The PB Tories assured us that Ed's weirdness - and then his 'weird' apology - on the Sun sideshow would be a disaster for him.
Not so according to Populus, which shows Labour's score rising.
Polling vs PB Tory wishful thinking.
Oh good grief.
Leave him be. Comfort blankets are, well, comforting.
It's a good job someone picks up the rebuttals. The Tory dominance on this site is now so overwhelming that it has long since ceased to be a decent resource for betting.
Damn, didn't realise we were playing PB bingo.
Instead of making waspish comments, why not engage with the point? Pulpstar and Mike himself have lamented the lack of balance on here. Hardly surprising since we are told off for "over posting" when merely pointing out poor predictions.
The PB Tories assured us that Ed's weirdness - and then his 'weird' apology - on the Sun sideshow would be a disaster for him.
Not so according to Populus, which shows Labour's score rising.
Polling vs PB Tory wishful thinking.
Oh good grief.
Leave him be. Comfort blankets are, well, comforting.
It's a good job someone picks up the rebuttals. The Tory dominance on this site is now so overwhelming that it has long since ceased to be a decent resource for betting.
Damn, didn't realise we were playing PB bingo.
Instead of making waspish comments, why not engage with the point? Pulpstar and Mike himself have lamented the lack of balance on here. Hardly surprising since we are told off for "over posting" when merely pointing out poor predictions.
The site doesn't seem unbalanced to me. People have different opinions, gut instincts, outlooks, etc.
Instead of making waspish comments, why not engage with the point? Pulpstar and Mike himself have lamented the lack of balance on here. Hardly surprising since we are told off for "over posting" when merely pointing out poor predictions.
It's hardly Mike's fault that Labour supporters are demoralised or embarrassed or have nothing to say, so they don't post much.
In contrast, Nats and Kippers are clearly enthusiastic and so post in greater numbers than you would expect.
What this tells us about differential enthusiasm is actually quite useful information from a betting point of view.
The PB Tories assured us that Ed's weirdness - and then his 'weird' apology - on the Sun sideshow would be a disaster for him.
Not so according to Populus, which shows Labour's score rising.
Polling vs PB Tory wishful thinking.
Oh good grief.
Leave him be. Comfort blankets are, well, comforting.
It's a good job someone picks up the rebuttals. The Tory dominance on this site is now so overwhelming that it has long since ceased to be a decent resource for betting.
Damn, didn't realise we were playing PB bingo.
Instead of making waspish comments, why not engage with the point? Pulpstar and Mike himself have lamented the lack of balance on here. Hardly surprising since we are told off for "over posting" when merely pointing out poor predictions.
The site doesn't seem unbalanced to me. People have different opinions, gut instincts, outlooks, etc.
The site is massively Tory dominated. No doubt about it.
As I remember, there were only 77 LD that voted in Cambridge on the Clegg issue. Only 77 active LD in one of the most liberal parts of Britain is a bad sign.
As I remember, there were only 77 LD that voted in Cambridge on the Clegg issue. Only 77 active LD in one of the most liberal parts of Britain is a bad sign.
Was it during term time? Presumably half the local party (or more) will be students.
Moving away from this tiresome topic, house prices now appear to be falling. I can't decide whether this is bad news for the government or otherwise. Thoughts?
As I remember, there were only 77 LD that voted in Cambridge on the Clegg issue. Only 77 active LD in one of the most liberal parts of Britain is a bad sign.
Was it during term time? Presumably half the local party (or more) will be students.
Moving away from this tiresome topic, house prices now appear to be falling. I can't decide whether this is bad news for the government or otherwise. Thoughts?
As always with house prices it depends on which figures you are looking at.
To think that when Scotland is an independent nation it will be able to appear in the World Cup
Er! Please check, or have you been relying on your own Gunn to shoot off "facts"? Scotland has appeared in the World Cup, in '74, '78, '82,'86,'90 and last time in 1998, and will again in 2018 with Alec Salmond scoring the winning goal against Brazil in the final.
@BobaFett I've just suggested there is doubt. To me there seems plenty of representation from all threads of opinion. Of course I sometimes in the midst of threads begin to think that other persuasions are dominant, but that is often because my points are being challenged. I maintain that the site is broadly balanced, though and one of the best places to argue because of that.
As I remember, there were only 77 LD that voted in Cambridge on the Clegg issue. Only 77 active LD in one of the most liberal parts of Britain is a bad sign.
Was it during term time? Presumably half the local party (or more) will be students.
It was only 2 weeks ago.
During May week?
You'd be lucky to get a student to vote on moving pub, let alone a theoretical recall of Nick Clegg.
Instead of making waspish comments, why not engage with the point? Pulpstar and Mike himself have lamented the lack of balance on here. Hardly surprising since we are told off for "over posting" when merely pointing out poor predictions.
It's hardly Mike's fault that Labour supporters are demoralised or embarrassed or have nothing to say, so they don't post much.
In contrast, Nats and Kippers are clearly enthusiastic and so post in greater numbers than you would expect.
What this tells us about differential enthusiasm is actually quite useful information from a betting point of view.
I'm not blaming Mike! Actually UKPR has the same problem in reverse. So Labour dominated is it, it's ceased to be much use for political insight. Perhaps the two sites could do a spy-swap as in the Cold War? :-)
A by-election in Portsmouth South which the LDs lose would probably be fatal for Clegg.
Is a by-election that likely there? I know the issues etching but don't see a vast appetite for one
There doesn't appear to be much chance of a by-election. The only recent development is that Mike Hancock's son was convicted a few days ago of attacking a press photographer:
As I remember, there were only 77 LD that voted in Cambridge on the Clegg issue. Only 77 active LD in one of the most liberal parts of Britain is a bad sign.
Was it during term time? Presumably half the local party (or more) will be students.
It was only 2 weeks ago.
During May week?
You'd be lucky to get a student to vote on moving pub, let alone a theoretical recall of Nick Clegg.
It was the beginning of June when they voted.
It's good times to be a diplomat today.
The Associated Press @AP · 27m BREAKING: Kerry: US open to talks with Iran over Iraq, won't rule out military cooperation.
Moving away from this tiresome topic, house prices now appear to be falling. I can't decide whether this is bad news for the government or otherwise. Thoughts?
