Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
In government, Clegg and his colleagues suddenly found they had to defend complexity and account for mistakes or difficult choices. This is not easy, as those in the two bigger parties have long known. To make matters worse, Clegg discovered that no matter how many times he put on that sad face, and explained with the hint of a sigh why he has been misunderstood by vulgarians, it never made a difference.
and what a punchline
The rise of the Lib Dems prefigured and helped cause this fragmentation. For decades they talked of a more diverse set-up at Westminster and the need for a voting system to match the weakening of the two party system. In coalition since 2010 they have been extremely annoying at points but they have demonstrated that the world will not end – as some of us feared – if parties have to cooperate. Just at that point they find themselves ignored by the voters – which is much worse than being derided – and parked in the departure lounge of British national life.
Or to simplify it, the coalition created a policy mush that neither Tory nor LD voters liked and blamed them as a sell off of their principles, thus pushing them to UKIP and Labour.
I thought that was a desperately cliched flick. Then again my visceral dislike of Mr Di Caprio knows no bounds. He gives me the creeps - and looks like he needs a good wash.
Completely unrelated, but Leonardo DiCaprio has apparently pulled out of the film role of playing Steve Jobs in Danny Boyle's new project.
Maybe there'll be betting market on the replacement?
Hedge your imaginary market by buying the Wolf of wall street on Dvd.
F1's on the red button - I'm allowing myself leeway.
I used to watch that type of film, alone, in the cinema. Did that for over a decade. Just doesn't work anymore. But, heh, I've got my broadband - As long as I'm Civic eh?
I've not seen that one Plato, your links aren't working for me by the way, assuming you're not trolling me I'll search out.
Netflix is offering me a documentary, with a scary cover, called The Conspiracy - has anyone seen it??
Mr. Owls, I would consider a single man to be an almost perfect definition of 'not many'
I fail to see how the sky will crack asunder *, the seas will swallow the earth and wailing and gnashing of teeth will abound if we leave that stupid court.
*Except in Dragon Age: Inquisition, of course, where this is the premise of the story.
"Similarly on the health service or taxation or education the Lib Dem on the panel could shake his or her head and say that the Tories or Labour had made quite a mess of things. The impression created was that the Lib Dems were the party for reasonable people who liked to shake their heads sadly."
Not generally an Adams fan. TC, but that's a cracker.
Chris Grayling is an advertisement for a Labour government according to Alex Massie.Tories would do well to heed his words and the words of wiser heads like Grieve and Clarke K.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
Euro-referendum? ECHR? Foreign aid?
How about going strong on the PC cover up child sex abuse aided and abetted by the Labour party in Rotherham? Nope, thought not.
It is difficult to see the grounds on which Strasbourg could have objected to 90 day detention. Some civil law countries on the continent allow for the detention of suspects for several years without trial under the authority of an investigating magistrate. Provided each renewal of detention in police custody had been approved by a District Judge, which was, of course, the proposal, it would almost certainly have been compatible.
This seems to me to be the heart of the matter. The Strasbourg judgements manage the worst of both worlds: interfering in peripheral matters which are none of their business and which are basically just political judgements which should be left to parliament, but not actually protecting core human rights, at least as regards the UK (I'm happy to accept that in some countries with a more shaky history in human rights, they may well have been a force for good).
All 3 have their time with the police but so far Sarkozy is the only one not to have been convicted (for how long though?) with both Juppe and Chirac convicted to several months and years in jail (suspended of course) for corruption.
No wonder France is in such a mess, it's being governed by convicted fraudsters for most of it's time.
Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
All 3 have their time with the police but so far Sarkozy is the only one not to have been convicted (for how long though?) with both Juppe and Chirac convicted to several months and years in jail (suspended of course) for corruption.
No wonder France is in such a mess, it's being governed by convicted fraudsters for most of it's time.
Interesting populus still has Labour ahead, though I suspect slightly more of its sample took place before Cameron's speech than yougov. We will need to wait for polls which were fully post speech to see if Cameron's bounce is sustained
I made a post in an earlier thread, which got deleted. But there are suspicions that the YG poll was not a normal sample. There are people signed up to YG using many different email accounts to monitor what polls are sent out. People report having received polls where they are down as Tory, UKIP or floaters, but not where they said they were Labour supporters. It is possible that YG were trying to sample whether there was any change within the Tory/UKIP/undecided voters, so did not want too many people who said previously they were firmly Labour.
If this is the case, the YG poll may be outside the trend we have been seeing.
Ah, the joys of a conspiracy theory...
Some theories turn out to be true, but in this case we would never find out.
Speedy/hucks67 But the numbers matched yougov's Wednesday poll, most of yougov's Thursday poll will have been taken on Thursday and late on Wednesday so populus probably included much of Wednesday morning too, but we shall see in the weekend polls
Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
@hucks67 "I made a post in an earlier thread, which got deleted. But there are suspicions that the YG poll was not a normal sample. There are people signed up to YG using many different email accounts to monitor what polls are sent out. People report having received polls where they are down as Tory, UKIP or floaters, but not where they said they were Labour supporters. It is possible that YG were trying to sample whether there was any change within the Tory/UKIP/undecided voters, so did not want too many people who said previously they were firmly Labour.
