How many teams have qualified on three points in the past, since the 32 team format was introduced? Realise no team has lost their first two and progressed, but have any teams gone through with W1 L2 ?
From a hazy memory but didn't England do it once ?
How many teams have qualified on three points in the past, since the 32 team format was introduced? Realise no team has lost their first two and progressed, but have any teams gone through with W1 L2 ?
From a hazy memory but didn't England do it once ? maybe euros I cannot recall but I thought they got 3 points and went through somewhere
Bulletin out this morning. Key findings as follows:
•
• For the financial year 2013/14, public sector net borrowing excluding temporary effects of financial interventions (PSNB ex) was £94.9 billion. This was £14.2 billion higher than in 2012/13, when it was £80.7 billion.
• In May 2014, public sector net borrowing excluding the temporary effects of financial interventions, the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the transfers from the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund was £13.3 billion. This was £0.7 billion higher than in May 2013, when it was £12.6 billion.
• In May 2014, public sector net borrowing excluding temporary effects of financial interventions (PSNB ex) was £13.3 billion. This was £4.6 billion higher than in May 2013, when it was £8.7 billion..
In the absence of Alan - explain these figures ALP !!
On topic: Watford is a seat I know quite a lot about. The Conservative team under Richard Harrington did a very good job in building up a campaign from virtually nothing in a short time - the local party had largely disintegrated even before the bizarre and very unpleasant antics of the previous Tory PPC. The Tories were by no means confident of winning last time - I understand that even as late as a couple of weeks before the election they feared they'd miss it by a thousand or more votes.
The picture now is complicated because there are multiple contradictory factors at play. Harrington seems to be working hard as a local MP and he'll have had five years to build up the local organisation - that should help a lot compared with the chaotic position he inherited when he was prevailed upon to become the candidate at a late stage last time. So I think it's reasonable to assume a particularly large first-time incumbency advantage here.
Against that, Watford is obviously not immune to the national picture, and for the moment at least this is less favourable to the Conservatives than it was in 2010. The question, though, is: who will benefit? The national unpopularity of the LibDems suggests it will be hard for them to do so. Ordinarily, you might expect Labour to be the beneficiaries, picking up votes both from the Conservatives and the LibDems, but, on the Ashcroft polling, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Perhaps the most surprising feature of the Ashcroft polling was the quite high UKIP showing. This isn't natural UKIP territory, so I suspect they are picking up protest-vote support for a variety of different reasons, and from each of the other three parties. That may mean their effect is broadly neutral overall.
I agree with those who have said it could be won by any of the Conservatives, LibDems or Labour.
Disclosure: Last time I made quite a large donation to Richard Harrington's campaign, but my net betting position was a bet on the LibDems.
If Dorothy Thornhill stands the Lib Dems could win Watford. I can't see anyone else winning it for them.
Why? For those of you who don't know Watford, imagine a Mayor with the sort of personal popularity Boris enjoys but who is also seen as being very competent. That's Dorothy Thornhill.
And will we even beat Costa Rica? Poor old Stevie G has had a Charlie Chaplin-type end to his season.
Unless we do a Scotland and save our best performances for when it's already too late.
When we were discussing this the other day someone mentioned that before the event, you could have got 33:1 odds on England losing all three games. I thought that was a value bet, not that I was aware of it at the time, because England can't beat Italy or Uruguay so it's 33:1 on Costa Rica beating England. That feels more like an evens bet or maybe 2:3 on, so it would have been a great punt.
Having said that Brian - as footer players are apt to say when about to self-contradict - England are not so much crap as reliably, frustratingly, disappointing. If one actually had put £100 on that bet, it would be typical of England not to win you £3,300 by obligingly losing the third game. Instead the buggers would certainly then draw or pointlessly win their Costa Rica match, one that makes no difference to the outcome, but costs you your win.
Has the England football gloom been overdone and is there some realistic betting prospects there ?? .... I'd say yes.
The essentials are clear.
The only way for England to qualify from their group (now 7/1 widely available) is for Italy to win both their remaining games (by only 1 clear goal over Costa Rica) of which they are clear favourites and England must beat Costa Rica by 2 clear goals. Clearly a bigger Italian win will reduce England's necessity to beat Costa Rica to a single goal. England would qualify on goal difference over both Uruguay and Costa Rica.
If England do qualify in this fashion the widely available 125/1 on them winning the tournament will tumble and both a trading bet and outright win looks rather amusing.
I'm having a nibble on both bets .... if you fancy the same get in before the Italy/Costa Rica match later today.
JackW - In setting out your "Smithson Alert" above, you effectively plagiarised the self same bet I had referred to on this thread at better odds, almost three hours earlier at 5.20am:
"Those who enjoy betting on seemingly lost causes will not be too impressed by BETFRED's miserable odds of 40/1 against England winning the World Cup outright. Somewhat more generously, but not overly so, is the 132/1 net available from Betfair against the same highly unlikely outcome."
So what do you think? A neutral there to watch high quality fitba? An England fan too ashamed [edit: of his team - not that I know, but judging from what is being said on PB ...] to come out in his true colours? A Photoshopped image?
What I think is that you'd blame Mr Salmond if a magpie defecated on your car bonnet.
I guess this is the closest the Scots have been to a World Cup in sixteen years and counting.
England may be on course for their worst performance at a World Cup in history, but for one Scottish fan their 2-1 defeat to Uruguay could not have been any more enjoyable.
Seen wearing a tartan hat with tufts of orange hair and brandishing the Saltire, the mystery Scot caused an outcry after being pictured celebrating wildly with South American supporters.
He can now be revealed as proud Glaswegian Mark McConville, a Formula One engineer who is also believed to have relished attending Italy's victory over the Lions last week.
The man, who lives in Northampton and works for McLaren Petronas, was seen on television waving the Scottish flag after Luis Suarez's second goal put England on the brink of a first-round exit.
@Carnyx it isn't a photoshop. Millions saw this live on TV last night.
If he has travelled halfway across the world to oppose England, that's taking ABE to pathological levels. But I imagine he lives in Uruguay: you wouldn't make that trip from Scotland on your own.
Thanks - hadn't known. He could be mixed Uruguayan-Scot, of course. Or a local who'd been to Scotland, and bought a Saltire and a See you Jimmy wig - not as improbable as it may sound given what I see every time I walk through the Old Town of Edinburgh at this time of year. Though that implies rather a sophisticated sense of political humour.
The man pictured, unsurprisingly, lives in England. Northampton.
Ah, thanks - that gave me the info to dig a bit more. He turns out to have been a constant Uruguay supporter for quite a few years. So no way was he travelling specifically to oppose England (if at all: the Tartan Army can be very post-modernist about such things). It seems also from other news he had been taking a load of footie kit for poor bairns in Brazil.
Great header from Stevie G, caught the defender out of position, and let me beat Joe Hart with ease. Perhaps next time, Brendan will let us practice that move for Liverpool. - Luis Suarez in his own words as told to Dr Spyn.
No one complains when Scots support England against Wales at Rugby. Though if the English complain about the inept FA and poor quality of players in England, think about all those fanatical football supporters in Scotlandshire who have seen the foul ups by the SFA over the last 40 years. The decline of Scottish international football is painful, if Uruguay can put out a decent side with 3.5m people, surely Scotland can do better. Even Sebastian Coates was missed by the SFA....
As for the guy with the wig and Scotland shirt, his colours, his call, and his money allows him to support who he wants, when he wants, where he wants.
@Carnyx it isn't a photoshop. Millions saw this live on TV last night.
If he has travelled halfway across the world to oppose England, that's taking ABE to pathological levels. But I imagine he lives in Uruguay: you wouldn't make that trip from Scotland on your own.
Thanks - hadn't known. He could be mixed Uruguayan-Scot, of course. Or a local who'd been to Scotland, and bought a Saltire and a See you Jimmy wig - not as improbable as it may sound given what I see every time I walk through the Old Town of Edinburgh at this time of year. Though that implies rather a sophisticated sense of political humour.
The man pictured, unsurprisingly, lives in England. Northampton.