Whether or not it is good for the government, if house prices are really falling then that is very good news for the country as a whole. From the peak of the last boom house prices had to drop by 50% to get back to long term trend and affordability. That didn't happen (wasn't allowed to happen?) and so still too much money is tied up in unproductive assets.
The PB Tories assured us that Ed's weirdness - and then his 'weird' apology - on the Sun sideshow would be a disaster for him.
Not so according to Populus, which shows Labour's score rising.
Polling vs PB Tory wishful thinking.
Oh good grief.
Leave him be. Comfort blankets are, well, comforting.
It's a good job someone picks up the rebuttals. The Tory dominance on this site is now so overwhelming that it has long since ceased to be a decent resource for betting.
Damn, didn't realise we were playing PB bingo.
Instead of making waspish comments, why not engage with the point? Pulpstar and Mike himself have lamented the lack of balance on here. Hardly surprising since we are told off for "over posting" when merely pointing out poor predictions.
The site doesn't seem unbalanced to me. People have different opinions, gut instincts, outlooks, etc.
The site is massively Tory dominated. No doubt about it.
Reminds me of Michael Flanders' waspish comment on the Corporation of London:
"They're completely apolitical. They all vote Conservative"
A by-election in Portsmouth South which the LDs lose would probably be fatal for Clegg.
Is a by-election that likely there? I know the issues etching but don't see a vast appetite for one
There doesn't appear to be much chance of a by-election. The only recent development is that Mike Hancock's son was convicted a few days ago of attacking a press photographer:
The site is massively Tory dominated. No doubt about it.
The anti-Labour and anti-Liberal Democrat groups are larger than the anti-UKIP group which is in turn larger than the anti-Conservative group. The main change on this site and it really began with the onset of the recession is that those who support one Party see nothing positive in any of the other parties. They are uncritical adherents of their own side and vitriolic critics of every aspect of the other sides. It has become partisan.
I remember being able to discuss politics with the likes of Sean F, Marcus, David H and others and we all admitted our respective parties had faults and failings. That seems to be gone now and it's a regret. Even Sean T, who used to be witty and ascerbic, has degenerated into a right-wing caricature of his former glory.
On to more important matters and as I have a busy couple of days coming up, a few thoughts on Ascot tomorrow and Wednesday. The Queen Anne should go to TORONADO but it's his seasonal bow and we simply don't know if he has retained his form so I wouldn't be playing at 10/11. The French horse ANODIN interests me e/w at 16s - he wouldn't be the first French horse to improve for quicker ground.
The King's Stand is essentially a re-run of last year with the added factor of some useful sprinting 3-y-o such as HOT STREAK. I'm not going to have a bet but if I found a tenner in the street tomorrow morning, I might back SOLE POWER who we know goes on the track.
The St James's Palace is the highlight of day one by some way. I wouldn't rush to back KINGMAN at odds-on and it's not often a Guineas winner comes to this race as second favourite so NIGHT OF THUNDER has a lot going for him at 9/4. TOORMORE will be a lot closer than he was at Newmarket and he'd be my saver at 8/1 but obviously with only seven it's not an e/w race.
As for the Prince of Wales on Wednesday, I hope we see TREVE as the champion she looked last October in Paris but I won't back her - I quite like DANK each-way as long as the eight all run.
A by-election in Portsmouth South which the LDs lose would probably be fatal for Clegg.
Is a by-election that likely there? I know the issues etching but don't see a vast appetite for one
There doesn't appear to be much chance of a by-election. The only recent development is that Mike Hancock's son was convicted a few days ago of attacking a press photographer:
Isn't Mr Hancock senior currently in a clinic of some kind? If he's ill, that can lead to a by-election.
It would be a very exciting by-election :-)
UKIP would have a great chance but... The LibDem organisation in Portsmouth is still quite strong...
I'd reckon UKIP would be (narrow) favourites.
But Mr Hancock is not going to resign. And I haven't heard him being so ill that death was on the cards. (And if he were to pass after October, I don't think we'd have a by-election, anyway).
Come 2015, Portsmouth South could well be a fascinating four-way marginal. I'd expect to see the Libs (who are still have the most council seats in the constituency) to garner 30%, Labour and Cons to be around 25%, and UKIP on 20%.
But that's based on the LibDems being on 14% nationwide. If they're on 12% they'd probably lose the seat.
A by-election in Portsmouth South which the LDs lose would probably be fatal for Clegg.
Is a by-election that likely there? I know the issues etching but don't see a vast appetite for one
There doesn't appear to be much chance of a by-election. The only recent development is that Mike Hancock's son was convicted a few days ago of attacking a press photographer:
Isn't Mr Hancock senior currently in a clinic of some kind? If he's ill, that can lead to a by-election.
It would be a very exciting by-election :-)
UKIP would have a great chance but... The LibDem organisation in Portsmouth is still quite strong...
I'd reckon UKIP would be (narrow) favourites.
But Mr Hancock is not going to resign. And I haven't heard him being so ill that death was on the cards. (And if he were to pass after October, I don't think we'd have a by-election, anyway).
Come 2015, Portsmouth South could well be a fascinating four-way marginal. I'd expect to see the Libs (who are still have the most council seats in the constituency) to garner 30%, Labour and Cons to be around 25%, and UKIP on 20%.
But that's based on the LibDems being on 14% nationwide. If they're on 12% they'd probably lose the seat.
So you don't see any negative impact from the particular circumstances of the current incumbent?
The site is massively Tory dominated. No doubt about it.
The anti-Labour and anti-Liberal Democrat groups are larger than the anti-UKIP group which is in turn larger than the anti-Conservative group. The main change on this site and it really began with the onset of the recession is that those who support one Party see nothing positive in any of the other parties. They are uncritical adherents of their own side and vitriolic critics of every aspect of the other sides. It has become partisan.
I remember being able to discuss politics with the likes of Sean F, Marcus, David H and others and we all admitted our respective parties had faults and failings. That seems to be gone now and it's a regret. Even Sean T, who used to be witty and ascerbic, has degenerated into a right-wing caricature of his former glory.
On to more important matters and as I have a busy couple of days coming up, a few thoughts on Ascot tomorrow and Wednesday. The Queen Anne should go to TORONADO but it's his seasonal bow and we simply don't know if he has retained his form so I wouldn't be playing at 10/11. The French horse ANODIN interests me e/w at 16s - he wouldn't be the first French horse to improve for quicker ground.