If this is the case, the YG poll may be outside the trend we have been seeing."
My reply to that is that it is possible, but we can't complain on the methodology of the pollster too much if that is the case. It could be that yougov had an outlier, of course it's suspicious if the outlier came just when the doctor ordered (the day after the speech), however due to absence of evidence we should keep those suspicions just as suspicions. Many here were also suspicious after the referendum that yougov single poll that showed YES ahead had cost Britain billions of pounds with the Vow, however no one can prove it was done in purpose, so lets leave it as that.
oxfordsimon I remain convinced Jeb won't run, he lost his chance in 1994 when he lost Florida and his brother won Texas, he has passed the mantle to his son George P who is running for Texas Land Cssioner this year. He will not run to be beaten by Hillary if he manages to win the nomination that is anyway
The wider issue is, surely, can a democracy vote for policies which are manifestly unfair (because otherwise it matters not whether we listen to ECHR, the Man in the Moon or anyone else)? The classic answer is that while this can happen, it won't in practice because the voters will recognise the communality of their self-interest. That this classic answer is so much rubbish is proved by the fact that slavery in the southern US was supported and enforced by democratically elected politicians.
Which gives us a clue as to the conditions necessary for the classic answer to be rubbish. The existence of more than one race or culture within a given national framework.
The important bit here is whether there are fundamental rights individuals have that cannot be abrogated - even democratically.
The Germans democratically elected the Nazis, who stripped rights from citizens they didn't like. And as you noted, some American states voted to allow slavery, and to disallow blacks from voting.
While I'm not saying the ECHR is the answer, it seems that a more fundamental set of rights - that cannot be stripped by politicians elected by 25% of the voters - is a must.
I see where you are going here and it makes no sense. At the end of the day - the will of the people has to be supreme - even when [ judged by later generations] they get it 'wrong'.
Two questions:
1. Should parliament be able to strip the vote from ginger haired people?
2. In a fractured FPTP system (like the one we have now) it is quite possible for a party to get a majority in the HoC with the support of 25% of the voters or less; would you describe their decision to strip the vote from ginger haired people as the will of the people?
It's a crazy question - the fact is technically they can, if there is a majority. Of course in the end all government rests on consent. your alternative seems to be a naive belief that the ECHR is a gouping of the 'great and the good' who should decide the law in the UK. Quite bizarre.
Why do you think I support the ECHR?
I have no idea - your whole position seems bizarre to me. I am a democrat. You apparently are happy to put your trust in a body which is not subject in any meaningful way to the will of the people of the country in which you live.
My view is that there are certain rights that should not be able to be abrogated by an Act of Parliament.
This is not a bizarre view, in the US laws have to be constitutional.
For the attention of the poster known as "Patrick"
Dear sir,
Having now confirmed with empirical observation the validity of Archimedes Paradox to my rigorous personal satisfaction, I beg you to accept my most humble and grovelling apology for forcing you into the necessarily awkward position of having to humiliatingly correct my mistake on a public internet forum.
Please also accept my genuine thanks for making me aware of this intriguing phenomenon.
Mr. Owls, I would consider a single man to be an almost perfect definition of 'not many'
I fail to see how the sky will crack asunder *, the seas will swallow the earth and wailing and gnashing of teeth will abound if we leave that stupid court.
*Except in Dragon Age: Inquisition, of course, where this is the premise of the story.
Mr. Briskin, np.
Mr Dancer
As you would probably expect I agree with him but accept I am probably in a minority.
Oh, I don't know why they aren't working. I have tweaked my browser so I can see things anywhere - are you getting a Not Available In Your Country error or something else?
I thought that was a desperately cliched flick. Then again my visceral dislike of Mr Di Caprio knows no bounds. He gives me the creeps - and looks like he needs a good wash.
Completely unrelated, but Leonardo DiCaprio has apparently pulled out of the film role of playing Steve Jobs in Danny Boyle's new project.
Maybe there'll be betting market on the replacement?
Hedge your imaginary market by buying the Wolf of wall street on Dvd.
F1's on the red button - I'm allowing myself leeway.
I used to watch that type of film, alone, in the cinema. Did that for over a decade. Just doesn't work anymore. But, heh, I've got my broadband - As long as I'm Civic eh?
I've not seen that one Plato, your links aren't working for me by the way, assuming you're not trolling me I'll search out.
Netflix is offering me a documentary, with a scary cover, called The Conspiracy - has anyone seen it??
It is difficult to see the grounds on which Strasbourg could have objected to 90 day detention. Some civil law countries on the continent allow for the detention of suspects for several years without trial under the authority of an investigating magistrate. Provided each renewal of detention in police custody had been approved by a District Judge, which was, of course, the proposal, it would almost certainly have been compatible.