Ah, thanks - that gave me the info to dig a bit more. He turns out to have been a constant Uruguay supporter for quite a few years. So no way was he travelling specifically to oppose England (if at all: the Tartan Army can be very post-modernist about such things). It seems also from other news he had been taking a load of footie kit for poor bairns in Brazil.
So what do you think? A neutral there to watch high quality fitba? An England fan too ashamed [edit: of his team - not that I know, but judging from what is being said on PB ...] to come out in his true colours? A Photoshopped image?
What I think is that you'd blame Mr Salmond if a magpie defecated on your car bonnet.
I guess this is the closest the Scots have been to a World Cup in sixteen years and counting.
England may be on course for their worst performance at a World Cup in history, but for one Scottish fan their 2-1 defeat to Uruguay could not have been any more enjoyable.
Seen wearing a tartan hat with tufts of orange hair and brandishing the Saltire, the mystery Scot caused an outcry after being pictured celebrating wildly with South American supporters.
He can now be revealed as proud Glaswegian Mark McConville, a Formula One engineer who is also believed to have relished attending Italy's victory over the Lions last week.
The man, who lives in Northampton and works for McLaren Petronas, was seen on television waving the Scottish flag after Luis Suarez's second goal put England on the brink of a first-round exit.
She is doing this in the form of "three messages to the European Council" - ie national governments. Most interesting to me is a passage near the end, picked out in the summary also:
"The right of Europeans to move freely and reside and work wherever they want in our Union must be protected, including against possible abuse or fraudulent claims. Abuse must be fought because it weakens free movement. And the principle of free movement must be defended vigorously. I have said it before, and I will say it again: EU citizens' right to free movement is not up for negotiation. All four freedoms – of people, goods, services and capital – go together, no one has a right to pick and choose. All four freedoms enable our economies to grow and give citizens the chance to acquire skills and find work. All four freedoms need to be protected for citizens to feel secure – and to be assured that this Union is not only about markets, but about people and their rights. That it is made for them."
I wonder who that passage might be aimed at? I wonder which other Luxembourg politicians in the EPP feel strongly about this stuff?
This Scottish chap is typical of the YES victim chipped shoulder brigade - less time worrying about England would serve him well.
Still the thought that he forked out loads of cash to service his bitterness does warm my cockles slightly.
One of my friends, who is a very proud Scotsman, says he was cheering for England last night, because every Scotsman hates Uruguay.
Something to do with Uruguay v Scotland in the 1986 world cup, and the Uruguayans nearly maiming Gordon Strachan in the first minute.
Fastest sending off in WC history - 51seconds. Obviously we still couldn't score in the remaining 89.10mins.
Steve Nicol (of Liverpool) - missed a sitter. Still at least it was only one and not two like Wayne last night - awful misses for a player of his salary.
@Pulpstar@Socrates 'Syria is a superb example of how Sunnis, Shias and Christians can live in harmony?'
100% Yes. And this is what they tell us every time we vaguely care to listen. Protests of millions in favour of Assad: www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gqq-FFgJM#t=264
This documentary on the genesis of the Syria conflict will reward a watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwv7JXgPxLI Sadly the man who speaks first was murdered by insurgents recently.
Yes, the millions in favour of Assad are the minority groups, who band together to keep out the Sunnis. That's not a beautiful example of ethnic harmony, its the normal ethnic alliances to keep out a third group you see in divided states. If Assad had the support of half the population, he would be happy to have free and fair elections. But he's not.
She is doing this in the form of "three messages to the European Council" - ie national governments. Most interesting to me is a passage near the end, picked out in the summary also:
"The right of Europeans to move freely and reside and work wherever they want in our Union must be protected, including against possible abuse or fraudulent claims. Abuse must be fought because it weakens free movement. And the principle of free movement must be defended vigorously. I have said it before, and I will say it again: EU citizens' right to free movement is not up for negotiation. All four freedoms – of people, goods, services and capital – go together, no one has a right to pick and choose. All four freedoms enable our economies to grow and give citizens the chance to acquire skills and find work. All four freedoms need to be protected for citizens to feel secure – and to be assured that this Union is not only about markets, but about people and their rights. That it is made for them."
I wonder who that passage might be aimed at? I wonder which other Luxembourg politicians in the EPP feel strongly about this stuff?
That's a bit motherhood and apple pie for the EU - like Cameron saying "I will NOT introduce border controls between Birmingham and Manchester - it is not negotiable." It's a Cameron fantasy to think it's up for grabs, and I doubt if he privately has any illusions about it.
P1 over. Neither Red Bull in the top 10, which seems like sandbagging to me. Not a Red Bull circuit (ironically), but they should still be in the top 10.
Dr. Stephen Fisher's latest projection for the distribution of seats in the 2015 GE, based on UKPR's averaging of the current polls shows the following (including small changes over the past week):
Your "Scottish nationalists are laughably pathetic at times" in re the footy fan - what an extraordinary thing to say.
All we know is he is a Scottish footy enthusiast and Uruguay supporter (even if he does it in his Jimmy wig) - he could be a key No campaign official for all that we know.
She is doing this in the form of "three messages to the European Council" - ie national governments. Most interesting to me is a passage near the end, picked out in the summary also:
"The right of Europeans to move freely and reside and work wherever they want in our Union must be protected, including against possible abuse or fraudulent claims. Abuse must be fought because it weakens free movement. And the principle of free movement must be defended vigorously. I have said it before, and I will say it again: EU citizens' right to free movement is not up for negotiation. All four freedoms – of people, goods, services and capital – go together, no one has a right to pick and choose. All four freedoms enable our economies to grow and give citizens the chance to acquire skills and find work. All four freedoms need to be protected for citizens to feel secure – and to be assured that this Union is not only about markets, but about people and their rights. That it is made for them."
I wonder who that passage might be aimed at? I wonder which other Luxembourg politicians in the EPP feel strongly about this stuff?
That's a bit motherhood and apple pie for the EU - like Cameron saying "I will NOT introduce border controls between Birmingham and Manchester - it is not negotiable." It's a Cameron fantasy to think it's up for grabs, and I doubt if he privately has any illusions about it.
Which is why it is so odd to make such a big deal of it.
I think Micky Fabricant may end up in trouble because of this tweet (talking about the hideous Yasmin Alibhai-Brown)
Huff has an entertaining video of the spat between YAB and Rod Liddle from the other day:
“I have no words for how much I loathe you,” said journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to Spectator columnists Rod Liddle - who refered to her as the “faux liberal leftie only concerned with her own economic self-interest" - ding dong..!
Wow - YAB V Rod Liddle ...how on earth could you pick sides in that one?
I'm no Rod Liddle fan, but that was unbelievably biased interview. She got him on and then just attacked him for his views. There wasn't any discussion about the actual main content at all.
That's a bit motherhood and apple pie for the EU - like Cameron saying "I will NOT introduce border controls between Birmingham and Manchester - it is not negotiable." It's a Cameron fantasy to think it's up for grabs, and I doubt if he privately has any illusions about it.
It's not a Cameron fantasy, because he's never even remotely claimed to think it's up for grabs, as a principle. So, neither in public nor in private does he have any illusions about it.
Where progress perhaps can be made is on the benefits entitlements side (he'll be pushing at an open door in Berlin and in many other capitals on that one), and on the conditions for any new EU members. Of course the latter is closing the stable door after Labour encouraged the horses to bolt, but that's hardly David Cameron's fault. We are where we are.
More to the point, I think, is the UKIP fantasy that we could negotiate a trade agreement with the EU which would give us full access to the Single Market without the free movement of labour being part of the deal, in some form or another.
Your "Scottish nationalists are laughably pathetic at times" in re the footy fan - what an extraordinary thing to say.
All we know is he is a Scottish footy enthusiast and Uruguay supporter (even if he does it in his Jimmy wig) - he could be a key No campaign official for all that we know.
I think from his ridiculous desire to wear that hat and strip that we can all tell the attention seeker is ripping out of him.
Avery - so the deficit is down by £8bn over the year in which the economy has grown. Remind me how much Osborne was intending to reduce the deficit by this year in his 2010 budget. Was it £25bn? £30bn? Sticking to Plan A, eh?
Your "Scottish nationalists are laughably pathetic at times" in re the footy fan - what an extraordinary thing to say.