The King's Stand is essentially a re-run of last year with the added factor of some useful sprinting 3-y-o such as HOT STREAK. I'm not going to have a bet but if I found a tenner in the street tomorrow morning, I might back SOLE POWER who we know goes on the track.
The St James's Palace is the highlight of day one by some way. I wouldn't rush to back KINGMAN at odds-on and it's not often a Guineas winner comes to this race as second favourite so NIGHT OF THUNDER has a lot going for him at 9/4. TOORMORE will be a lot closer than he was at Newmarket and he'd be my saver at 8/1 but obviously with only seven it's not an e/w race.
As for the Prince of Wales on Wednesday, I hope we see TREVE as the champion she looked last October in Paris but I won't back her - I quite like DANK each-way as long as the eight all run.
My party at the time is now my former party.
However, my current party, UKIP, certainly has plenty of faults.
"But so long as everyone knew they were being monitored and understood what for, I don't see why it should be such a terrifying idea" ... "Far from making work less civilised, the arrival of Big Brother could make it more so."
The PB Tories assured us that Ed's weirdness - and then his 'weird' apology - on the Sun sideshow would be a disaster for him.
Not so according to Populus, which shows Labour's score rising.
Polling vs PB Tory wishful thinking.
The problem is that Ed Milliband is very poorly rated by the public. That may not necessarily be fatal to Labour (depending on how the non-Labour vote splits, Labour might form a government with 31% of the vote) but it certainly makes Labour's task far harder.
"But so long as everyone knew they were being monitored and understood what for, I don't see why it should be such a terrifying idea" ... "Far from making work less civilised, the arrival of Big Brother could make it more so."
Wow that article is so wrong on almost every level. The author needs to go have a long lie down in a very dark room.
"But so long as everyone knew they were being monitored and understood what for, I don't see why it should be such a terrifying idea" ... "Far from making work less civilised, the arrival of Big Brother could make it more so."
A by-election in Portsmouth South which the LDs lose would probably be fatal for Clegg.
Is a by-election that likely there? I know the issues etching but don't see a vast appetite for one
There doesn't appear to be much chance of a by-election. The only recent development is that Mike Hancock's son was convicted a few days ago of attacking a press photographer:
Isn't Mr Hancock senior currently in a clinic of some kind? If he's ill, that can lead to a by-election.
It would be a very exciting by-election :-)
UKIP would have a great chance but... The LibDem organisation in Portsmouth is still quite strong...
I'd reckon UKIP would be (narrow) favourites.
But Mr Hancock is not going to resign. And I haven't heard him being so ill that death was on the cards. (And if he were to pass after October, I don't think we'd have a by-election, anyway).
Come 2015, Portsmouth South could well be a fascinating four-way marginal. I'd expect to see the Libs (who are still have the most council seats in the constituency) to garner 30%, Labour and Cons to be around 25%, and UKIP on 20%.
But that's based on the LibDems being on 14% nationwide. If they're on 12% they'd probably lose the seat.
So you don't see any negative impact from the particular circumstances of the current incumbent?
I was working on the theory that the current incumbent won't be standing in 2015.
Portsmouth South LibDems did OK in May, keeping three of the four seats they held in the constituency (the one where they lost was where Mike Hancock was standing!). If you count Hancock as a LibDem (as they didn't stand against him in this seat), then these were the results:
UKIP Lab Con LibDem Central Southsea 574 542 597 1078 Charles Dickens 940 706 326 913 Eastney & Cransewater 574 372 1550 1104 Fratton 903 754 498 628 Milton 887 770 759 1096 St Jude 395 382 1166 843 St Thoma 560 514 1069 1233
A by-election in Portsmouth South which the LDs lose would probably be fatal for Clegg.
Is a by-election that likely there? I know the issues etching but don't see a vast appetite for one
There doesn't appear to be much chance of a by-election. The only recent development is that Mike Hancock's son was convicted a few days ago of attacking a press photographer:
Isn't Mr Hancock senior currently in a clinic of some kind? If he's ill, that can lead to a by-election.
It would be a very exciting by-election :-)
UKIP would have a great chance but... The LibDem organisation in Portsmouth is still quite strong...
I'd reckon UKIP would be (narrow) favourites.
But Mr Hancock is not going to resign. And I haven't heard him being so ill that death was on the cards. (And if he were to pass after October, I don't think we'd have a by-election, anyway).
Come 2015, Portsmouth South could well be a fascinating four-way marginal. I'd expect to see the Libs (who are still have the most council seats in the constituency) to garner 30%, Labour and Cons to be around 25%, and UKIP on 20%.
But that's based on the LibDems being on 14% nationwide. If they're on 12% they'd probably lose the seat.
BAe's decisions about shipbuilding in Portsmouth to which both the Lib Dems and Conservatives have acquiesced with barely a yip would surely have an effect on any by-election and, for that matter, at the GE next year.
If there was a by-election then my money would be on UKIP. At the 2015 GE I am less sure but on balance I'd probably go for a Labour win with UKIP a close second.
"But so long as everyone knew they were being monitored and understood what for, I don't see why it should be such a terrifying idea" ... "Far from making work less civilised, the arrival of Big Brother could make it more so."
Wow that article is so wrong on almost every level. The author needs to go have a long lie down in a very dark room.
To put it in context, Lucy writes purely on "management topics" so doesn't really focus on the philosophical aspect that are - I assume - the basis of your concerns. She's pretty level headed (most of the time). I did like this comment though:
In most offices a raft of mainly pointless, cumbersome tools are used to assess performance, including "competency matrices", appraisal interviews and psychometric testing. Together they are so ineffective that according to a delightful piece of research by the University of Catania, companies would be no worse off if they promoted people at random. </>
Re: Mike Hancock "...a High Court hearing over the civil case lodged by Mr Hancock’s alleged victim is no longer happening on Monday while discussions take place over a potential settlement and an apology by the MP. An announcement is expected to be made within days about the future of the civil proceedings."
Greenpeace says the staff member, who worked in its international finance unit, was not acting for personal gain but failed to obtain authorisation from senior management. He has since been released from his contract.
Is "released from your contract" the latest euphemism?
"But so long as everyone knew they were being monitored and understood what for, I don't see why it should be such a terrifying idea" ... "Far from making work less civilised, the arrival of Big Brother could make it more so."