This seems to me to be the heart of the matter. The Strasbourg judgements manage the worst of both worlds: interfering in peripheral matters which are none of their business and which are basically just political judgements which should be left to parliament, but not actually protecting core human rights, at least as regards the UK (I'm happy to accept that in some countries with a more shaky history in human rights, they may well have been a force for good).
Yes I can certainly agree with that.
I find it hard to see how we can trust Westminster politicians to improve upon this, though. They can't protect our liberties against themselves.
Oh, I don't know why they aren't working. I have tweaked my browser so I can see things anywhere - are you getting a Not Available In Your Country error or something else?
I thought that was a desperately cliched flick. Then again my visceral dislike of Mr Di Caprio knows no bounds. He gives me the creeps - and looks like he needs a good wash.
Completely unrelated, but Leonardo DiCaprio has apparently pulled out of the film role of playing Steve Jobs in Danny Boyle's new project.
Maybe there'll be betting market on the replacement?
Hedge your imaginary market by buying the Wolf of wall street on Dvd.
F1's on the red button - I'm allowing myself leeway.
I used to watch that type of film, alone, in the cinema. Did that for over a decade. Just doesn't work anymore. But, heh, I've got my broadband - As long as I'm Civic eh?
I've not seen that one Plato, your links aren't working for me by the way, assuming you're not trolling me I'll search out.
Netflix is offering me a documentary, with a scary cover, called The Conspiracy - has anyone seen it??
All 3 have their time with the police but so far Sarkozy is the only one not to have been convicted (for how long though?) with both Juppe and Chirac convicted to several months and years in jail (suspended of course) for corruption.
No wonder France is in such a mess, it's being governed by convicted fraudsters for most of it's time.
Can't hold a candle to Italy, surely?
No comment (surely we don't wish to end up hanged under a Thames bridge like in a Godfather situation when talking Italy?), the countries in the Med and Eastern Europe can be in no comparison for the corruption of their political leaders.
Mr. Me, it may seem like a choice between having rights badly defended/abused by foreign judges or domestic politicians, but there is an important distinction: politicians are accountable to the electorate.
Mr. Owls, nothing wrong with holding a minority opinion. As you might have guessed, I disagree with both of you.
Mr. Fenman, I do want to see a two state solution, but I'm not sure that's going to improve things. A proper negotiated settlement is needed.
I'm surprised, I thought Soft Porn Masquerading As Drama was a market HBO had largely cornered. I watch/discuss so much US TV that it can get a bit blurry.
The worst thing about the Fall new seasons is not knowing which ones from the new arrivals crop will make the axe. Almost Human from Fox was brilliant - but got canned at S1.
Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
Sweden announcing anything other than an Abba reunion will not count for much.
Iraq/Syria.
Rumours of US troop casualties in Iraq gets higher billing. If they are confirmed it will at last get out of this half-war nonsense that the Whitehouse seems to like to say its fighting.
Turkey is doing all the talking about crossing into Northern Syria to establish a buffer zone but are taking their time getting to it. They are fully equipped to do so and their aircraft have been seen of the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani currently under concerted IS attack.
oxfordsimon I remain convinced Jeb won't run, he lost his chance in 1994 when he lost Florida and his brother won Texas, he has passed the mantle to his son George P who is running for Texas Land Cssioner this year. He will not run to be beaten by Hillary if he manages to win the nomination that is anyway
I fail to understand why HRC is seen as a given to become next POTUS. The Dems are headed, by all accounts, for a drubbing in the mid terms next month. HRC is far more widely disliked than her hubby (who I never liked anyway). And he never won over 50% of the vote. She is the Dem front runner, the GOP have none yet - so in a way it´s normal for her to be ahead in these polls. I know over here it is inconceivable among polite society to even consider voting Rep but luckily it´s decided over there not here. Might HRC win in 2016? Definitely. Will it be a cake walk? Not necessarily. Can she lose? Of course.
Remember back in 1972 Nixon´s win was met with the following from the trendies, "how could Nixon win, I know ABSOLUTELY NO ONE who voted for him". Move forward to 2004 and President Kerry.
For the attention of the poster known as "Patrick"
Dear sir,
Having now confirmed with empirical observation the validity of Archimedes Paradox to my rigorous personal satisfaction, I beg you to accept my most humble and grovelling apology for forcing you into the necessarily awkward position of having to humiliatingly correct my mistake on a public internet forum.
Please also accept my genuine thanks for making me aware of this intriguing phenomenon.
You give in too easily; the claim being made was that a ship could float in a layer of water one molecule thick, which it couldn't for all sorts of reasons. If you allow only slightly more water the paradox is so uninteresting it hardly counts as a paradox.
PS MA upgrades at Oxford are only a tenner as far as I remember, are Cambridge ones more?
oxfordsimon I remain convinced Jeb won't run, he lost his chance in 1994 when he lost Florida and his brother won Texas, he has passed the mantle to his son George P who is running for Texas Land Cssioner this year. He will not run to be beaten by Hillary if he manages to win the nomination that is anyway
Since you are calculating the odds for 2016 here's one for you:
For the attention of the poster known as "Patrick"
Dear sir,
Having now confirmed with empirical observation the validity of Archimedes Paradox to my rigorous personal satisfaction, I beg you to accept my most humble and grovelling apology for forcing you into the necessarily awkward position of having to humiliatingly correct my mistake on a public internet forum.