All we know is he is a Scottish footy enthusiast and Uruguay supporter (even if he does it in his Jimmy wig) - he could be a key No campaign official for all that we know.
Fifty quid at evens that he identifies as Scottish.
Your "Scottish nationalists are laughably pathetic at times" in re the footy fan - what an extraordinary thing to say.
All we know is he is a Scottish footy enthusiast and Uruguay supporter (even if he does it in his Jimmy wig) - he could be a key No campaign official for all that we know.
Fifty quid at evens that he identifies as Scottish.
Doesn't mean he's a Scottish nationalist. They've often bemoaned the 90 minute patriots.
Bulletin out this morning. Key findings as follows:
• For the financial year 2013/14, public sector net borrowing excluding temporary effects of financial interventions (PSNB ex) was £94.9 billion. This was £14.2 billion higher than in 2012/13, when it was £80.7 billion.
In the absence of Alan - explain these figures ALP !!
2013-14
The figures you quote include the impact of the cash transfers from the Asset Purchase Facility (£31.1 bn of which £12.2 bn affected PSNB ex) and Royal Mail Pension Plan transfer.
If these non-recurring transactions are excluded the underlying position is clearer and stated in the body of the bulletin:
In 2013/14, public sector net borrowing, excluding: the temporary effects of financial interventions (PSNB ex); the impact of cash transfers from the asset purchase facility and the Royal Mail Pension Plan transfer, was £107.0 billion. This was £8.1 billion lower than in 2012/13, when net borrowing was £115.1 billion.
The £8.1 billion fall in PSNB ex between 2012/13 and 2013/14, once cash transfers from the Asset Purchase Facility and the Royal Mail Pension Plan transfer impacts are removed, is composed of a £1.3 billion increase in net investment and an £9.4 billion reduction in the current budget deficit.
[Answer to your question on May 2014 follows due to character limits on post].
" ... the UKIP fantasy we could negotiate a trade agreement with the EU which would give us full access to the Single Market without the free movement of labour being part of the deal, in some form or another."
Strange, following a recent referendum, Switzerland are going to be doing just that. Of course the mighty Swiss economy and massive trade deficit gives them a lot more clout in negotiating with the EU than the UK could ever hope to achieve.
Your "Scottish nationalists are laughably pathetic at times" in re the footy fan - what an extraordinary thing to say.
All we know is he is a Scottish footy enthusiast and Uruguay supporter (even if he does it in his Jimmy wig) - he could be a key No campaign official for all that we know.
Fifty quid at evens that he identifies as Scottish.
Doesn't mean he's a Scottish nationalist. They've often bemoaned the 90 minute patriots.
I doubt the media will report on his political preferences, so that seemed to be a silly bet to make. Carnyx claimed he could well be Uruguayan - let's see if he puts his money where his mouth is.
Avery - so the deficit is down by £8bn over the year in which the economy has grown. Remind me how much Osborne was intending to reduce the deficit by this year in his 2010 budget. Was it £25bn? £30bn? Sticking to Plan A, eh?
Yes but if you subtract pension receipts, adjust for PSNI and higher SNP, then divide by 27 and subtract the number you first thought of, he's doing a tremendous job.
Your "Scottish nationalists are laughably pathetic at times" in re the footy fan - what an extraordinary thing to say.
All we know is he is a Scottish footy enthusiast and Uruguay supporter (even if he does it in his Jimmy wig) - he could be a key No campaign official for all that we know.
Fifty quid at evens that he identifies as Scottish.
I'd say that was pretty much certain so will decline it with thanks! But that is not the same ting as a 'Scottish nationalist' which is what you said, I assumed you intended in the political sense - if in the footie sense then you are quite right.
That's a bit motherhood and apple pie for the EU - like Cameron saying "I will NOT introduce border controls between Birmingham and Manchester - it is not negotiable." It's a Cameron fantasy to think it's up for grabs, and I doubt if he privately has any illusions about it.
It's not a Cameron fantasy, because he's never even remotely claimed to think it's up for grabs, as a principle. So, neither in public nor in private does he have any illusions about it.
Where progress perhaps can be made is on the benefits entitlements side (he'll be pushing at an open door in Berlin and in many other capitals on that one), and on the conditions for any new EU members. Of course the latter is closing the stable door after Labour encouraged the horses to bolt, but that's hardly David Cameron's fault. We are where we are.
More to the point, I think, is the UKIP fantasy that we could negotiate a trade agreement with the EU which would give us full access to the Single Market without the free movement of labour being part of the deal, in some form or another.
You make up arguments of your opponents' sometimes. We do not believe we will get full access. We believe we will get the vast majority of access via a free trade agreement.
If you really think that major problems with the EU are three months of benefits, then you are detached from reality. Clearly the Common Agricultural Policy, mass unskilled migration for work, the lack of ability to sign our own trade deals, the Common Fisheries Policy and EU control of our financial regulation are all major issues, but Cameron is going to achieve precisely zero on them.
Your "Scottish nationalists are laughably pathetic at times" in re the footy fan - what an extraordinary thing to say.
All we know is he is a Scottish footy enthusiast and Uruguay supporter (even if he does it in his Jimmy wig) - he could be a key No campaign official for all that we know.
Fifty quid at evens that he identifies as Scottish.
I'd say that was pretty much certain so will decline it with thanks! But that is not the same ting as a 'Scottish nationalist' which is what you said, I assumed you intended in the political sense - if in the footie sense then you are quite right.
Someone just told me that Universal Credit sanctions those who aren't actively looking for work above 37 hours/wk, effectively changing the tax credit system to make those who are people working part-time to search for a full-time job.
If that's the case, they snuck that one under the radar. Not exactly a great situation for poor single-parent families.
I've always said that I don't dislike the principle of Universal Credit but the Conservatives were always going to use it to disguise cuts, increase sanctions and make those in poverty suffer.
Strange, following a recent referendum, Switzerland are going to be doing just that. Of course the mighty Swiss economy and massive trade deficit gives them a lot more clout in negotiating with the EU than the UK could ever hope to achieve.
No, following a recent referendum, the Swiss are in the odd position that they have voted to unilaterally break the terms of a treaty which they still want to maintain.
That is an interesting dilemma for the Swiss government, which is in an impossible bind, but it doesn't alter the position of the EU. It takes two to tango.
It's hard to say what the outcome will be for Switzerland, but, if I were a betting man (and I am), and if there were a market to bet on, my money would be on the Swiss backing down.
It's nigh impossible to distinguish between an England football fan and a grizzly with toothache & a humour deficiency.
There's less to laugh at during the World Cup these days - the Scotland team don't even qualify!
My favourite part of these events is England fans warming the coals of their failure by clinging to the idea that they're not quite as shite as a country with less than a tenth of their population.
I'm certain this guy identifies as English and seems to have his finger on the political pulse. I'm sure with some light house training he'd fit in here a treat.
UpNorthandGrim #WR @UpNorthandGRIM Many people in this country would gladly LYNCH #YasminAlibiBrown let alone punch her. #michaelFabrecant #Westminster
Your "Scottish nationalists are laughably pathetic at times" in re the footy fan - what an extraordinary thing to say.
All we know is he is a Scottish footy enthusiast and Uruguay supporter (even if he does it in his Jimmy wig) - he could be a key No campaign official for all that we know.
I think from his ridiculous desire to wear that hat and strip that we can all tell the attention seeker is ripping out of him.
If he's a Uruguay fan then why not their strip ?
Sad sack.
Because he's obviously an internationalist ad because he's also making a statement about the Scotland national team (i.e. he's given up on them, sensible chap, and gone and watched the footie regardless). And attention seeking does not make him an anti-English villain.
It's nigh impossible to distinguish between an England football fan and a grizzly with toothache & a humour deficiency.
There's less to laugh at during the World Cup these days - the Scotland team don't even qualify!
My favourite part of these events is England fans warming the coals of their failure by clinging to the idea that they're not quite as shite as a country with less than a tenth of their population.
What are you talking about? Scotland's not a country. It's just a region of the UK.
England beat South Africa 21-20 to win the Junior World Championship • England come from behind to retain title • ‘It’s an amazing feeling,’ says captain Maro Itoje
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
It's nigh impossible to distinguish between an England football fan and a grizzly with toothache & a humour deficiency.