Wow that article is so wrong on almost every level. The author needs to go have a long lie down in a very dark room.
To put it in context, Lucy writes purely on "management topics" so doesn't really focus on the philosophical aspect that are - I assume - the basis of your concerns. She's pretty level headed (most of the time). I did like this comment though:
In most offices a raft of mainly pointless, cumbersome tools are used to assess performance, including "competency matrices", appraisal interviews and psychometric testing. Together they are so ineffective that according to a delightful piece of research by the University of Catania, companies would be no worse off if they promoted people at random. </>
Mike Hancock may stand again at the next general election even if he is excluded from doing so under a Lib Dem banner. If so, Portsmouth South could be a five way marginal.
When was the last time that five different candidates had serious prospects of success?
A by-election in Portsmouth South which the LDs lose would probably be fatal for Clegg.
Is a by-election that likely there? I know the issues etching but don't see a vast appetite for one
There doesn't appear to be much chance of a by-election. The only recent development is that Mike Hancock's son was convicted a few days ago of attacking a press photographer:
Isn't Mr Hancock senior currently in a clinic of some kind? If he's ill, that can lead to a by-election.
It would be a very exciting by-election :-)
UKIP would have a great chance but... The LibDem organisation in Portsmouth is still quite strong...
I'd reckon UKIP would be (narrow) favourites.
But Mr Hancock is not going to resign. And I haven't heard him being so ill that death was on the cards. (And if he were to pass after October, I don't think we'd have a by-election, anyway).
Come 2015, Portsmouth South could well be a fascinating four-way marginal. I'd expect to see the Libs (who are still have the most council seats in the constituency) to garner 30%, Labour and Cons to be around 25%, and UKIP on 20%.
But that's based on the LibDems being on 14% nationwide. If they're on 12% they'd probably lose the seat.
So you don't see any negative impact from the particular circumstances of the current incumbent?
I was working on the theory that the current incumbent won't be standing in 2015.
Portsmouth South LibDems did OK in May, keeping three of the four seats they held in the constituency (the one where they lost was where Mike Hancock was standing!). If you count Hancock as a LibDem (as they didn't stand against him in this seat), then these were the results:
UKIP Lab Con LibDem Central Southsea 574 542 597 1078 Charles Dickens 940 706 326 913 Eastney & Cransewater 574 372 1550 1104 Fratton 903 754 498 628 Milton 887 770 759 1096 St Jude 395 382 1166 843 St Thoma 560 514 1069 1233
4833 4040 5965 6895
Gah! Getting preformatted text in properly sucks.
I assume he's not standing - question is whether the loss of incumbency will have an impact, although partially offset by the strong local presence. Locals suggest, though, that any "negative personal vote" will be restricted to the individual rather than the party
A by-election in Portsmouth South which the LDs lose would probably be fatal for Clegg.
Is a by-election that likely there? I know the issues etching but don't see a vast appetite for one
There doesn't appear to be much chance of a by-election. The only recent development is that Mike Hancock's son was convicted a few days ago of attacking a press photographer:
Isn't Mr Hancock senior currently in a clinic of some kind? If he's ill, that can lead to a by-election.
It would be a very exciting by-election :-)
UKIP would have a great chance but... The LibDem organisation in Portsmouth is still quite strong...
I'd reckon UKIP would be (narrow) favourites.
But Mr Hancock is not going to resign. And I haven't heard him being so ill that death was on the cards. (And if he were to pass after October, I don't think we'd have a by-election, anyway).
Come 2015, Portsmouth South could well be a fascinating four-way marginal. I'd expect to see the Libs (who are still have the most council seats in the constituency) to garner 30%, Labour and Cons to be around 25%, and UKIP on 20%.
But that's based on the LibDems being on 14% nationwide. If they're on 12% they'd probably lose the seat.
BAe's decisions about shipbuilding in Portsmouth to which both the Lib Dems and Conservatives have acquiesced with barely a yip would surely have an effect on any by-election and, for that matter, at the GE next year.
If there was a by-election then my money would be on UKIP. At the 2015 GE I am less sure but on balance I'd probably go for a Labour win with UKIP a close second.
I think the LDs 'won' Portsmouth South in the May elections. UKIP were stronger in Portsmouth North.
A by-election in Portsmouth South which the LDs lose would probably be fatal for Clegg.
Is a by-election that likely there? I know the issues etching but don't see a vast appetite for one
There doesn't appear to be much chance of a by-election. The only recent development is that Mike Hancock's son was convicted a few days ago of attacking a press photographer:
Isn't Mr Hancock senior currently in a clinic of some kind? If he's ill, that can lead to a by-election.
It would be a very exciting by-election :-)
UKIP would have a great chance but... The LibDem organisation in Portsmouth is still quite strong...
I'd reckon UKIP would be (narrow) favourites.
But Mr Hancock is not going to resign. And I haven't heard him being so ill that death was on the cards. (And if he were to pass after October, I don't think we'd have a by-election, anyway).
Come 2015, Portsmouth South could well be a fascinating four-way marginal. I'd expect to see the Libs (who are still have the most council seats in the constituency) to garner 30%, Labour and Cons to be around 25%, and UKIP on 20%.
But that's based on the LibDems being on 14% nationwide. If they're on 12% they'd probably lose the seat.
BAe's decisions about shipbuilding in Portsmouth to which both the Lib Dems and Conservatives have acquiesced with barely a yip would surely have an effect on any by-election and, for that matter, at the GE next year.
If there was a by-election then my money would be on UKIP. At the 2015 GE I am less sure but on balance I'd probably go for a Labour win with UKIP a close second.
I think the LDs 'won' Portsmouth South in the May elections. UKIP were stronger in Portsmouth North.
"Even Sean T, who used to be witty and ascerbic, has degenerated into a right-wing caricature of his former glory."
Funnily enough, I can't remember you ever saying I was "glorious" at the time, if anything, I recall the opposite.
If my standard of commentary has descended on here it's cause
1. I'm slightly bored of the site (no offence to OGH, it's just the cycle of life) 2. I now get paid to come up with bon mots elsewhere, why give 'em away for free here 3. I am now rich and surrounded by comely young women, this is a distraction 4. Being rich and surrounded by comely young women makes a man less grumpy, so maybe I am less acerbic for that reason 5. WHO GIVES A FECK WHAT YOU THINK ANYWAY, YOU HAPLESS DILDO
Nonetheless, as a more neutral observer who visits the site much less often than I did, I can't say it has changed much. It's been vaguely proTory since i joined in about 2005, yet it remains a valuable and very interesting website, one of the few places where you can hear articulate opinions of all persuasions, plus stuff about trains, God and Carthaginian war strategy.