Please also accept my genuine thanks for making me aware of this intriguing phenomenon.
Back in the day I was in the SDP and then in the LibDems and campaigned for both. I haven't been a member for over a decade but I believe in consensus politics and continued to vote LibDem and wanted them to do well. A ConDem coalition was probably my most favoured outcome in 2010.
But what a disaster it has been. And what on earth can possibly change in the next six months to encourage any of the LibDem>Lab switchers to return to the fold? The parliamentary party has turned out to be full of orange-bookers happy to lick Tory posteriors. Clegg has either been invisible or awful. And as for the boundaries/AV debacle...
The best thing now would be for the LibDems to start picking fights with the Tories. Regrow a pair of balls and the electorate might take notice. Otherwise all that they will remember is their uselessness.
Sweden announcing anything other than an Abba reunion will not count for much.
Iraq/Syria.
Rumours of US troop casualties in Iraq gets higher billing. If they are confirmed it will at last get out of this half-war nonsense that the Whitehouse seems to like to say its fighting.
Turkey is doing all the talking about crossing into Northern Syria to establish a buffer zone but are taking their time getting to it. They are fully equipped to do so and their aircraft have been seen of the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani currently under concerted IS attack.
Saw a couple of fighter jets on holiday there recently (Antalya !)
Some praise from me for the Lib Dems. A policy in line with classical liberalism at their Conference. Legalise Prostitution "Approaches which criminalise the purchase of sexual services but not, overtly, the workers themselves, criminalise otherwise law abiding people and divert criminal justice resources away from serious harms in society, including young people in care homes at risk of grooming, victims of trafficking, migrant workers in domestic and sometimes sexual servitude." Some might call it brave - will it get media headlines? http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-human-trafficking-must-be-an-important-party-of-safer-sex-work-strategy-42696.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
There are about 500 male MPs in the House of Commons.
Estimates of prostitute use among British Males range from as low as 7%, which would imply that at least 35 MPs in the House of Commons have bought the services of a prostitute.
The tabloids would not be able to believe their luck if this became a major political issue.
Sweden announcing anything other than an Abba reunion will not count for much.
Iraq/Syria.
Rumours of US troop casualties in Iraq gets higher billing. If they are confirmed it will at last get out of this half-war nonsense that the Whitehouse seems to like to say its fighting.
Turkey is doing all the talking about crossing into Northern Syria to establish a buffer zone but are taking their time getting to it. They are fully equipped to do so and their aircraft have been seen of the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani currently under concerted IS attack.
Turkey is waiting for ISIS to crush the Kurds first, then move in to get the territory. In Kobani ISIS is the hammer to Turkey's anvil. The Turks are not reliable allies as the present government has it's own separate agenda of reforming into the old Ottoman Empire, taking Syria for themselves is I believe their policy.
However on American casualties, it will be a big blow politically.
The news this morning that the Conservatives intend to hold an open primary in Rochester and Strood shows how serious the party is about winning the by election triggered by Mark Reckless's resignation. Primaries are expensive to organise – particularly an open primary in which any registered voter in the constituency can participate – but the Prime Minister and his advisors believe that selecting a "people's candidate" will be a good way of countering Ukip's populist rhetoric and is their best hope of victory.
I'm about the only person betting on Rev Oswald sending the ratherless pig dog traitorous turncoat out next week.... I think this excellent broadcast which has now been watched by literally some people may see my winnings come in!!!
The news this morning that the Conservatives intend to hold an open primary in Rochester and Strood shows how serious the party is about winning the by election triggered by Mark Reckless's resignation. Primaries are expensive to organise – particularly an open primary in which any registered voter in the constituency can participate – but the Prime Minister and his advisors believe that selecting a "people's candidate" will be a good way of countering Ukip's populist rhetoric and is their best hope of victory.
They had an open primary in Clacton too. So the "how serious the party is" bit is complete guff.
The Conservatives may be more serious about Rochester & Strood than Clacton, but an open primary is not evidence one way or another.
oxfordsimon I remain convinced Jeb won't run, he lost his chance in 1994 when he lost Florida and his brother won Texas, he has passed the mantle to his son George P who is running for Texas Land Cssioner this year. He will not run to be beaten by Hillary if he manages to win the nomination that is anyway
I fail to understand why HRC is seen as a given to become next POTUS. The Dems are headed, by all accounts, for a drubbing in the mid terms next month. HRC is far more widely disliked than her hubby (who I never liked anyway). And he never won over 50% of the vote. She is the Dem front runner, the GOP have none yet - so in a way it´s normal for her to be ahead in these polls. I know over here it is inconceivable among polite society to even consider voting Rep but luckily it´s decided over there not here. Might HRC win in 2016? Definitely. Will it be a cake walk? Not necessarily. Can she lose? Of course.
