just as well ed had another 'back of the net' performance at pmqs today, the betfair 'most seats' odds were getting v close to cross-over.
damn !!
The answer roused the Tory benches, who cried "more, more!" ("four-nil!" one MP added) and a beaming Cameron turned to his party with pride. The answer all but confirmed that Osborne, Gove and May will remain in their posts in the forthcoming reshuffle ("stick with the team") and served as confirmation that Cameron believes the wind is blowing his way. The problem for Miliband is the increasing number in Labour who think he is right.
Labours Immigration Coffee Mornings against Racism seem a little bit bizarre to me, I mean won't most people be at work? I'm just struggling to see this as anything but cosmetic. I just don't understand what they're meant to be for.
It's just as well ed had another 'back of the net' performance at pmqs today, the betfair 'most seats' odds were getting v close to cross-over.
damn !!
The answer roused the Tory benches, who cried "more, more!" ("four-nil!" one MP added) and a beaming Cameron turned to his party with pride. The answer all but confirmed that Osborne, Gove and May will remain in their posts in the forthcoming reshuffle ("stick with the team") and served as confirmation that Cameron believes the wind is blowing his way. The problem for Miliband is the increasing number in Labour who think he is right.
"Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, Socco. I like her and consider her a distinguished politician but she's a left-leaning liberal who would go down like cold sick in many States, some of them swing States.
The Democrats won't pick her because they know this. She cannot win (unless the GoP pick somebody like Cruz, in which case the Dems could run the office cat and expect to win.)
You could have said the same thing about Obama in 2006. In fact, many did. The voters don't care where someone is on the ideological divide. They only care if you can point to someone's particular position and say "that's ridiculously extreme". Warren doesn't have any of them.
O'Malley is also worth a look by the way.
I think they're only worth looking at if Hillary stops running. Most are going to look at the Clinton juggernaut and conclude they'll end up as road kill. There won't be a second Obama lightning don't strike twice etc.
People run for other reasons that expecting to win. There's still a reasonable chance Warren will run just to get her issue advocacy more attention. She genuinely believes in her causes, and likes to shape the national conversation. O'Malley is still young and will want to get himself on the national radar so that he is talked about for 2024. It's also a nice way to audition for the VP slot.
I doubt that O'Malley would be Hillary's VP candidate - unbalance the ticket (NE Liberals). Shame though, as I think he's great.
Maryland is a border south state. It's culturally southern.
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
.
Indeed Socrates. How dare people not agree with your views on what Britishness entails. They are clearly traitors. And it is certainly entirely representative of British values to read a column in the Guardian, take it literally and then decide that it represents the views of the "left". This certainly illustrates why politicians should decree lessons in British values.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
I think Russell Howard's Good News is exactly like that - he's a Guardian journalist trying to do stand-up on TV.
My wife thinks he's funny. I react to him like SO does to Jim Davidson.
Of course humour and newspaper editorials, like so many other things, are subjective. One mans meat etc
I used to find that kind of "always sarcastic/always finding fault with successful people" approach funny, so just because I have changed my mind I shouldnt have a pop at people who still like it. It just seems to me that old school comics take the mick out of everyone, whereas the more lefty ones only take the mick out of more successful/better looking/richer people.
It was 1/100 in my book that The Guardian would mention Beckhams mispronounciation of "fillet",., and they managed it twice.
Did he just used the American pronunciation, though, which would be understandable for someone living in LA for so long, and nothing to do with IQ?
He said "Fillay" as in "I fillayed a fish"
To be fair he said it three times so I thought it must be ok or the BBC would have edited it
Guardian took the piss tho
That's the American pronunciation. They took it from the French, as we took "duvet".
Labours Immigration Coffee Mornings against Racism seem a little bit bizarre to me, I mean won't most people be at work? I'm just struggling to see this as anything but cosmetic. I just don't understand what they're meant to be for.
‘there is no evidence of an overall impact on wages’ from immigration.