Long may pb endure.
Talking of trains, I haven't heard from @JosiasJessop recently?
"But so long as everyone knew they were being monitored and understood what for, I don't see why it should be such a terrifying idea" ... "Far from making work less civilised, the arrival of Big Brother could make it more so."
Wow that article is so wrong on almost every level. The author needs to go have a long lie down in a very dark room.
To put it in context, Lucy writes purely on "management topics" so doesn't really focus on the philosophical aspect that are - I assume - the basis of your concerns. She's pretty level headed (most of the time). I did like this comment though:
In most offices a raft of mainly pointless, cumbersome tools are used to assess performance, including "competency matrices", appraisal interviews and psychometric testing. Together they are so ineffective that according to a delightful piece of research by the University of Catania, companies would be no worse off if they promoted people at random. </>
Yes that was sensible, the amount of time and effort that goes into performance reviews and the like are massively disproportionate to their utility.
You miss the point of such things. They are not there to enhance the performance of the organisation. No. No. They exist to enhance the the power of the Human Resources Department. It is all part of the march of the B Ark people, which is slowly but surely destroying our ability to compete and survive.
Actually, before I disappear to go do SOME PROPER PAID WRITING (NB, STODGE), I have an observation to make with POTENTIAL BETTING IMPLICATIONS.
The odds on the indyref seem out of whack with the latest polls.
The three most recent polls - Survation, ICM and Panelbase - all have YES within striking distance of victory.
Now, personally, I believe NO will win, but it will be close, and closer than I would have said two weeks ago, and way closer than I would have said a year ago.
Yet some of the odds on NO winning have it as practically a dead cert: 1/7 Boyle Express, 1/6 Coral, 1/6 William Hill.
Conversely, some of the odds on YES seem a tad generous, given the narrowing polls: 4/1 Boyleexpress, 7/2 Bet Victor, 7/2 Paddypower.
Just an observation for the wagerly-minded.
And now, to work.
Hey Sean, if you want 4/1, I'll give you it. Drop me an email with your stake size
"But so long as everyone knew they were being monitored and understood what for, I don't see why it should be such a terrifying idea" ... "Far from making work less civilised, the arrival of Big Brother could make it more so."
Wow that article is so wrong on almost every level. The author needs to go have a long lie down in a very dark room.
To put it in context, Lucy writes purely on "management topics" so doesn't really focus on the philosophical aspect that are - I assume - the basis of your concerns. She's pretty level headed (most of the time). I did like this comment though:
In most offices a raft of mainly pointless, cumbersome tools are used to assess performance, including "competency matrices", appraisal interviews and psychometric testing. Together they are so ineffective that according to a delightful piece of research by the University of Catania, companies would be no worse off if they promoted people at random. </>
Yes that was sensible, the amount of time and effort that goes into performance reviews and the like are massively disproportionate to their utility.
You miss the point of such things. They are not there to enhance the performance of the organisation. No. No. They exist to enhance the the power of the Human Resources Department. It is all part of the march of the B Ark people, which is slowly but surely destroying our ability to compete and survive.
Well quite. My last review had 27 pages of objectives. The first of which was the ironic "ensure achievable objectives"
Anecdote alert: my other half over the weekend announced unprompted "that for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting for the Conservatives at the general election". This came as a surprise to me because I'd always vaguely got the impression that he was a rather unusual Lib Dem - we don't really talk much about politics.
His rationale? The screw-up over the passports, which he considered unacceptable in this day and age.
He did not disclose who he was considering voting for.
"Even Sean T, who used to be witty and ascerbic, has degenerated into a right-wing caricature of his former glory."
Funnily enough, I can't remember you ever saying I was "glorious" at the time, if anything, I recall the opposite.
If my standard of commentary has descended on here it's cause
1. I'm slightly bored of the site (no offence to OGH, it's just the cycle of life) 2. I now get paid to come up with bon mots elsewhere, why give 'em away for free here 3. I am now rich and surrounded by comely young women, this is a distraction 4. Being rich and surrounded by comely young women makes a man less grumpy, so maybe I am less acerbic for that reason 5. WHO GIVES A FECK WHAT YOU THINK ANYWAY, YOU HAPLESS DILDO
Nonetheless, as a more neutral observer who visits the site much less often than I did, I can't say it has changed much. It's been vaguely proTory since i joined in about 2005, yet it remains a valuable and very interesting website, one of the few places where you can hear articulate opinions of all persuasions, plus stuff about trains, God and Carthaginian war strategy.
Long may pb endure.
Talking of trains, I haven't heard from @JosiasJessop recently?
Does anyone have an email for Mr. Jessop. If so could they please check that he is OK?
Anecdote alert: my other half over the weekend announced unprompted "that for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting for the Conservatives at the general election". This came as a surprise to me because I'd always vaguely got the impression that he was a rather unusual Lib Dem - we don't really talk much about politics.
His rationale? The screw-up over the passports, which he considered unacceptable in this day and age.
He did not disclose who he was considering voting for.
@BobaFett I've just suggested there is doubt. To me there seems plenty of representation from all threads of opinion. Of course I sometimes in the midst of threads begin to think that other persuasions are dominant, but that is often because my points are being challenged. I maintain that the site is broadly balanced, though and one of the best places to argue because of that.
Broadly agree with that - there are somewhat more Tories and Kippers than in the public at large, but I don't really feel under siege. And there's a fair amount of self-criticism around - Richard Tyndall is openly sceptical about aspects of UKIP to the point that I wonder if he'll stay with them, David Herdson is rarely seriously partisan, Southam Observer eyes Labour with sombre lack of enthusiasm, and I murmur something discreetly off-message now and then (disagreed with the Juncker policy today). There are a few Tory trolls like ScottP and Moniker (who endearingly pursues his Euroscepticism from his home in Italy), which give the impression of more bias than there is.We could do with a SLAB and a Plaid contributor though.