Remember back in 1972 Nixon´s win was met with the following from the trendies, "how could Nixon win, I know ABSOLUTELY NO ONE who voted for him". Move forward to 2004 and President Kerry.
She isn't, Ita - not according to the odds.
She's favorite, but that's because she's a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. The Republican field is very open, by contrast. Once the GOP has decided we'll see whether she remains favorite.
Edit: By the way, do you have a vote in the US elections?
For the attention of the poster known as "Patrick"
Dear sir,
Having now confirmed with empirical observation the validity of Archimedes Paradox to my rigorous personal satisfaction, I beg you to accept my most humble and grovelling apology for forcing you into the necessarily awkward position of having to humiliatingly correct my mistake on a public internet forum.
Please also accept my genuine thanks for making me aware of this intriguing phenomenon.
You give in too easily; the claim being made was that a ship could float in a layer of water one molecule thick, which it couldn't for all sorts of reasons. If you allow only slightly more water the paradox is so uninteresting it hardly counts as a paradox.
PS MA upgrades at Oxford are only a tenner as far as I remember, are Cambridge ones more?
I always reckoned the MA upgrades to be (at least in modern times, now their centuries-old traditional function is defunct) nothing but a form of fraud - plenty of people out there don't realise it isn't a "real" MA so get taken in by it. If absolutely everybody realised they were what they were, I wouldn't mind people appending it to their names so much, as no unfair advantage would accrue.
I have since come to view the Oxbridge MA as a way of identifying prats - particularly the vintage pompous self-important type, but it also works on the flashy wideboys confidence tricksters. It is not, however, a foolproof means of identifying prats, as on principle, I never claimed mine. (Though I did tag along to the ceremony for social purposes.)
@OblitusSumMe Your theoretical ship would have to also have to be theoretically smooth, otherwise the water molecules would be forced into the crystalline gaps in the steel?
@Plato – Mrs SSC sends her regards and her latest recommendations, which are ‘Sleepy Hollow’ - ‘Legends’ starring Sean Bean (natch) and ‘BlackList with James Spader.
oxfordsimon I remain convinced Jeb won't run, he lost his chance in 1994 when he lost Florida and his brother won Texas, he has passed the mantle to his son George P who is running for Texas Land Cssioner this year. He will not run to be beaten by Hillary if he manages to win the nomination that is anyway
I fail to understand why HRC is seen as a given to become next POTUS. The Dems are headed, by all accounts, for a drubbing in the mid terms next month. HRC is far more widely disliked than her hubby (who I never liked anyway). And he never won over 50% of the vote. She is the Dem front runner, the GOP have none yet - so in a way it´s normal for her to be ahead in these polls. I know over here it is inconceivable among polite society to even consider voting Rep but luckily it´s decided over there not here. Might HRC win in 2016? Definitely. Will it be a cake walk? Not necessarily. Can she lose? Of course.
Remember back in 1972 Nixon´s win was met with the following from the trendies, "how could Nixon win, I know ABSOLUTELY NO ONE who voted for him". Move forward to 2004 and President Kerry.
She isn't, Ita - not according to the odds.
She's favorite, but that's because she's a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. The Republican field is very open, by contrast. Once the GOP has decided we'll see whether she remains favorite.
Edit: By the way, do you have a vote in the US elections?
I'm about the only person betting on Rev Oswald sending the ratherless pig dog traitorous turncoat out next week.... I think this excellent broadcast which has now been watched by literally some people may see my winnings come in!!!
Giles Watling@GilesWatling·2 hrs2 hours ago Watch this video to find out how I'll stand up for you and your family: youtube.com/watch?v=DmHEw3g41iI … #Clacton
@OblitusSumMe Your theoretical ship would have to also have to be theoretically smooth, otherwise the water molecules would be forced into the crystalline gaps in the steel?
For the purposes of my apology that is all by-the-by, as it wasn't the basis on which I was criticising Patrick - and Charles - in such vehement terms this morning.
For the attention of the poster known as "Patrick"
Dear sir,
Having now confirmed with empirical observation the validity of Archimedes Paradox to my rigorous personal satisfaction, I beg you to accept my most humble and grovelling apology for forcing you into the necessarily awkward position of having to humiliatingly correct my mistake on a public internet forum.
Please also accept my genuine thanks for making me aware of this intriguing phenomenon.
You give in too easily; the claim being made was that a ship could float in a layer of water one molecule thick, which it couldn't for all sorts of reasons. If you allow only slightly more water the paradox is so uninteresting it hardly counts as a paradox.
PS MA upgrades at Oxford are only a tenner as far as I remember, are Cambridge ones more?
I always reckoned the MA upgrades to be (at least in modern times, now their centuries-old traditional function is defunct) nothing but a form of fraud - plenty of people out there don't realise it isn't a "real" MA so get taken in by it. If absolutely everybody realised they were what they were, I wouldn't mind people appending it to their names so much, as no unfair advantage would accrue.