Weasel words.. Overall there may not be, but for the working class there is a tangible decrease in wages. The only reason the overall effect on wages is negligible is that the high earners make up the deficit
I would have hoped that in reaction to an extremist Islamic school preaching sexism and sectarianism in lessons, the left would join in the condemnation and support the need to teach the values of this society instead. But no, they instead prefer to bash on British values:
.
I think it's an attempt by the Guardian to be funny (almost always cringeworthy) but many a true word is said in jest.
I read The Guardians review of the David Beckham documentary last night... taking the mickey out of it and damning with faint praise, mocking him for not pronouncing words correctly... why do so many lefty journalists write in that sneering, sarcastic, bitter, unfunny student style? They cant help themselves
I think Russell Howard's Good News is exactly like that - he's a Guardian journalist trying to do stand-up on TV.
My wife thinks he's funny. I react to him like SO does to Jim Davidson.
Of course humour and newspaper editorials, like so many other things, are subjective. One mans meat etc
I used to find that kind of "always sarcastic/always finding fault with successful people" approach funny, so just because I have changed my mind I shouldnt have a pop at people who still like it. It just seems to me that old school comics take the mick out of everyone, whereas the more lefty ones only take the mick out of more successful/better looking/richer people.
It was 1/100 in my book that The Guardian would mention Beckhams mispronounciation of "fillet",., and they managed it twice.
Did he just used the American pronunciation, though, which would be understandable for someone living in LA for so long, and nothing to do with IQ?
He said "Fillay" as in "I fillayed a fish"
To be fair he said it three times so I thought it must be ok or the BBC would have edited it
Guardian took the piss tho
That's the American pronunciation. They took it from the French, as we took "duvet".
The Guardian say Becks got it from McDs
"(Fillet he pronounces "fillay", which might come from Posh, or possibly McDonald's?)"
"Warren comes over as a folksy woman from Oklahoma."
Don't get me wrong, Socco. I like her and consider her a distinguished politician but she's a left-leaning liberal who would go down like cold sick in many States, some of them swing States.
The Democrats won't pick her because they know this. She cannot win (unless the GoP pick somebody like Cruz, in which case the Dems could run the office cat and expect to win.)
You could have said the same thing about Obama in 2006. In fact, many did. The voters don't care where someone is on the ideological divide. They only care if you can point to someone's particular position and say "that's ridiculously extreme". Warren doesn't have any of them.
O'Malley is also worth a look by the way.
I think they're only worth looking at if Hillary stops running. Most are going to look at the Clinton juggernaut and conclude they'll end up as road kill. There won't be a second Obama lightning don't strike twice etc.
People run for other reasons that expecting to win. There's still a reasonable chance Warren will run just to get her issue advocacy more attention. She genuinely believes in her causes, and likes to shape the national conversation. O'Malley is still young and will want to get himself on the national radar so that he is talked about for 2024. It's also a nice way to audition for the VP slot.
I doubt that O'Malley would be Hillary's VP candidate - unbalance the ticket (NE Liberals). Shame though, as I think he's great.
Maryland is a border south state. It's culturally southern.
Anything north of DC is regarded today as NE liberal territory, but it doesn't matter who is the VP for Hilllary since she is going to win regardless even if she puts Marvin the Martian as the VP she is going to get 60% of women's vote and win.
YES remain dead in the water, completely becalmed.
Tick tock ....
***** Betting Post *****
That 41% 'Yes' figure after excluding Don't Knows makes Ladbrokes' offer of 9/2 for their 35% - 40% 'Yes' vote band appear very attractive indeed imho, especially when one considers this is a whopping great 50% improvement on Victor Chandler's 3/1 odds for his LOWER and NARROWER 35% - 39% 'Yes' vote band. I'm on but DYOR!
Cheers Peter, I'm on.