There's less to laugh at during the World Cup these days - the Scotland team don't even qualify!
My favourite part of these events is England fans warming the coals of their failure by clinging to the idea that they're not quite as shite as a country with less than a tenth of their population.
What are you talking about? Scotland's not a country. It's just a region of the UK.
Hold the front page, PB Britnat in 'England not a country' shock.
It's nigh impossible to distinguish between an England football fan and a grizzly with toothache & a humour deficiency.
There's less to laugh at during the World Cup these days - the Scotland team don't even qualify!
My favourite part of these events is England fans warming the coals of their failure by clinging to the idea that they're not quite as shite as a country with less than a tenth of their population.
What are you talking about? Scotland's not a country. It's just a region of the UK.
It's nigh impossible to distinguish between an England football fan and a grizzly with toothache & a humour deficiency.
There's less to laugh at during the World Cup these days - the Scotland team don't even qualify!
My favourite part of these events is England fans warming the coals of their failure by clinging to the idea that they're not quite as shite as a country with less than a tenth of their population.
What are you talking about? Scotland's not a country. It's just a region of the UK.
Hold the front page, PB Britnat in 'England not a country' shock.
Well, England and the UK are basically equivalent - in many languages the same words are used.
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
Rory Mac picked the perfect time to announce he would represent Ireland in the Olympics.
Such an outrageous decision, golf? an Olympic sport, you're having a laugh.
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
Rory Mac picked the perfect time to announce he would represent Ireland in the Olympics.
Such an outrageous decision, golf? an Olympic sport, you're having a laugh.
Money, money, money.
An absolutely outrageous decision but there you are.
Poor old Rory, he was bound to get the idiots out whichever way he jumped. Thankfully he's a golfer and not a footballer.
You make up arguments of your opponents' sometimes. We do not believe we will get full access. We believe we will get the vast majority of access via a free trade agreement. .
If I'm making up the UKIP position (and I accept I may be), that is for the very good reason that UKIP haven't told us what their position is. They seem to say, or at least imply , that we can have absolutely everything we want, with zero job losses and zero effect on trade with the EU - including presumably zero effect on trade in services, which is the absolutely key point - with zero concessions on anything, and in particular no free movement of labour.
Is that the UKIP position? If I've misrepresented it - and I accept I might have done - is the position that there would be an effect on trade with the EU, or that there would be concessions on free movement of labour?
This is a genuine, and very important question - do they want full access to the Single Market, or not?
Someone just told me that Universal Credit sanctions those who aren't actively looking for work above 37 hours/wk, effectively changing the tax credit system to make those who are people working part-time to search for a full-time job.
If that's the case, they snuck that one under the radar. Not exactly a great situation for poor single-parent families.
I've always said that I don't dislike the principle of Universal Credit but the Conservatives were always going to use it to disguise cuts, increase sanctions and make those in poverty suffer.
I think this has been the plan for some time (although its only 35 hours),
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
What shocked me was the mind bending hideousness of the new Scottish strip that the Northants guy was modeling.
It's nigh impossible to distinguish between an England football fan and a grizzly with toothache & a humour deficiency.
There's less to laugh at during the World Cup these days - the Scotland team don't even qualify!
My favourite part of these events is England fans warming the coals of their failure by clinging to the idea that they're not quite as shite as a country with less than a tenth of their population.
What are you talking about? Scotland's not a country. It's just a region of the UK.
Absolute and utter rubbish.
Scotland is a constituent country of the UK, in the same way Aruba is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Cook Islands are a constituent country of the New Zealand Realm.
The difference is that the latter two get an Olympic team whereas Scotland, by some bizarre quirk, doesn't, and has to play for Great Britain, which is an island and not a country.
Strange, following a recent referendum, Switzerland are going to be doing just that. Of course the mighty Swiss economy and massive trade deficit gives them a lot more clout in negotiating with the EU than the UK could ever hope to achieve.
No, following a recent referendum, the Swiss are in the odd position that they have voted to unilaterally break the terms of a treaty which they still want to maintain.
That is an interesting dilemma for the Swiss government, which is in an impossible bind, but it doesn't alter the position of the EU. It takes two to tango.
It's hard to say what the outcome will be for Switzerland, but, if I were a betting man (and I am), and if there were a market to bet on, my money would be on the Swiss backing down.
Would they need another vote to do that? Would be odd if the government could ignore the result of a referendum!
Vanlla ia acting up - but re your argument that the chap is a Yes supporter cos he supports Scotland at fitba/wears a See You Jimmy Hat*, it is flawed because supporting Scotland against England at the fitba considerably antedate the rise of the SNP and then the indyref campaign. Either that or all those chaps who used to rip up Wembley to upgrade their lawns in Rutherglen were voting Labour and Tory by unaccountable mistake.
*To be fair, I can't remember if the CUJH antedates the devo referendum of 1997 or not. But, for those who need to research more, I can advise that, for fear of misunderstanding, it is never be called tout court a Jimmy Hat. That latter item can be had at Boots on Cockburn Street just off the Royal Mile.
Strange, following a recent referendum, Switzerland are going to be doing just that. Of course the mighty Swiss economy and massive trade deficit gives them a lot more clout in negotiating with the EU than the UK could ever hope to achieve.
No, following a recent referendum, the Swiss are in the odd position that they have voted to unilaterally break the terms of a treaty which they still want to maintain.
That is an interesting dilemma for the Swiss government, which is in an impossible bind, but it doesn't alter the position of the EU. It takes two to tango.
It's hard to say what the outcome will be for Switzerland, but, if I were a betting man (and I am), and if there were a market to bet on, my money would be on the Swiss backing down.
If they want to change the terms of the treaty then they clearly don't want to maintain it as it is. I am not an expert on the Swiss constitution but if the people vote for something can the government just say, "well we tried, but decided it wasn't a runner"? I don't know.
What I am sure about is that international treaties and agreements can be broken by one party alone (if they couldn't then the French would now be speaking English) and that the UK government has no qualms about doing so when it suits them (I read this morning that Cameron's Clique has refused to say that it will abide by the NATO spending agreement).
So could the UK negotiate access to the single market as an independent sovereign state and maintain control of its borders? Probably, Germany after all sends lost of cars here but not many immigrants, so what is important to Germany export of goods or export of people? I would think what would be more worrying for the EU is that a trade agreement would include a free market in services.
That's a bit motherhood and apple pie for the EU - like Cameron saying "I will NOT introduce border controls between Birmingham and Manchester - it is not negotiable." It's a Cameron fantasy to think it's up for grabs, and I doubt if he privately has any illusions about it.
It's not a Cameron fantasy, because he's never even remotely claimed to think it's up for grabs, as a principle. So, neither in public nor in private does he have any illusions about it.
Where progress perhaps can be made is on the benefits entitlements side (he'll be pushing at an open door in Berlin and in many other capitals on that one), and on the conditions for any new EU members. Of course the latter is closing the stable door after Labour encouraged the horses to bolt, but that's hardly David Cameron's fault. We are where we are.
More to the point, I think, is the UKIP fantasy that we could negotiate a trade agreement with the EU which would give us full access to the Single Market without the free movement of labour being part of the deal, in some form or another.
You make up arguments of your opponents' sometimes. We do not believe we will get full access. We believe we will get the vast majority of access via a free trade agreement.
If you really think that major problems with the EU are three months of benefits, then you are detached from reality. Clearly the Common Agricultural Policy, mass unskilled migration for work, the lack of ability to sign our own trade deals, the Common Fisheries Policy and EU control of our financial regulation are all major issues, but Cameron is going to achieve precisely zero on them.
The UKIP representative in Broxtowe says nonchalantly that visas to visit Europe will be a minor inconvenience and surely worthwhile. Not sure it's generally recognised that UKIP's ideas would mean having to apply for a visa to pop over the Channel, but perhaps it is?
Bulletin out this morning. Key findings as follows:
• In May 2014, public sector net borrowing excluding the temporary effects of financial interventions, the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the transfers from the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund was £13.3 billion. This was £0.7 billion higher than in May 2013, when it was £12.6 billion.