I have since come to view the Oxbridge MA as a way of identifying prats - particularly the vintage pompous self-important type, but it also works on the flashy wideboys confidence tricksters. It is not, however, a foolproof means of identifying prats, as on principle, I never claimed mine. (Though I did tag along to the ceremony for social purposes.)
Since I already had an MSc by the time I was offered the MA by Cambridge, I did not really see the point. I think it might get me dinner once in a while if I'm in Cambridge, but I don't think it's good for much else.
In a rare lucid moment, Joe Biden has admitted that the US' policy on Syria has been a complete farce:
'“Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria,” he said, explaining that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were “so determined to take down Assad,” that in a sense they started a “proxy Sunni-Shia war” by pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” towards anyone who would fight against Assad.
“And we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them,” said Biden, thus disassociating the US from unleashing the civil war in Syria.'
Basically, with the key difference that Biden absolves the US of all blame, this is exactly what those of us with sense have been saying the entire time -against the furious denials of many in this very thread.
The news this morning that the Conservatives intend to hold an open primary in Rochester and Strood shows how serious the party is about winning the by election triggered by Mark Reckless's resignation. Primaries are expensive to organise – particularly an open primary in which any registered voter in the constituency can participate – but the Prime Minister and his advisors believe that selecting a "people's candidate" will be a good way of countering Ukip's populist rhetoric and is their best hope of victory.
They had an open primary in Clacton too. So the "how serious the party is" bit is complete guff.
The Conservatives may be more serious about Rochester & Strood than Clacton, but an open primary is not evidence one way or another.
According to what Reckless reported of the conversation between Cameron and Sarah Wollaston, Cameron expects Conservatives chosen by open primary to be as much order obeying drones as any other MP.
What's the point of a "people's candidate" if the "people's candidate" does nothing but follow orders from the PPEocrachy ?
I'm surprised, I thought Soft Porn Masquerading As Drama was a market HBO had largely cornered. I watch/discuss so much US TV that it can get a bit blurry.
The worst thing about the Fall new seasons is not knowing which ones from the new arrivals crop will make the axe. Almost Human from Fox was brilliant - but got canned at S1.
Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
The news this morning that the Conservatives intend to hold an open primary in Rochester and Strood shows how serious the party is about winning the by election triggered by Mark Reckless's resignation. Primaries are expensive to organise – particularly an open primary in which any registered voter in the constituency can participate – but the Prime Minister and his advisors believe that selecting a "people's candidate" will be a good way of countering Ukip's populist rhetoric and is their best hope of victory.
They had an open primary in Clacton too. So the "how serious the party is" bit is complete guff.
The Conservatives may be more serious about Rochester & Strood than Clacton, but an open primary is not evidence one way or another.
According to what Reckless reported of the conversation between Cameron and Sarah Wollaston, Cameron expects Conservatives chosen by open primary to be as much order obeying drones as any other MP.
What's the point of a "people's candidate" if the "people's candidate" does nothing but follow orders from the PPEocrachy ?
At least with open primaries we will have lots of ads like the Giles Watling one, fun for all the family:
oxfordsimon I remain convinced Jeb won't run, he lost his chance in 1994 when he lost Florida and his brother won Texas, he has passed the mantle to his son George P who is running for Texas Land Cssioner this year. He will not run to be beaten by Hillary if he manages to win the nomination that is anyway
I fail to understand why HRC is seen as a given to become next POTUS. The Dems are headed, by all accounts, for a drubbing in the mid terms next month. HRC is far more widely disliked than her hubby (who I never liked anyway). And he never won over 50% of the vote. She is the Dem front runner, the GOP have none yet - so in a way it´s normal for her to be ahead in these polls. I know over here it is inconceivable among polite society to even consider voting Rep but luckily it´s decided over there not here. Might HRC win in 2016? Definitely. Will it be a cake walk? Not necessarily. Can she lose? Of course.
Remember back in 1972 Nixon´s win was met with the following from the trendies, "how could Nixon win, I know ABSOLUTELY NO ONE who voted for him". Move forward to 2004 and President Kerry.
She isn't, Ita - not according to the odds.
She's favorite, but that's because she's a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. The Republican field is very open, by contrast. Once the GOP has decided we'll see whether she remains favorite.
Edit: By the way, do you have a vote in the US elections?
No I don´t!!
Steady, Ita. I was only asking.
Even in the USA it is not a crime to be caught in possession of a vote.
Back in the day I was in the SDP and then in the LibDems and campaigned for both. I haven't been a member for over a decade but I believe in consensus politics and continued to vote LibDem and wanted them to do well. A ConDem coalition was probably my most favoured outcome in 2010.
But what a disaster it has been. And what on earth can possibly change in the next six months to encourage any of the LibDem>Lab switchers to return to the fold? The parliamentary party has turned out to be full of orange-bookers happy to lick Tory posteriors. Clegg has either been invisible or awful. And as for the boundaries/AV debacle...