Also, I checked Betfair last night. There was still £80 or so of cash available to back turnout at 75%+ on the Indy Ref at 2.1 (or evens in old money, after commission)
That beats the less generous 5/6 available at Ladbrokes, which is also for a higher level match line at 78%.
@Sean_F "It generally determines historical outcomes."
Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?
It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.
I think to Cameron and his modern Conservative party it shows the need for increasing the size of the DfID budget even more and cutting defence back further.
P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.
You are doing the same mistake as the soviets did in the cold war, defence spending and military exercises don't matter when the primary weapons the other guy has are nukes. You can waste billions and trillions on conventional weapons but they won't deter any nuclear power, also the alliances are clear from the NATO side so no state is going to attack NATO due to America, Britain and France having nukes. You can happy drive your self to bankruptcy soviet style by defence spending based on useless paranoia that they other side is poised to invade any moment now.
To give you an idea that the russians know this and laugh (TSE might love this one):
It's just as well ed had another 'back of the net' performance at pmqs today, the betfair 'most seats' odds were getting v close to cross-over.
damn !!
The answer roused the Tory benches, who cried "more, more!" ("four-nil!" one MP added) and a beaming Cameron turned to his party with pride. The answer all but confirmed that Osborne, Gove and May will remain in their posts in the forthcoming reshuffle ("stick with the team") and served as confirmation that Cameron believes the wind is blowing his way. The problem for Miliband is the increasing number in Labour who think he is right.
@Socrates I'd completely refute that. It's classic east coast liberal territory these days. Was a southern state but demographic change and overspill from DC puts it firmly in the northern camp now. The crab shacks around Chesapeake Bay could barely feel more northern middle class if they tried.
@Sean_F "It generally determines historical outcomes."
Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?
It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.
I think to Cameron and his modern Conservative party it shows the need for increasing the size of the DfID budget even more and cutting defence back further.
P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.
Assuming the Admiral Kuznetsov hadn't broken down at Tilbury. It's knackered - has to be escorted everywhere by a salvage tug.
I like the idea of the Russkies declaring war by sinking a British Destroyer - how many NATO aircraft do you think would pick them off in the Channel before they'd even made it into the Thames Estuary?
(You're also assuming that there was nothing following Ivan, underneath the waves...)
@Sean_F "It generally determines historical outcomes."
Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?
It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.
I think to Cameron and his modern Conservative party it shows the need for increasing the size of the DfID budget even more and cutting defence back further.
P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.
Our forces have been cut back so far now, they are below the credible minimum for us to have an ability to realistically carry out any of our foreign policy objectives - either by ourselves, or in conjunction with our allies.
@Socrates I'd completely refute that. It's classic east coast liberal territory these days. Was a southern state but demographic change and overspill from DC puts it firmly in the northern camp now. The crab shacks around Chesapeake Bay could barely feel more northern middle class if they tried.
Beautiful state.
Yeah, perhaps, but you could say the same of Virginia and Florida. Culturally they've changed but to an American you wouldn't be able to get away with calling them northeasterners.
@Sean_F "It generally determines historical outcomes."
Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?
It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.
I think to Cameron and his modern Conservative party it shows the need for increasing the size of the DfID budget even more and cutting defence back further.
P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.
You are doing the same mistake as the soviets did in the cold war, defence spending and military exercises don't matter when the primary weapons the other guy has are nukes. You can waste billions and trillions on conventional weapons but they won't deter any nuclear power, also the alliances are clear from the NATO side so no state is going to attack NATO due to America, Britain and France having nukes. You can happy drive your self to bankruptcy soviet style by defence spending based on useless paranoia that they other side is poised to invade any moment now.
To give you an idea that the russians know this and laugh (TSE might love this one):
You think that nuclear strike should be the first and only response to an attack? I mean really? Do you actually want to take time and maybe think?