In the absence of Alan - explain these figures ALP !!
May 2014
Slightly less obvious explanation here. The detail from the body of the bulletin states:
Net borrowing excluding financial interventions (PSNBex) in May 2014 was £13.3 billion. This was higher than the same period last year, when it was £8.7 billion. May 2013 PSNBex was lowered by a £3.9 billion transfer from the Asset Purchase Facility Fund and a £0.9 billion receipt from the Swiss Tax Agreement.
In May 2014 net borrowing excluding financial interventions, the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the transfers form the Asset Purchase Facility Fund (PSNBex, exRM&APF) was £13.3 billion. This was also higher than the same period last year, when it was £12.6 billion (but still lowered by the £0.9 billion from the Swiss Tax Agreement).
So taking out the non-recurrers, APFF & Swiss Tax receipts, leaves a net figure of £8.5 bn borrowing compared with £8.7 bn in May 2012, i.e. a reduction.
But this doesn't tell the whole story. ONS monthly figures are heavily based on forecasts rather than returns from government departments. In times of rapid growth, this usually means that borrowing figures get revised down as data is updated. For example, in this month's bulletin, net borrowing for 2013-14 was revised down by £0.4 bn for the whole year and Apr 2014 was revised down by £0.6 bn just for the month.
The underlying revenue and expenditure figures for the month appear solid:
Revenue: Taxes on production in May 2014 were £18.6 billion, a £1.0 billion, or 5.5% increase compared to the same month last year. Of these taxes VAT receipts increased by £0.5 billion (or 4.9%) to £9.9 billion, while Stamp duties (on shares, land & property) increased by £0.3 billion (or 28.2%) to £1.2 billion, compared to the same month last year.
Taxes on Income and Wealth reported in May 2014 was £11.9 billion, a £0.1 billion, or 0.4% increase compared to the same month last year.
Corporation tax in May 2014 was £1.5 billion, an increase of £0.2 billion, or 17.5% compared with May 2013.
Dunno, it's a complete mess. It's a bit like the Californians voting both for lower taxes and for higher spending: if you have government by referendum, you end up with incoherence.
Expenditure: In May 2014, central government accrued current expenditure was £51.7 billion, which was £0.1 billion, or 0.3%, higher than May 2013, when central government current expenditure was £51.6 billion.
The fact that the increase in borrowing cannot be explained by the revenue and expenditure estimates indicates it is almost certainly caused by a phasing issue probably relating to captial transfers (e.g central government grants to local governments) which reverse out over the course of the year.
Although an early estimate, the fact that Income and Wealth taxes are now showing small growth (0.4%) looks as though the distorting effect of the 45% tax rate introduction which caused a £0.8 bn fall in Apr 2014 on Apr 2013 receipts have now unwound.
So all in all, the underlying fundamentals even for the month look strong and are likely to look even better once revised.
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
What shocked me was the mind bending hideousness of the new Scottish strip that the Northants guy was modeling.
It is, hands down, one of the worst kits I've seen in years. I hope they dont wear it in the Euro 2016 qualifier in Dublin.
It's nigh impossible to distinguish between an England football fan and a grizzly with toothache & a humour deficiency.
There's less to laugh at during the World Cup these days - the Scotland team don't even qualify!
My favourite part of these events is England fans warming the coals of their failure by clinging to the idea that they're not quite as shite as a country with less than a tenth of their population.
What are you talking about? Scotland's not a country. It's just a region of the UK.
Absolute and utter rubbish.
Scotland is a constituent country of the UK, in the same way Aruba is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Cook Islands are a constituent country of the New Zealand Realm.
The difference is that the latter two get an Olympic team whereas Scotland, by some bizarre quirk, doesn't, and has to play for Great Britain, which is an island and not a country.
It was trolling, but Socrates isn't very good at it.
For England to qualify, I'd have to believe too many impossible things before breakfast. If Italy win today (not certain), then a draw would be sufficient against Uruguay - who might also qualify with a draw. I can't see a six goal thriller there.
Italy aren't the best team in the world, but if they need a 0-0 draw, I'd never bet against them.
Amnesty International has called on the Government to free the millions of people who cannot afford to pay the bribe demanded by the UK Passport Service.
So could the UK negotiate access to the single market as an independent sovereign state and maintain control of its borders? Probably, Germany after all sends lost of cars here but not many immigrants, so what is important to Germany export of goods or export of people? I would think what would be more worrying for the EU is that a trade agreement would include a free market in services.
My assessment would be that that we could negotiate free access for goods without free movement of labour, but the sticking point would be services. Bear in mind that cross-border services are much, much more important to us than they are to our EU friends - in fact, quite a few of them would prefer it if we butted out of their financial and other markets.
The main point, though, is that the negotiation is much the same whether we renegotiate and stay in, or leave and negotiate a trade treaty. Either way we'll be negotiating with the same people over the same issues. The net outcome is unlikely to be radically different whichever we do.
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
What shocked me was the mind bending hideousness of the new Scottish strip that the Northants guy was modeling.
It is, hands down, one of the worst kits I've seen in years. I hope they dont wear it in the Euro 2016 qualifier in Dublin.
You make up arguments of your opponents' sometimes. We do not believe we will get full access. We believe we will get the vast majority of access via a free trade agreement. .
If I'm making up the UKIP position (and I accept I may be), that is for the very good reason that UKIP haven't told us what their position is. They seem to say, or at least imply , that we can have absolutely everything we want, with zero job losses and zero effect on trade with the EU - including presumably zero effect on trade in services, which is the absolutely key point - with zero concessions on anything.
Is that the UKIP position? If I've misrepresented it - and I accept I might have done - is the position that there would be an effect on trade with the EU, or that there would be concessions on free movement of labour?
This is a genuine, and very important question - do they want full access to the Single Market, or not?
I'm not a spokesman for UKIP, but I believe they want full access to the Single Market, but not at any cost. Given the costs involved of being an EU member, they will their negotiate to get as much trade freedom as possible, while being able to control our borders and set regulation for non-EU-bound goods and services here at home.
Here's another genuine, and very important question - what EU policies do the Tories want to repatriate? Do they want to get out of the CAP, CFP, Social Chapter, Common External Tariff?
Dunno, it's a complete mess. It's a bit like the Californians voting both for lower taxes and for higher spending: if you have government by referendum, you end up with incoherence.
Californians aren't incoherent.
It's entirely rational - from the voters perspective - to want to have your cake and eat it!
Let Sacramento sort it out if they're so f**king smart!
(I think I may have just turned into a SoCal Nationalist...)
The main point, though, is that the negotiation is much the same whether we renegotiate and stay in, or leave and negotiate a trade treaty. Either way we'll be negotiating with the same people over the same issues. The net outcome is unlikely to be radically different whichever we do.
I really disagree with this point. I think this is coming from a very British perspective of the EU being free trade plus a few regulatory issues. It's not to everyone else. It carries enormous symbolic weight, and they are a lot, lot less likely to accept a "pick and mix" approach to being an EU member, because that could unwind the whole system of integration for full members, than they are to accept it in a bilateral trade deal.
Also, as long as we remain a member they will also remain deluded that they can force us to be a full member over time. As soon as we vote to leave, their mentality will immediately change to getting the best relationship possible with a G7 economy.
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
What shocked me was the mind bending hideousness of the new Scottish strip that the Northants guy was modeling.
It is, hands down, one of the worst kits I've seen in years. I hope they dont wear it in the Euro 2016 qualifier in Dublin.
That's a bit motherhood and apple pie for the EU - like Cameron saying "I will NOT introduce border controls between Birmingham and Manchester - it is not negotiable." It's a Cameron fantasy to think it's up for grabs, and I doubt if he privately has any illusions about it.
It's not a Cameron fantasy, because he's never even remotely claimed to think it's up for grabs, as a principle. So, neither in public nor in private does he have any illusions about it.
Where progress perhaps can be made is on the benefits entitlements side (he'll be pushing at an open door in Berlin and in many other capitals on that one), and on the conditions for any new EU members. Of course the latter is closing the stable door after Labour encouraged the horses to bolt, but that's hardly David Cameron's fault. We are where we are.