The most important factor in Portsmouth South and North ( for that matter ) next year will be the fate of the minority Conservative administration which foolishly took over control of the council after May's elections . They have only 12 councillors compared to Lib Dems 19 and 1 Ind Lib Dem . To get any significant measure passed they will have to get the votes of all the 4 Labour and 6 UKIP councillors will have to vote with the Conservatives , abstaining will not be enough . The consensus locally is that it will all end in tears within a few months with the council having to find £12.5 million of cuts . There are also local rumours that one of the elected UKIP councillors may resign fairly quickly as they did not expect to win and actually do something .
Some important polling information about the things people say make them feel insecure.If ever a case were made for stronger unions and worker protection,it is this.
"Even Sean T, who used to be witty and ascerbic, has degenerated into a right-wing caricature of his former glory."
Funnily enough, I can't remember you ever saying I was "glorious" at the time, if anything, I recall the opposite.
If my standard of commentary has descended on here it's cause
1. I'm slightly bored of the site (no offence to OGH, it's just the cycle of life) 2. I now get paid to come up with bon mots elsewhere, why give 'em away for free here 3. I am now rich and surrounded by comely young women, this is a distraction 4. Being rich and surrounded by comely young women makes a man less grumpy, so maybe I am less acerbic for that reason 5. WHO GIVES A FECK WHAT YOU THINK ANYWAY, YOU HAPLESS DILDO
Nonetheless, as a more neutral observer who visits the site much less often than I did, I can't say it has changed much. It's been vaguely proTory since i joined in about 2005, yet it remains a valuable and very interesting website, one of the few places where you can hear articulate opinions of all persuasions, plus stuff about trains, God and Carthaginian war strategy.
Long may pb endure.
Talking of trains, I haven't heard from @JosiasJessop recently?
Anecdote alert: my other half over the weekend announced unprompted "that for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting for the Conservatives at the general election". This came as a surprise to me because I'd always vaguely got the impression that he was a rather unusual Lib Dem - we don't really talk much about politics.
His rationale? The screw-up over the passports, which he considered unacceptable in this day and age.
He did not disclose who he was considering voting for.
Ex Gove Spad, Dominic Cummings' line is that screw-ups are the norm:
"[civil servants] are caught between structural dysfunction and politicians running around who don’t really know what they’re doing all day or what the purpose of their being in power is. Everyone thinks there’s some moment, like in a James Bond movie, where you open the door and that’s where the really good people are, but there is no door."
"Even Sean T, who used to be witty and ascerbic, has degenerated into a right-wing caricature of his former glory."
Funnily enough, I can't remember you ever saying I was "glorious" at the time, if anything, I recall the opposite.
If my standard of commentary has descended on here it's cause
1. I'm slightly bored of the site (no offence to OGH, it's just the cycle of life) 2. I now get paid to come up with bon mots elsewhere, why give 'em away for free here 3. I am now rich and surrounded by comely young women, this is a distraction 4. Being rich and surrounded by comely young women makes a man less grumpy, so maybe I am less acerbic for that reason 5. WHO GIVES A FECK WHAT YOU THINK ANYWAY, YOU HAPLESS DILDO
Nonetheless, as a more neutral observer who visits the site much less often than I did, I can't say it has changed much. It's been vaguely proTory since i joined in about 2005, yet it remains a valuable and very interesting website, one of the few places where you can hear articulate opinions of all persuasions, plus stuff about trains, God and Carthaginian war strategy.
Long may pb endure.
All very disappointing - whatever happened to the barbs of "Gaylord Ponceyboots" and the stories of a drug-addled life in Asia ?
Even the formulaic insult (capital letters and a vague sexual reference) is just passé.
You're like one of those bands who put out a really good first album - raw, fresh, full of energy - and become a huge success. By the fourth album, the sound has been over-produced to an incoherent mush of nothingness and mediocrity while wealth, fame and regular casual sex has destroyed whatever energy the band once had.
"Even Sean T, who used to be witty and ascerbic, has degenerated into a right-wing caricature of his former glory."
Funnily enough, I can't remember you ever saying I was "glorious" at the time, if anything, I recall the opposite.
If my standard of commentary has descended on here it's cause
1. I'm slightly bored of the site (no offence to OGH, it's just the cycle of life) 2. I now get paid to come up with bon mots elsewhere, why give 'em away for free here 3. I am now rich and surrounded by comely young women, this is a distraction 4. Being rich and surrounded by comely young women makes a man less grumpy, so maybe I am less acerbic for that reason 5. WHO GIVES A FECK WHAT YOU THINK ANYWAY, YOU HAPLESS DILDO
Nonetheless, as a more neutral observer who visits the site much less often than I did, I can't say it has changed much. It's been vaguely proTory since i joined in about 2005, yet it remains a valuable and very interesting website, one of the few places where you can hear articulate opinions of all persuasions, plus stuff about trains, God and Carthaginian war strategy.
Long may pb endure.
Talking of trains, I haven't heard from @JosiasJessop recently?
Stored awaiting disposal?
The sidings have all been sold off for yuppie flats, don't you know? (Like those at Oxford, now being used to build some ghastly university accommodation seriously messing up the view to and from Port Meadow.) Though I do hope our erstwhile resident engineer is OK.
Plenty of us get paid for writing. Some of us, however, do it for much smaller audiences.
And I suspect the influence of the audience matters more than the size...
I also find it amusing that Sean thinks that having sex with an attractive member of the opposite sex is something unique to him.
Did I claim I was unique??? No, I merely pointed out, with nothing but appropriate modesty, that I'm having sex with approximately 50 women a year, at the moment.
Plenty of us get paid for writing. Some of us, however, do it for much smaller audiences.
And I suspect the influence of the audience matters more than the size...
I also find it amusing that Sean thinks that having sex with an attractive member of the opposite sex is something unique to him.
Did I claim I was unique??? No, I merely pointed out, with nothing but appropriate modesty, that I'm having sex with approximately 50 women a year, at the moment.
Plenty of us get paid for writing. Some of us, however, do it for much smaller audiences.
And I suspect the influence of the audience matters more than the size...
I also find it amusing that Sean thinks that having sex with an attractive member of the opposite sex is something unique to him.
Did I claim I was unique??? No, I merely pointed out, with nothing but appropriate modesty, that I'm having sex with approximately 50 women a year, at the moment.
What percentage of those do you pay for their time?
Actually, before I disappear to go do SOME PROPER PAID WRITING (NB, STODGE), I have an observation to make with POTENTIAL BETTING IMPLICATIONS.