That is the protocol in case the Russians or the Chinese or any other nuclear power attacks NATO. It will be the first and only response since most of the world would blow up within an hour, that is why there has been no major war between great powers since 1945, nuclear weapons makes it to costly for war as a policy option (clue, which of these 3 states has america invaded and which one is the only one without WMD's : Iran, N.Korea, Iraq).
Labour are happy to talk to people about immigration, hear their concerns, feel their pain etc. They just won't do a damn thing to address the issue itself.
James Cook @BBCJamesCook · 3 hrs Alex Salmond says he's ordered his special advisor to apologise for briefing against a mother backing the union. #indyref
Any sign of the Labour Shadow Foreign secretary tabling an urgent question to the HoC's with regard deteriorating situation in Iraq?
twitter James Cook @BBCJamesCook 3h Alex Salmond says he's ordered his special advisor to apologise for briefing against a mother backing the union. #indyref
Financial Times @FT · 33m JK Rowling may help explain why Scotland's Yes campaign is struggling to convince women: http://on.ft.com/1jkgiuA
@Sean_F "It generally determines historical outcomes."
Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?
It shows the importance of maintaining adequate defences.
I think to Cameron and his modern Conservative party it shows the need for increasing the size of the DfID budget even more and cutting defence back further.
P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.
Our forces have been cut back so far now, they are below the credible minimum for us to have an ability to realistically carry out any of our foreign policy objectives - either by ourselves, or in conjunction with our allies.
Assuming the Admiral Kuznetsov hadn't broken down at Tilbury. It's knackered - has to be escorted everywhere by a salvage tug.
I like the idea of the Russkies declaring war by sinking a British Destroyer - how many NATO aircraft do you think would pick them off in the Channel before they'd even made it into the Thames Estuary?
Mr. Watcher, my point was that the RN couldn't have done anything worthwhile against a Russian Naval Battlegroup not that I thought the Russians would want to invade. Why, if it could not even offer battle, the RN think it necessary to escort an Russian squadron through the Channel is an interesting question.
Your question about air power capabilities against serious naval warships is even more interesting. You might want to read it up. I'll give you a starter for 10 the RAF doesn't have any, but that is OK because nor does most of the RN surface fleet.
James Cook @BBCJamesCook · 3 hrs Alex Salmond says he's ordered his special advisor to apologise for briefing against a mother backing the union. #indyref
@Socrates I'd completely refute that. It's classic east coast liberal territory these days. Was a southern state but demographic change and overspill from DC puts it firmly in the northern camp now. The crab shacks around Chesapeake Bay could barely feel more northern middle class if they tried.
Beautiful state.
Yeah, perhaps, but you could say the same of Virginia and Florida. Culturally they've changed but to an American you wouldn't be able to get away with calling them northeasterners.
The area of North Carolina around RDU has become 'north eastern', due to a lot of inward migration in the tech sector.
@Socrates I'd completely refute that. It's classic east coast liberal territory these days. Was a southern state but demographic change and overspill from DC puts it firmly in the northern camp now. The crab shacks around Chesapeake Bay could barely feel more northern middle class if they tried.
Beautiful state.
Yeah, perhaps, but you could say the same of Virginia and Florida. Culturally they've changed but to an American you wouldn't be able to get away with calling them northeasterners.
Dixie rather than Yankee springs to mind when Virginia is mentioned.
Having watched DP on BBC2 today, I am left wondering how such a nasty piece of work as Chris Bryant ended up as a priest. Was there no quality control or did he undergo a Damascene conversion on becoming a Labour MP?
Some priests are pieces of work.
Out of approximately 20 priests in the CofE and RC that I have met, none were as nasty as Bryant.
Certainly, I don't think I've met any clergy as horrible. But, there must be some.
Sorry you added this extra bit into your post after I replied:
"You're also assuming that there was nothing following Ivan, underneath the waves...)"
Yes I am, because I can count up to seven. Or is it six now, HMS Tireless decommissioned last week and the Astutes are years behind the replacement plan.