The best thing now would be for the LibDems to start picking fights with the Tories. Regrow a pair of balls and the electorate might take notice. Otherwise all that they will remember is their uselessness.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
oxfordsimon I remain convinced Jeb won't run, he lost his chance in 1994 when he lost Florida and his brother won Texas, he has passed the mantle to his son George P who is running for Texas Land Cssioner this year. He will not run to be beaten by Hillary if he manages to win the nomination that is anyway
I fail to understand why HRC is seen as a given to become next POTUS. The Dems are headed, by all accounts, for a drubbing in the mid terms next month. HRC is far more widely disliked than her hubby (who I never liked anyway). And he never won over 50% of the vote. She is the Dem front runner, the GOP have none yet - so in a way it´s normal for her to be ahead in these polls. I know over here it is inconceivable among polite society to even consider voting Rep but luckily it´s decided over there not here. Might HRC win in 2016? Definitely. Will it be a cake walk? Not necessarily. Can she lose? Of course.
Remember back in 1972 Nixon´s win was met with the following from the trendies, "how could Nixon win, I know ABSOLUTELY NO ONE who voted for him". Move forward to 2004 and President Kerry.
She isn't, Ita - not according to the odds.
She's favorite, but that's because she's a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. The Republican field is very open, by contrast. Once the GOP has decided we'll see whether she remains favorite.
Edit: By the way, do you have a vote in the US elections?
No I don´t!!
Steady, Ita. I was only asking.
Even in the USA it is not a crime to be caught in possession of a vote.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
Of course what the other parties could do if the Tories do run an open Primary in Rochester is attempt to get as many people there as possible and vote in the weakest candidate.
By the way how do the Tories confirm attendees are Rochester voters?
Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
Education in good sex!
Pedant alert.
Masters of Sex is Sony Pictures TV.
I thought that was Showtime.
Apparently there's some medieval set musical comedy show airing this Fall. Sounds atrocious.
Of course what the other parties could do if the Tories do run an open Primary in Rochester is attempt to get as many people there as possible and vote in the weakest candidate.
By the way how do the Tories confirm attendees are Rochester voters?
Tony Blair is a disgrace because he earns money says women who gets paid millions for acting...
What an prize pillock. The likes of her, Russell Brand, etc should stick to what they are good at (well allegedly in the case of Brand), entertainment.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
Education in good sex!
Pedant alert.
Masters of Sex is Sony Pictures TV.
I thought that was Showtime.
Apparently there's some medieval set musical comedy show airing this Fall. Sounds atrocious.
Tony Blair is a disgrace because he earns money says women who gets paid millions for acting...
What an prize pillock. The likes of her, Russell Brand, etc should stick to what they are good at (well allegedly in the case of Brand), entertainment.
But didn't you know it is ok for people of the Left to be hypocrites? Margaret Hodge can dodge taxes associated with the family firm, it is ok for Harriet Harman to alter selection rules so that her husband can get a seat in the Commons.
The news this morning that the Conservatives intend to hold an open primary in Rochester and Strood shows how serious the party is about winning the by election triggered by Mark Reckless's resignation. Primaries are expensive to organise – particularly an open primary in which any registered voter in the constituency can participate – but the Prime Minister and his advisors believe that selecting a "people's candidate" will be a good way of countering Ukip's populist rhetoric and is their best hope of victory.
They had an open primary in Clacton too. So the "how serious the party is" bit is complete guff.
The Conservatives may be more serious about Rochester & Strood than Clacton, but an open primary is not evidence one way or another.
According to what Reckless reported of the conversation between Cameron and Sarah Wollaston, Cameron expects Conservatives chosen by open primary to be as much order obeying drones as any other MP.
What's the point of a "people's candidate" if the "people's candidate" does nothing but follow orders from the PPEocrachy ?
I had understood Wollaston felt Reckless had misrepresented her on a few things.... don't trust these traitorous pig-dogs!
Tony Blair is a disgrace because he earns money says women who gets paid millions for acting...
What an prize pillock. The likes of her, Russell Brand, etc should stick to what they are good at (well allegedly in the case of Brand), entertainment.
But didn't you know it is ok for people of the Left to be hypocrites? Margaret Hodge can dodge taxes associated with the family firm, it is ok for Harriet Harman to alter selection rules so that her husband can get a seat in the Commons.
Do as I say not as I do...
It´s ok for the Millepede brothers not to pay IHT...
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.
What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.
The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.
What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.
The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.
What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.
The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
I can see that argument, plus I don't think the LDs will likely be mentally prepared to enter a formal coalition even if they are someone able to consider one, but on the other hand, as a party they are standing up for various policies, and it's up to them to decide if they can get some of those in a coalition, and then for the public to judge whether what it cost to get those policies was worth it, and in that regard, going from Tory Coalition to Labour Coalition is not especially unprincipled, it's what parties are supposed to do.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.
What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.
The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
Their only priorities are the ministerial limo's. I still remember back in 2010 the reason that the LD went into coalition and not just confidence&supply was that they wanted power directly. The problem is they don't know what to do with it.
The Lib Dems will follow whatever the electorate have decided.
And what happens if the Tories win the popular vote but Labour win most constituencies as is possible?