More to the point, I think, is the UKIP fantasy that we could negotiate a trade agreement with the EU which would give us full access to the Single Market without the free movement of labour being part of the deal, in some form or another.
You make up arguments of your opponents' sometimes. We do not believe we will get full access. We believe we will get the vast majority of access via a free trade agreement.
If you really think that major problems with the EU are three months of benefits, then you are detached from reality. Clearly the Common Agricultural Policy, mass unskilled migration for work, the lack of ability to sign our own trade deals, the Common Fisheries Policy and EU control of our financial regulation are all major issues, but Cameron is going to achieve precisely zero on them.
The UKIP representative in Broxtowe says nonchalantly that visas to visit Europe will be a minor inconvenience and surely worthwhile. Not sure it's generally recognised that UKIP's ideas would mean having to apply for a visa to pop over the Channel, but perhaps it is?
You can never assume too much about the broader public's knowledge of different things. But I don't think most people think visiting Australia, Norway or Switzerland as some horrendous difficulty.
I cant believe how sensitive the English media seems to be about someone daring to cheer against their football team. It's a good thing Andy Murray is busy getting ready for Wimbledon.
What shocked me was the mind bending hideousness of the new Scottish strip that the Northants guy was modeling.
It is, hands down, one of the worst kits I've seen in years. I hope they dont wear it in the Euro 2016 qualifier in Dublin.
That's taking me to a story about Saved by the Bell, a show I loved, mostly thanks to Tiffani Amber-Thiesen, but I've still never recovered from the fact, Screech became a porn star
Here's another genuine, and very important question - what EU policies do the Tories want to repatriate? Do they want to get out of the CAP, CFP, Social Chapter, Common External Tariff?
Obviously I can't speak for the party, but my opinion would be:
CAP: Would be nice, but probably not practical to get out of it altogether. Even if we leave we'd end up subsidising agriculture and countryside stewardship, as we did before we joined the EU, and as the US does to a massive extent.
CFP: No chance
Social Chapter: Yes
Common External Tariff: No, that would make no sense. If you're part of a trade area, you're part of a trade area. The Conservative view is that we should be working with our EU friends to reduce tariffs and barriers all round, To be fair, a lot of progress has been made on that (hat-tip to Peter Mandelson), and we'll be pushing for more.
Vanlla ia acting up - but re your argument that the chap is a Yes supporter cos he supports Scotland at fitba/wears a See You Jimmy Hat*, it is flawed because supporting Scotland against England at the fitba considerably antedate the rise of the SNP and then the indyref campaign. Either that or all those chaps who used to rip up Wembley to upgrade their lawns in Rutherglen were voting Labour and Tory by unaccountable mistake.
That's not logical at all. The SNP grabbed their vote among exactly these sorts of people.
I really disagree with this point. I think this is coming from a very British perspective of the EU being free trade plus a few regulatory issues. It's not to everyone else. It carries enormous symbolic weight, and they are a lot, lot less likely to accept a "pick and mix" approach to being an EU member, because that could unwind the whole system of integration for full members, than they are to accept it in a bilateral trade deal.
Also, as long as we remain a member they will also remain deluded that they can force us to be a full member over time. As soon as we vote to leave, their mentality will immediately change to getting the best relationship possible with a G7 economy.
Yes, I see the force of what you are saying. Even so, the fact still remains that there will have to be concessions.
CAP: Would be nice, but probably not practical to get out of it altogether. Even if we leave we'd end up subsidising agriculture and countryside stewardship, as we did before we joined the EU, and as the US does to a massive extent.
US subsidies are HALF the rate of EU ones. As for the UK, when we joined the EU we were suffering under 1970s socialist malaise. We are a far more economically liberal nation these days in our philosophy, so I doubt we'd keep major subsidies long term.
You say "not altogether", but what sort of thing do you think we should get?
So could the UK negotiate access to the single market as an independent sovereign state and maintain control of its borders? Probably, Germany after all sends lost of cars here but not many immigrants, so what is important to Germany export of goods or export of people? I would think what would be more worrying for the EU is that a trade agreement would include a free market in services.
My assessment would be that that we could negotiate free access for goods without free movement of labour, but the sticking point would be services. Bear in mind that cross-border services are much, much more important to us than they are to our EU friends - in fact, quite a few of them would prefer it if we butted out of their financial and other markets.
The main point, though, is that the negotiation is much the same whether we renegotiate and stay in, or leave and negotiate a trade treaty. Either way we'll be negotiating with the same people over the same issues. The net outcome is unlikely to be radically different whichever we do.
Fully agree with that, Mr. N.. Our EU partners do not want a single market for services and so despite that fact that it is in all the treaties and they talk about it as if it had happened every time they mention the "Four Freedoms" (see this morning's news for an example) it has never happened and, probably, never will happen.
So stay in and put up with the bits that disadvantage us without getting the bits that do or pull out and get rid of at least some of the bits that disadvantage us. Movement of peoples would not stop if we were outside the EU, it went on before 1973, but the movement of peoples of no obvious benefit to the host country would be controllable.
@Pulpstar@Socrates 'Syria is a superb example of how Sunnis, Shias and Christians can live in harmony?'
100% Yes. And this is what they tell us every time we vaguely care to listen. Protests of millions in favour of Assad: www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gqq-FFgJM#t=264
This documentary on the genesis of the Syria conflict will reward a watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwv7JXgPxLI Sadly the man who speaks first was murdered by insurgents recently.
Yes, the millions in favour of Assad are the minority groups, who band together to keep out the Sunnis. That's not a beautiful example of ethnic harmony, its the normal ethnic alliances to keep out a third group you see in divided states. If Assad had the support of half the population, he would be happy to have free and fair elections. But he's not.
Syria has just held Presedential elections, which Assad won hadsomely on a great turnout. Western politicians and media outlets (obviously) all squealed 'sham' and 'affront to democracy', but then we refused to send any observers, so I'm not sure we can comment on what was un-free and what was unfair. The idea that that Assad does not benefit from Sunni support does not stand up to a moment's passing reflection, let alone serious scrutiny. This war has made him even more popular.
I'm not sure we realise the extent to which our media slants its reporting on Syria. When Syrians take up arms to defend their homes from insurgents, it's described as 'Assad's deadly 'Shabiha' militias'. When there are mass rallies in favour of Assad, it's described as 'bullets were fired into the air -people reported shot'. There is a constant attempt to portray Syria the way you describe it, that in no way marries with any accounts coming out of Syria itself. It's a nonsense.
That said, England's chance is far more than theoretical. Perversely, they'd be well advised to keep their own game at 0-0 until, say, 60 mins or so, to force the Uruguayans into playing for a win. If England were to go 2-0 up early then the other game will stay a draw.
Comments
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfQ7j7_CAAAbikE.jpg
Probably best to park until 7pm tonight - could be a waste of time.
Eng 1.91 for the test - should be the bet but will surely trade higher at some point ?
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/news/it-s-official-orlando-bloom-joins-the-hobbit.jpg
or this
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/05/article-2336412-1A2A2C70000005DC-939_306x423.jpg
The picture now is complicated because there are multiple contradictory factors at play. Harrington seems to be working hard as a local MP and he'll have had five years to build up the local organisation - that should help a lot compared with the chaotic position he inherited when he was prevailed upon to become the candidate at a late stage last time. So I think it's reasonable to assume a particularly large first-time incumbency advantage here.
Against that, Watford is obviously not immune to the national picture, and for the moment at least this is less favourable to the Conservatives than it was in 2010. The question, though, is: who will benefit? The national unpopularity of the LibDems suggests it will be hard for them to do so. Ordinarily, you might expect Labour to be the beneficiaries, picking up votes both from the Conservatives and the LibDems, but, on the Ashcroft polling, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Perhaps the most surprising feature of the Ashcroft polling was the quite high UKIP showing. This isn't natural UKIP territory, so I suspect they are picking up protest-vote support for a variety of different reasons, and from each of the other three parties. That may mean their effect is broadly neutral overall.
I agree with those who have said it could be won by any of the Conservatives, LibDems or Labour.