To show he is serious about reforming the EU, the prime minister should instead suggest a heavy-hitter for the job. The best may be William Hague. The foreign secretary knows the European scene inside out. And unlike, say, Michael Gove or Theresa May, he probably doesn't hope to be replacing Cameron as prime minister – and so may not mind being sent to Brussels for five years. This is not the last time Cameron will need to negotiate with the EU. But it's not just his future that depends on it; so does ours.
On the theory that Juncker can't be shifted so Cameron needs a lollipop, the UK have to send a big politician so they can take one of the big jobs.
It's by the Tom Gallagher of Bradford Uni, who thinks the SNP are ultra-Left, and so not in the least an independent (no pun intended) American view. Though he has obviously put in some triggers and dog-whistles for his audience - ultra-Left, Venezuelan ...
Comments
It's strange, isn't it? A country as successful and powerful as America, and yet entirely uninspiring candidates on both sides of the political divide.
Sadly, I've checked my birth certificate and am unable to stand.
O'Malley is also worth a look by the way.
Did you read either?
Might is right?
The UK is not as rich or as powerful but don't we have the same problem with uninspiring candidates? I mean what's the offer next time, Cameron or Miliband - not exactly charismatic or inspirational are they. Perhaps the problem is that our system (including the MSM) now positively discourages anyone who can actually lead from standing for office.
The GOP names I listed were all front-runners at some stage. I could reasonably add Palin and Trump, who never formally stood but did lead in the polls at various points.
The Dems can't match that.
My wife thinks he's funny. I react to him like SO does to Jim Davidson.
A right-wing liberal would argue that this is a sign of success - one can change the country without having to do so via the State, and as a leftie I also welcome an open society that people can change without having permission from the State to do so - but there are clearly some decisions that should be made democratically and collectively, and that doesn't appear to be going so well lately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27796739
"Mr Penning said a decision in March to end Atos's contract early was based on the fact that he had lost faith in the firm. "
I believe that ATOS walked away from the contract as it was "unworkable" amongst other things?
Given ATOS's usual response to criticism, I would expect a minor spat to develop
Edit: That said, my money's still on the Dems to win the big prize in 2016.
In the UK, our pool is confined to an MP who is elected to a safe-ish seat, who butters up a few friendly political commentators and then tickles the right tummies with the leadership/backbenchers. It means that those who succeed have to come from the established political class, by definition.
I used to find that kind of "always sarcastic/always finding fault with successful people" approach funny, so just because I have changed my mind I shouldnt have a pop at people who still like it. It just seems to me that old school comics take the mick out of everyone, whereas the more lefty ones only take the mick out of more successful/better looking/richer people.
It was 1/100 in my book that The Guardian would mention Beckhams mispronounciation of "fillet",., and they managed it twice.
Labour still have something to learn.
It's pathetic, Neil.
When I were a lad, we changed in shoeboxes and washed down afterwards in cattle-troughs.
You tell anybody that today, they wouldn't believe you.
"There's still a reasonable chance Warren will run just to get her issue advocacy more attention."
She's said she won't run. Do you see her changing her mind? I don't.
EDIT: I agree about O'Malley. He may well run, but he's token opposition.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) education chief Andreas Schleicher said pupils must try harder....
Mr Schleicher's comments come as First Minister Carwyn Jones gives a speech in Cardiff on the evaluations.
The education chief told BBC Radio Wales: "I think, in part, it's because other education systems have improved their performance and in relative terms Wales has declined.
"It's also been an actual slippage and there's sort of less aspiration and less ambition in the system.
"You can expect a lower performance from disadvantaged schools but the fact that even schools in well-off areas of Wales don't live up to other schools in similar conditions shows that there is a bit of complacency in the system.".....
Mr Schleicher criticised Wales for a lack of long-term vision for education.
He said: "Your education system today is your economy tomorrow.
"There's a very, very close linkage between the skills that people develop in school and what they're able to do later in life. Our economies are evolving very rapidly. The demand for better skills, for the right skills.