The odds on the indyref seem out of whack with the latest polls.
The three most recent polls - Survation, ICM and Panelbase - all have YES within striking distance of victory.
Now, personally, I believe NO will win, but it will be close, and closer than I would have said two weeks ago, and way closer than I would have said a year ago.
Yet some of the odds on NO winning have it as practically a dead cert: 1/7 Boyle Express, 1/6 Coral, 1/6 William Hill.
Conversely, some of the odds on YES seem a tad generous, given the narrowing polls: 4/1 Boyleexpress, 7/2 Bet Victor, 7/2 Paddypower.
Just an observation for the wagerly-minded.
And now, to work.
Hey Sean, if you want 4/1, I'll give you it. Drop me an email with your stake size
i believe we already have a bet, by proxy, which I am almost certain to win. No? I rest content with that.
However I reiterate my offer of the previous week (did you see it)? I know I still owe you a drink. If NO wins I will make that drink a spliced bottle of champagne in the Groucho. Guaranteed.
Deal?
That's a fair enough offer, thank you.
We'll see regarding our other bet, but the latest stats are definitely heading in my direction. According to Grant's six of the seven largest Chinese provinces are now in recession.
Did you know that $2trillion of 'wealth management products' (i.e. shadow loans) need to be refinanced in China in the next 18 months?
And that China's banking sector is already the largest in the world, in terms of loans? (Accounting for more than a third of global GDP).
Now I know I've led a sheltered life, save for my sojourns around the UK rail network, but what would make a LibDem strap-on different from any other strap-on?
Plenty of us get paid for writing. Some of us, however, do it for much smaller audiences.
And I suspect the influence of the audience matters more than the size...
I also find it amusing that Sean thinks that having sex with an attractive member of the opposite sex is something unique to him.
Did I claim I was unique??? No, I merely pointed out, with nothing but appropriate modesty, that I'm having sex with approximately 50 women a year, at the moment.
Wow. That must be very expensive.
I'm not going to hookers any more. But yes, it is still very expensive: champagne, dinners etc
Plus you have to be a bit more proactive. Put it this way: I'm not getting any sleep. I look and feel about ninety years old.
To be honest I long for the quiet old life of go-go bars, coyote dancers and short time girls in hotpants, when ten minutes was all that was required, followed by a nice chicken penang and a lie down.
Slightly too much channeling '80s Amis, Sean; perhaps you do need a break.
Now I know I've led a sheltered life, save for my sojourns around the UK rail network, but what would make a LibDem strap-on different from any other strap-on?
Plenty of us get paid for writing. Some of us, however, do it for much smaller audiences.
And I suspect the influence of the audience matters more than the size...
I also find it amusing that Sean thinks that having sex with an attractive member of the opposite sex is something unique to him.
Did I claim I was unique??? No, I merely pointed out, with nothing but appropriate modesty, that I'm having sex with approximately 50 women a year, at the moment.
Wow. That must be very expensive.
Not with the sort of women that sleep with a guy within a week of dating.
Anecdote alert: my other half over the weekend announced unprompted "that for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting for the Conservatives at the general election". This came as a surprise to me because I'd always vaguely got the impression that he was a rather unusual Lib Dem - we don't really talk much about politics.
His rationale? The screw-up over the passports, which he considered unacceptable in this day and age.
He did not disclose who he was considering voting for.
I occasionally canvass people who say apparently honestly that they've been with their partner for a decade or more and have no idea how they vote. For political people this is as weird as if they said they'd no idea if their partner liked wine. How can people possibly spend years in each others' company and not discuss politics, ever?
But they do. They Don't Think Politicians Are Important. Good heavens. :-)
Anecdote alert: my other half over the weekend announced unprompted "that for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting for the Conservatives at the general election". This came as a surprise to me because I'd always vaguely got the impression that he was a rather unusual Lib Dem - we don't really talk much about politics.
His rationale? The screw-up over the passports, which he considered unacceptable in this day and age.
He did not disclose who he was considering voting for.
I occasionally canvass people who say apparently honestly that they've been with their partner for a decade or more and have no idea how they vote. For political people this is as weird as if they said they'd no idea if their partner liked wine. How can people possibly spend years in each others' company and not discuss politics, ever?
But they do. They Don't Think Politicians Are Important. Good heavens. :-)
I once saw numbers in the US which showed that (something like) 75% of men voted the same as their partners, while only 50% of women did. Fairly amusing implications.
Anecdote alert: my other half over the weekend announced unprompted "that for the first time in my life I'm considering not voting for the Conservatives at the general election". This came as a surprise to me because I'd always vaguely got the impression that he was a rather unusual Lib Dem - we don't really talk much about politics.
His rationale? The screw-up over the passports, which he considered unacceptable in this day and age.
He did not disclose who he was considering voting for.
I occasionally canvass people who say apparently honestly that they've been with their partner for a decade or more and have no idea how they vote. For political people this is as weird as if they said they'd no idea if their partner liked wine. How can people possibly spend years in each others' company and not discuss politics, ever?
But they do. They Don't Think Politicians Are Important. Good heavens. :-)
There are people out there who take the secret ballot very seriously, and so refuse to say who they vote for on principle. These people will talk about politics a lot, and so it becomes quite clear who they won't be voting for, but they prefer to keep quiet about the vote itself.
Comments
In contrast, Nats and Kippers are clearly enthusiastic and so post in greater numbers than you would expect.
What this tells us about differential enthusiasm is actually quite useful information from a betting point of view.
Only 77 active LD in one of the most liberal parts of Britain is a bad sign.
I've just suggested there is doubt. To me there seems plenty of representation from all threads of opinion. Of course I sometimes in the midst of threads begin to think that other persuasions are dominant, but that is often because my points are being challenged. I maintain that the site is broadly balanced, though and one of the best places to argue because of that.
You'd be lucky to get a student to vote on moving pub, let alone a theoretical recall of Nick Clegg.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27833570
It's good times to be a diplomat today.
The Associated Press @AP · 27m
BREAKING: Kerry: US open to talks with Iran over Iraq, won't rule out military cooperation.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/kerry-us-open-talks-iran-over-iraq
America going from Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran to HELP HELP HELP!
"They're completely apolitical. They all vote Conservative"
Some wickets please England !