Disclosure: Last time I made quite a large donation to Richard Harrington's campaign, but my net betting position was a bet on the LibDems.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10911848/Ed-Milibands-welfare-plan-shows-hes-not-ready-for-high-office.html
Why? For those of you who don't know Watford, imagine a Mayor with the sort of personal popularity Boris enjoys but who is also seen as being very competent. That's Dorothy Thornhill.
#GE2015 forecast update: Pr(Con largest pty)=59%, Pr(Hung Parl)=47%, Pr(Con majority)=34%. Pr(Lab maj)=19% http://users.ox.ac.uk/~nuff0084/ge15forecast/ …
When we were discussing this the other day someone mentioned that before the event, you could have got 33:1 odds on England losing all three games. I thought that was a value bet, not that I was aware of it at the time, because England can't beat Italy or Uruguay so it's 33:1 on Costa Rica beating England. That feels more like an evens bet or maybe 2:3 on, so it would have been a great punt.
Having said that Brian - as footer players are apt to say when about to self-contradict - England are not so much crap as reliably, frustratingly, disappointing. If one actually had put £100 on that bet, it would be typical of England not to win you £3,300 by obligingly losing the third game. Instead the buggers would certainly then draw or pointlessly win their Costa Rica match, one that makes no difference to the outcome, but costs you your win.
by Jon Cruddas - do we believe or trust Labour on this, knowing their long-time track record?
"Those who enjoy betting on seemingly lost causes will not be too impressed by BETFRED's miserable odds of 40/1 against England winning the World Cup outright.
Somewhat more generously, but not overly so, is the 132/1 net available from Betfair against the same highly unlikely outcome."
Apologise like a true gentleman sir, forthwith.
England may be on course for their worst performance at a World Cup in history, but for one Scottish fan their 2-1 defeat to Uruguay could not have been any more enjoyable.
Seen wearing a tartan hat with tufts of orange hair and brandishing the Saltire, the mystery Scot caused an outcry after being pictured celebrating wildly with South American supporters.
He can now be revealed as proud Glaswegian Mark McConville, a Formula One engineer who is also believed to have relished attending Italy's victory over the Lions last week.
The man, who lives in Northampton and works for McLaren Petronas, was seen on television waving the Scottish flag after Luis Suarez's second goal put England on the brink of a first-round exit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10913694/Scotland-fan-spotted-supporting-Uruguay-at-Englands-2-1-defeat.html
https://de-de.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=405360434564 (dated 2010).
No one complains when Scots support England against Wales at Rugby. Though if the English complain about the inept FA and poor quality of players in England, think about all those fanatical football supporters in Scotlandshire who have seen the foul ups by the SFA over the last 40 years. The decline of Scottish international football is painful, if Uruguay can put out a decent side with 3.5m people, surely Scotland can do better. Even Sebastian Coates was missed by the SFA....
As for the guy with the wig and Scotland shirt, his colours, his call, and his money allows him to support who he wants, when he wants, where he wants.
(See the post below)
Still the thought that he forked out loads of cash to service his bitterness does warm my cockles slightly.
Something to do with Uruguay v Scotland in the 1986 world cup, and the Uruguayans nearly maiming Gordon Strachan in the first minute.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-481_en.htm
She is doing this in the form of "three messages to the European Council" - ie national governments. Most interesting to me is a passage near the end, picked out in the summary also:
"The right of Europeans to move freely and reside and work wherever they want in our Union must be protected, including against possible abuse or fraudulent claims. Abuse must be fought because it weakens free movement. And the principle of free movement must be defended vigorously. I have said it before, and I will say it again: EU citizens' right to free movement is not up for negotiation. All four freedoms – of people, goods, services and capital – go together, no one has a right to pick and choose. All four freedoms enable our economies to grow and give citizens the chance to acquire skills and find work. All four freedoms need to be protected for citizens to feel secure – and to be assured that this Union is not only about markets, but about people and their rights. That it is made for them."
I wonder who that passage might be aimed at? I wonder which other Luxembourg politicians in the EPP feel strongly about this stuff?
Steve Nicol (of Liverpool) - missed a sitter. Still at least it was only one and not two like Wayne last night - awful misses for a player of his salary.
Con ........... 307 seats (-1 seat)
Lab ............ 288 seats (+1 seat)
LibDems ..... 27 seats (unchanged)
Others ........ 28 seats (unchanged)
Total ......... 650 seats
Your "Scottish nationalists are laughably pathetic at times" in re the footy fan - what an extraordinary thing to say.
All we know is he is a Scottish footy enthusiast and Uruguay supporter (even if he does it in his Jimmy wig) - he could be a key No campaign official for all that we know.
Where progress perhaps can be made is on the benefits entitlements side (he'll be pushing at an open door in Berlin and in many other capitals on that one), and on the conditions for any new EU members. Of course the latter is closing the stable door after Labour encouraged the horses to bolt, but that's hardly David Cameron's fault. We are where we are.
More to the point, I think, is the UKIP fantasy that we could negotiate a trade agreement with the EU which would give us full access to the Single Market without the free movement of labour being part of the deal, in some form or another.
UpNorthandGrim #WR @UpNorthandGRIM 1 hr
@STVNews What a dickhead, I hope he meets some Cold Steel in Sao Paulo. #indyref #scotland #snp #tartanTwat
If he's a Uruguay fan then why not their strip ?
Sad sack.
2013-14
The figures you quote include the impact of the cash transfers from the Asset Purchase Facility (£31.1 bn of which £12.2 bn affected PSNB ex) and Royal Mail Pension Plan transfer.
If these non-recurring transactions are excluded the underlying position is clearer and stated in the body of the bulletin:
In 2013/14, public sector net borrowing, excluding: the temporary effects of financial interventions (PSNB ex); the impact of cash transfers from the asset purchase facility and the Royal Mail Pension Plan transfer, was £107.0 billion. This was £8.1 billion lower than in 2012/13, when net borrowing was £115.1 billion.
The £8.1 billion fall in PSNB ex between 2012/13 and 2013/14, once cash transfers from the Asset Purchase Facility and the Royal Mail Pension Plan transfer impacts are removed, is composed of a £1.3 billion increase in net investment and an £9.4 billion reduction in the current budget deficit.
[Answer to your question on May 2014 follows due to character limits on post].
And what's more, Cathy Newman let her, instead of steering her back onto the issues.
Yasmin and Cathy would much prefer it if we didn't discuss the issues Liddle raised. That is why half of Europe is on fire with Le Pen type parties.
Strange, following a recent referendum, Switzerland are going to be doing just that. Of course the mighty Swiss economy and massive trade deficit gives them a lot more clout in negotiating with the EU than the UK could ever hope to achieve.
Prime minister David Cameron made the offer to Italian counterpart Matteo Renzi last night in a desperate two-hour phone call.
Mr Cameron said: “I stopped short of banning the Italian tank joke completely because that would be a profound erosion of our national sovereignty.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/england-offers-italy-moratorium-on-reversing-tank-joke-2014062087852
If you really think that major problems with the EU are three months of benefits, then you are detached from reality. Clearly the Common Agricultural Policy, mass unskilled migration for work, the lack of ability to sign our own trade deals, the Common Fisheries Policy and EU control of our financial regulation are all major issues, but Cameron is going to achieve precisely zero on them.
If that's the case, they snuck that one under the radar. Not exactly a great situation for poor single-parent families.
I've always said that I don't dislike the principle of Universal Credit but the Conservatives were always going to use it to disguise cuts, increase sanctions and make those in poverty suffer.
That is an interesting dilemma for the Swiss government, which is in an impossible bind, but it doesn't alter the position of the EU. It takes two to tango.
It's hard to say what the outcome will be for Switzerland, but, if I were a betting man (and I am), and if there were a market to bet on, my money would be on the Swiss backing down.
My favourite part of these events is England fans warming the coals of their failure by clinging to the idea that they're not quite as shite as a country with less than a tenth of their population.
I'm certain this guy identifies as English and seems to have his finger on the political pulse. I'm sure with some light house training he'd fit in here a treat.