"The knowledge economy no longer pays you for what you know... it pays you for what you can do with what you know."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-27785129
The nature of the seats being contested should give the Republicans control of the Senate in November, although the playing field will favour the Democrats in 2016 (and the Republicans again in 2018).
"It generally determines historical outcomes."
Given the latest report on our armed services, we had better keep a low profile then?
What a #bitch after we gave her shelter in our city when she was a single mum. http://fb.me/17RMtBZ0l
Charming....
Well I read the Telegraph and The Guardian and The Telegraph seemed more positive.
To be honest, my main beef was when Beckham mispronounced "fillet" as "fillay".. I wasnt 100% sure it was "fillet" myself but felt a bit embarrassed for him... maybe my resentment of The Guardian was that I just KNEW (apols for caps) that they would mention it, and they did twice. Apart from that they weren't too bad, just not as positive as The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10887510/David-Beckham-Into-the-Unknown-BBC-One-review-Beckham-laid-bare.html
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jun/10/david-beckham-into-the-unknown-tv-review?CMP=twt_gu
"Plans to scale back the UK's regular Army and increase reservists come with "significant risks" to its operational abilities, the National Audit Office has warned."
"The spending watchdog's report said the decision was taken without "appropriate testing of feasibility".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27794717
On the money issue, I think you are being over generous. Without serious dosh to spend nobody stands a chance of getting anywhere in the US system and I read that the same, albeit on a much smaller scale, is now the case for a prospective MP in the UK.
To take Mr. Me's point that clever and good people are now finding other ways to make a difference (e.g. setting-up Fair Trade organisations). Yes, they are but despite all the good they do it is still meddling around the edges. Helpful but not decisive, and to expand their influence they need to lobby those with the actual power, that is to say they need to go grovelling to the uncharismatic thickos who are prepared to play the party game. It is an inversion of where the power should lie if the best results are to be achieved.
To be fair he said it three times so I thought it must be ok or the BBC would have edited it
Guardian took the piss tho
Oh dear....
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fillet
EDIT: I see Socrates has beat me to it.
I'm not interested in reading the Guardian article mentioned, but it wouldn't be the first time that a journalist has chosen the easy option of sneering, rather than the more interesting option of finding out what lay behind it. Some journalists are still able/willing to go to that effort, though, in the Guardian as much as anywhere else.
EDIT: It is ironic - given the modern attempts to protect the French language from English - that the British English pronunciation of words like "fillet" and "claret" preserve the medieval French pronunciation, from which the modern French has deviated...
P.S. Had to laugh the other day when it was suggested that the UK might send 25 tanks to an exercise in Poland this summer. It would help to make a statement to Russia and deter it from taking further action against the Ukraine, apparently. Yeah, right, 25 tanks is going to really put the wind up Russia's sails. Then there was the Russian Navy battlegroup sailing through the Channel the other week - we sent an air defence ship to escort it, our ship had no anti-ship weapons on board, save a single gun. Why bother? The Russians could have blown our ship out of the water, turned left and occupied London without breaking a sweat. Capabilities are not intentions and all that, fair go, but, really, the state of our defences are now so pathetic we might as well not bother.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100275893/oxfam-are-not-pushing-ed-milibands-agenda-ed-miliband-is-pushing-oxfams-agenda/
[sarcasm aside, I think airships are very cool]
That 41% 'Yes' figure after excluding Don't Knows makes Ladbrokes' offer of 9/2 for their 35% - 40% 'Yes' vote band appear very attractive indeed imho, especially when one considers this is a whopping great 50% improvement on Victor Chandler's 3/1 odds for his LOWER and NARROWER 35% - 39% 'Yes' vote band.
I'm on but DYOR!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2654550/Labour-UKIP-coffee-mornings-MPs-told-host-drop-sessions-talk-constituents-immigration.html
You can waste billions and trillions on conventional weapons but they won't deter any nuclear power, also the alliances are clear from the NATO side so no state is going to attack NATO due to America, Britain and France having nukes.