I remember being able to discuss politics with the likes of Sean F, Marcus, David H and others and we all admitted our respective parties had faults and failings. That seems to be gone now and it's a regret. Even Sean T, who used to be witty and ascerbic, has degenerated into a right-wing caricature of his former glory.
On to more important matters and as I have a busy couple of days coming up, a few thoughts on Ascot tomorrow and Wednesday. The Queen Anne should go to TORONADO but it's his seasonal bow and we simply don't know if he has retained his form so I wouldn't be playing at 10/11. The French horse ANODIN interests me e/w at 16s - he wouldn't be the first French horse to improve for quicker ground.
The King's Stand is essentially a re-run of last year with the added factor of some useful sprinting 3-y-o such as HOT STREAK. I'm not going to have a bet but if I found a tenner in the street tomorrow morning, I might back SOLE POWER who we know goes on the track.
The St James's Palace is the highlight of day one by some way. I wouldn't rush to back KINGMAN at odds-on and it's not often a Guineas winner comes to this race as second favourite so NIGHT OF THUNDER has a lot going for him at 9/4. TOORMORE will be a lot closer than he was at Newmarket and he'd be my saver at 8/1 but obviously with only seven it's not an e/w race.
As for the Prince of Wales on Wednesday, I hope we see TREVE as the champion she looked last October in Paris but I won't back her - I quite like DANK each-way as long as the eight all run.
UKIP would have a great chance but...
The LibDem organisation in Portsmouth is still quite strong...
I'd reckon UKIP would be (narrow) favourites.
But Mr Hancock is not going to resign. And I haven't heard him being so ill that death was on the cards. (And if he were to pass after October, I don't think we'd have a by-election, anyway).
Come 2015, Portsmouth South could well be a fascinating four-way marginal. I'd expect to see the Libs (who are still have the most council seats in the constituency) to garner 30%, Labour and Cons to be around 25%, and UKIP on 20%.
But that's based on the LibDems being on 14% nationwide. If they're on 12% they'd probably lose the seat.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2014/06/prime-ministers-the-younger-they-become-the-longer-their-political-afterlives.html
However, my current party, UKIP, certainly has plenty of faults.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27813535
"But so long as everyone knew they were being monitored and understood what for, I don't see why it should be such a terrifying idea" ... "Far from making work less civilised, the arrival of Big Brother could make it more so."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/16/greenpeace-loses-3m-pounds-currency-speculation
He'd represented it since 1973:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27508457
Portsmouth South LibDems did OK in May, keeping three of the four seats they held in the constituency (the one where they lost was where Mike Hancock was standing!). If you count Hancock as a LibDem (as they didn't stand against him in this seat), then these were the results: Gah! Getting preformatted text in properly sucks.
If there was a by-election then my money would be on UKIP. At the 2015 GE I am less sure but on balance I'd probably go for a Labour win with UKIP a close second.
Am I Tim, Bobajob, the Last Boy Scout or someone else? I lose track with you as you have suggested I am all and none of them over the years ;-)
In most offices a raft of mainly pointless, cumbersome tools are used to assess performance, including "competency matrices", appraisal interviews and psychometric testing. Together they are so ineffective that according to a delightful piece of research by the University of Catania, companies would be no worse off if they promoted people at random. </>
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037843710900822X
"...a High Court hearing over the civil case lodged by Mr Hancock’s alleged victim is no longer happening on Monday while discussions take place over a potential settlement and an apology by the MP. An announcement is expected to be made within days about the future of the civil proceedings."
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/voters-in-portsmouth-south-snub-mike-hancock-and-turn-to-penny-mordaunt-1-6117096
I think I agree.
Greenpeace says the staff member, who worked in its international finance unit, was not acting for personal gain but failed to obtain authorisation from senior management. He has since been released from his contract.
Is "released from your contract" the latest euphemism?
When was the last time that five different candidates had serious prospects of success?
Sam is the odds-setter, ask him ;-)
Charles - Tory
rcs1000 - Swing voter
Neil - Green
anotherDave - UKIP (?)
antifrank - Swing voter
SeanT - probably votes Tory
PulpStar - not sure
BobaFett - Labour
HurstLlama - UKIP
ToryJim - Tory
Sean Fear - UKIP
stodge - Lib Dem
Speedy - Labour
I also find it amusing that Sean thinks that having sex with an attractive member of the opposite sex is something unique to him.
His rationale? The screw-up over the passports, which he considered unacceptable in this day and age.
He did not disclose who he was considering voting for.
The consensus locally is that it will all end in tears within a few months with the council having to find £12.5 million of cuts . There are also local rumours that one of the elected UKIP councillors may resign fairly quickly as they did not expect to win and actually do something .
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/16/insecure-britain-poll-economic-recovery-immigration?CMP=twt_fd
"[civil servants] are caught between structural dysfunction and politicians running around who don’t really know what they’re doing all day or what the purpose of their being in power is. Everyone thinks there’s some moment, like in a James Bond movie, where you open the door and that’s where the really good people are, but there is no door."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/david-cameron-is-a-tory-not-a-radical-which-is-both-a-strength-and-a-problem/
http://dominiccummings.wordpress.com
Even the formulaic insult (capital letters and a vague sexual reference) is just passé.
You're like one of those bands who put out a really good first album - raw, fresh, full of energy - and become a huge success. By the fourth album, the sound has been over-produced to an incoherent mush of nothingness and mediocrity while wealth, fame and regular casual sex has destroyed whatever energy the band once had.
Like I say, a parody of your former self.
If you use maximal methodology. Slightly better for the Lib Dems.
We'll see regarding our other bet, but the latest stats are definitely heading in my direction. According to Grant's six of the seven largest Chinese provinces are now in recession.
Did you know that $2trillion of 'wealth management products' (i.e. shadow loans) need to be refinanced in China in the next 18 months?
And that China's banking sector is already the largest in the world, in terms of loans? (Accounting for more than a third of global GDP).
Now I know I've led a sheltered life, save for my sojourns around the UK rail network, but what would make a LibDem strap-on different from any other strap-on?
Portugal 3.9
Draw 3.65
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/market?id=1.112173628
[edit: not that I would know either ...]
It wasn't banned before?
Still, they know Britain is on their case now, all it takes is a firm jaw and a finger wag.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27865849
But they do. They Don't Think Politicians Are Important. Good heavens. :-)
Which of course all at PB are.