UpNorthandGrim #WR @UpNorthandGRIM
Many people in this country would gladly LYNCH #YasminAlibiBrown let alone punch her. #michaelFabrecant #Westminster
England beat South Africa 21-20 to win the Junior World Championship
• England come from behind to retain title
• ‘It’s an amazing feeling,’ says captain Maro Itoje
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jun/20/england-win-junior-world-championship-south-africa
Hold the front page, PB Britnat in 'England not a country' shock.
Such an outrageous decision, golf? an Olympic sport, you're having a laugh.
An absolutely outrageous decision but there you are.
Poor old Rory, he was bound to get the idiots out whichever way he jumped. Thankfully he's a golfer and not a footballer.
Is that the UKIP position? If I've misrepresented it - and I accept I might have done - is the position that there would be an effect on trade with the EU, or that there would be concessions on free movement of labour?
This is a genuine, and very important question - do they want full access to the Single Market, or not?
I think this has been the plan for some time (although its only 35 hours),
eg from 2012 -
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/how-universal-credit-will-destroy-part-time-work/
It all depends how the requirement to be actively looking for full time work is judged.
Scotland is a constituent country of the UK, in the same way Aruba is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Cook Islands are a constituent country of the New Zealand Realm.
The difference is that the latter two get an Olympic team whereas Scotland, by some bizarre quirk, doesn't, and has to play for Great Britain, which is an island and not a country.
@NickPalmer, as our resident former Swissie?
Vanlla ia acting up - but re your argument that the chap is a Yes supporter cos he supports Scotland at fitba/wears a See You Jimmy Hat*, it is flawed because supporting Scotland against England at the fitba considerably antedate the rise of the SNP and then the indyref campaign. Either that or all those chaps who used to rip up Wembley to upgrade their lawns in Rutherglen were voting Labour and Tory by unaccountable mistake.
*To be fair, I can't remember if the CUJH antedates the devo referendum of 1997 or not. But, for those who need to research more, I can advise that, for fear of misunderstanding, it is never be called tout court a Jimmy Hat. That latter item can be had at Boots on Cockburn Street just off the Royal Mile.
What I am sure about is that international treaties and agreements can be broken by one party alone (if they couldn't then the French would now be speaking English) and that the UK government has no qualms about doing so when it suits them (I read this morning that Cameron's Clique has refused to say that it will abide by the NATO spending agreement).
So could the UK negotiate access to the single market as an independent sovereign state and maintain control of its borders? Probably, Germany after all sends lost of cars here but not many immigrants, so what is important to Germany export of goods or export of people? I would think what would be more worrying for the EU is that a trade agreement would include a free market in services.
May 2014
Slightly less obvious explanation here. The detail from the body of the bulletin states:
Net borrowing excluding financial interventions (PSNBex) in May 2014 was £13.3 billion. This was higher than the same period last year, when it was £8.7 billion. May 2013 PSNBex was lowered by a £3.9 billion transfer from the Asset Purchase Facility Fund and a £0.9 billion receipt from the Swiss Tax Agreement.
In May 2014 net borrowing excluding financial interventions, the transfer of the Royal Mail Pension Plan and the transfers form the Asset Purchase Facility Fund (PSNBex, exRM&APF) was £13.3 billion. This was also higher than the same period last year, when it was £12.6 billion (but still lowered by the £0.9 billion from the Swiss Tax Agreement).
So taking out the non-recurrers, APFF & Swiss Tax receipts, leaves a net figure of £8.5 bn borrowing compared with £8.7 bn in May 2012, i.e. a reduction.
But this doesn't tell the whole story. ONS monthly figures are heavily based on forecasts rather than returns from government departments. In times of rapid growth, this usually means that borrowing figures get revised down as data is updated. For example, in this month's bulletin, net borrowing for 2013-14 was revised down by £0.4 bn for the whole year and Apr 2014 was revised down by £0.6 bn just for the month.
The underlying revenue and expenditure figures for the month appear solid:
Revenue: Taxes on production in May 2014 were £18.6 billion, a £1.0 billion, or 5.5% increase compared to the same month last year. Of these taxes VAT receipts increased by £0.5 billion (or 4.9%) to £9.9 billion, while Stamp duties (on shares, land & property) increased by £0.3 billion (or 28.2%) to £1.2 billion, compared to the same month last year.
Taxes on Income and Wealth reported in May 2014 was £11.9 billion, a £0.1 billion, or 0.4% increase compared to the same month last year.
Corporation tax in May 2014 was £1.5 billion, an increase of £0.2 billion, or 17.5% compared with May 2013.
[to be continued]
May 2014 PSF - continued
Expenditure: In May 2014, central government accrued current expenditure was £51.7 billion, which was £0.1 billion, or 0.3%, higher than May 2013, when central government current expenditure was £51.6 billion.
The fact that the increase in borrowing cannot be explained by the revenue and expenditure estimates indicates it is almost certainly caused by a phasing issue probably relating to captial transfers (e.g central government grants to local governments) which reverse out over the course of the year.
Although an early estimate, the fact that Income and Wealth taxes are now showing small growth (0.4%) looks as though the distorting effect of the 45% tax rate introduction which caused a £0.8 bn fall in Apr 2014 on Apr 2013 receipts have now unwound.
So all in all, the underlying fundamentals even for the month look strong and are likely to look even better once revised.
It was trolling, but Socrates isn't very good at it.
Italy aren't the best team in the world, but if they need a 0-0 draw, I'd never bet against them.
Amnesty International has called on the Government to free the millions of people who cannot afford to pay the bribe demanded by the UK Passport Service.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/people-without-passports-interned-in-britain-2014062087859
The main point, though, is that the negotiation is much the same whether we renegotiate and stay in, or leave and negotiate a trade treaty. Either way we'll be negotiating with the same people over the same issues. The net outcome is unlikely to be radically different whichever we do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-26371625
Though to be fair, it isn't quite the worst design for Scottish teams.
http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/international/scotland/scotland-1980-2000.html
http://store.rfu.com/stores/rfu/products/product_details.aspx?pid=151520
and
http://store.rfu.com/stores/rfu/products/product_details.aspx?pid=151519
Here's another genuine, and very important question - what EU policies do the Tories want to repatriate? Do they want to get out of the CAP, CFP, Social Chapter, Common External Tariff?
It's entirely rational - from the voters perspective - to want to have your cake and eat it!
Let Sacramento sort it out if they're so f**king smart!
(I think I may have just turned into a SoCal Nationalist...)
Also, as long as we remain a member they will also remain deluded that they can force us to be a full member over time. As soon as we vote to leave, their mentality will immediately change to getting the best relationship possible with a G7 economy.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/unauthorized-saved-by-bell-tv-713208
http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/international/scotland/scotland-1872-1939.html
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w7XHiRgqyo
CAP: Would be nice, but probably not practical to get out of it altogether. Even if we leave we'd end up subsidising agriculture and countryside stewardship, as we did before we joined the EU, and as the US does to a massive extent.
CFP: No chance
Social Chapter: Yes
Common External Tariff: No, that would make no sense. If you're part of a trade area, you're part of a trade area. The Conservative view is that we should be working with our EU friends to reduce tariffs and barriers all round, To be fair, a lot of progress has been made on that (hat-tip to Peter Mandelson), and we'll be pushing for more.
Just saying.
You say "not altogether", but what sort of thing do you think we should get? So it will be a failing if we don't get an opt out here? NAFTA, EFTA, ASEAN etc don't have a common external tariff. Do they make "no sense"?
So stay in and put up with the bits that disadvantage us without getting the bits that do or pull out and get rid of at least some of the bits that disadvantage us. Movement of peoples would not stop if we were outside the EU, it went on before 1973, but the movement of peoples of no obvious benefit to the host country would be controllable.
I'm not sure we realise the extent to which our media slants its reporting on Syria. When Syrians take up arms to defend their homes from insurgents, it's described as 'Assad's deadly 'Shabiha' militias'. When there are mass rallies in favour of Assad, it's described as 'bullets were fired into the air -people reported shot'. There is a constant attempt to portray Syria the way you describe it, that in no way marries with any accounts coming out of Syria itself. It's a nonsense.
That said, England's chance is far more than theoretical. Perversely, they'd be well advised to keep their own game at 0-0 until, say, 60 mins or so, to force the Uruguayans into playing for a win. If England were to go 2-0 up early then the other game will stay a draw.