You can happy drive your self to bankruptcy soviet style by defence spending based on useless paranoia that they other side is poised to invade any moment now.
To give you an idea that the russians know this and laugh (TSE might love this one):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTbL1hH19BE&feature=kp
The answer roused the Tory benches, who cried "more, more!" ("four-nil!" one MP added) and a beaming Cameron turned to his party with pride. The answer all but confirmed that Osborne, Gove and May will remain in their posts in the forthcoming reshuffle ("stick with the team") and served as confirmation that Cameron believes the wind is blowing his way. The problem for Miliband is the increasing number in Labour who think he is right.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/pmqs-review-miliband-targets-incompetence-momentum-cameron
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/pmqs-an-easy-ride-for-cameron/
Weasel words.. Overall there may not be, but for the working class there is a tangible decrease in wages. The only reason the overall effect on wages is negligible is that the high earners make up the deficit
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/20/mass-migration-is-a-tax-on-working-classes#disqus_thread
I like Cathy Newman, but I wouldn't be taking betting hints from her.
"(Fillet he pronounces "fillay", which might come from Posh, or possibly McDonald's?)"
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jun/10/david-beckham-into-the-unknown-tv-review?CMP=twt_gu
–
Also, I checked Betfair last night. There was still £80 or so of cash available to back turnout at 75%+ on the Indy Ref at 2.1 (or evens in old money, after commission)
That beats the less generous 5/6 available at Ladbrokes, which is also for a higher level match line at 78%.
I'm beginning to think maybe Surbiton/suburban thingymejig was right about you.....
Soon to be followed by:
Tupperware parties for social justice?
Anti-poverty Ann Summers evenings?
I'd completely refute that. It's classic east coast liberal territory these days. Was a southern state but demographic change and overspill from DC puts it firmly in the northern camp now. The crab shacks around Chesapeake Bay could barely feel more northern middle class if they tried.
Beautiful state.
"UKIPs vote is highest among the over-65s, most of whom will be retired."
A lot of them will be dead - although as our Northern Ireland posters can testify, that is not necessarily an exclusion from voting.
When? Where?
It will be the first and only response since most of the world would blow up within an hour, that is why there has been no major war between great powers since 1945, nuclear weapons makes it to costly for war as a policy option (clue, which of these 3 states has america invaded and which one is the only one without WMD's : Iran, N.Korea, Iraq).
Alex Salmond says he's ordered his special advisor to apologise for briefing against a mother backing the union. #indyref
ooops
twitter
James Cook @BBCJamesCook 3h
Alex Salmond says he's ordered his special advisor to apologise for briefing against a mother backing the union. #indyref
Financial Times @FT · 33m
JK Rowling may help explain why Scotland's Yes campaign is struggling to convince women: http://on.ft.com/1jkgiuA
Labour can't abide white people who work in the private sector, especially men.
Your question about air power capabilities against serious naval warships is even more interesting. You might want to read it up. I'll give you a starter for 10 the RAF doesn't have any, but that is OK because nor does most of the RN surface fleet.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/articles/2014/06/10/great-scot-the-madness-of-late-stage-nationalism/
Salmond doesn't come out of it too well though.
It's only news when he's not great.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pollingobservatory/100275907/there-has-been-no-westminster-polling-aftershock-since-the-european-parliament-earthquake/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C_fKa8nMMA
Sorry you added this extra bit into your post after I replied:
"You're also assuming that there was nothing following Ivan, underneath the waves...)"
Yes I am, because I can count up to seven. Or is it six now, HMS Tireless decommissioned last week and the Astutes are years behind the replacement plan.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/david-cameron-europe-jean-claude-juncker?CMP=twt_gu On the theory that Juncker can't be shifted so Cameron needs a lollipop, the UK have to send a big politician so they can take one of the big jobs.