In anycase, the reality is that the majority of people will have voted against the largest party and in terms of constituencies the majority of seats will be against the largest party too. Its the nature of hung parliaments. So in forming a Coalition any smaller party is arguably going against the will of the people in a hung parliament scenario.
I love Sleepy Hollow - and do tell Mrs SSC that Ickabod Crane is my ideal man. I've forsaken Simon Baker for now.
Saw S1 of The Blacklist and isn't James Spader carrying the show?
Will try Legends - not come across that. Has she seen Orange Is The New Black? I rather fancy that.
Not keen on the idea of The 100, seen that one? Also waiting for Lost Girl to kick off again. Oh, and all of the last season of Pretty Little Liars. That's so mind-bendingly convoluted that I have do it in chunks. How they've kept that going is beyond me. Bugger and the other half of Teen Wolf, that's lost its way after a great first few seasons.
I've got Suits to catch up on again and Haven [Nathan is another marvellous bit of eye candy].
I'm a total nut for Damon in TVD. S6 started last night. Supernatural begins Tuesday S10. I have to talk myself into watching S9 again before then - all 23 episodes. I didn't much like S9 and have been putting this off since May... Spent large chunks of the summer playing Guess The Episode using a single line of dialogue with my other TV nerd friends... It makes knowing polling details seem normalish...
If anyone thought I was kidding about my interest in this stuff...
@Plato – Mrs SSC sends her regards and her latest recommendations, which are ‘Sleepy Hollow’ - ‘Legends’ starring Sean Bean (natch) and ‘BlackList with James Spader.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/11137459/George-W-Bush-my-brother-Jeb-wants-to-be-president.html
Netflix is offering me a documentary, with a scary cover, called The Conspiracy - has anyone seen it??
I fail to see how the sky will crack asunder *, the seas will swallow the earth and wailing and gnashing of teeth will abound if we leave that stupid court.
*Except in Dragon Age: Inquisition, of course, where this is the premise of the story.
Mr. Briskin, np.
Indeed I have a dislike of any political dynasty - I don't think it is healthy.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/chris-grayling-is-an-advertisement-for-a-labour-government/
Euro-referendum?
ECHR?
Foreign aid?
How about going strong on the PC cover up child sex abuse aided and abetted by the Labour party in Rotherham? Nope, thought not.
No wonder France is in such a mess, it's being governed by convicted fraudsters for most of it's time.
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Masters of Sex is Sony Pictures TV.
I doubt it somehow.
Maybe he's being cajoled into it.
This is the second time today.
If it is the rule just to accept polls at face value, please confirm this.
"I made a post in an earlier thread, which got deleted. But there are suspicions that the YG poll was not a normal sample. There are people signed up to YG using many different email accounts to monitor what polls are sent out. People report having received polls where they are down as Tory, UKIP or floaters, but not where they said they were Labour supporters. It is possible that YG were trying to sample whether there was any change within the Tory/UKIP/undecided voters, so did not want too many people who said previously they were firmly Labour.
If this is the case, the YG poll may be outside the trend we have been seeing."
My reply to that is that it is possible, but we can't complain on the methodology of the pollster too much if that is the case.
It could be that yougov had an outlier, of course it's suspicious if the outlier came just when the doctor ordered (the day after the speech), however due to absence of evidence we should keep those suspicions just as suspicions.
Many here were also suspicious after the referendum that yougov single poll that showed YES ahead had cost Britain billions of pounds with the Vow, however no one can prove it was done in purpose, so lets leave it as that.
This is not a bizarre view, in the US laws have to be constitutional.
Dear sir,
Having now confirmed with empirical observation the validity of Archimedes Paradox to my rigorous personal satisfaction, I beg you to accept my most humble and grovelling apology for forcing you into the necessarily awkward position of having to humiliatingly correct my mistake on a public internet forum.
Please also accept my genuine thanks for making me aware of this intriguing phenomenon.
Yours faithfully,
Oblitussumme BA Camb*, MSc R'dg*
As you would probably expect I agree with him but accept I am probably in a minority.
Try this
I find it hard to see how we can trust Westminster politicians to improve upon this, though. They can't protect our liberties against themselves.
Mr. Owls, nothing wrong with holding a minority opinion. As you might have guessed, I disagree with both of you.
Mr. Fenman, I do want to see a two state solution, but I'm not sure that's going to improve things. A proper negotiated settlement is needed.
The LibDems expected to win OE&S, does anyone think the Libdems will save their deposit in H&M ?
I'm surprised, I thought Soft Porn Masquerading As Drama was a market HBO had largely cornered. I watch/discuss so much US TV that it can get a bit blurry.
The worst thing about the Fall new seasons is not knowing which ones from the new arrivals crop will make the axe. Almost Human from Fox was brilliant - but got canned at S1.
Iraq/Syria.
Rumours of US troop casualties in Iraq gets higher billing. If they are confirmed it will at last get out of this half-war nonsense that the Whitehouse seems to like to say its fighting.
Turkey is doing all the talking about crossing into Northern Syria to establish a buffer zone but are taking their time getting to it. They are fully equipped to do so and their aircraft have been seen of the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani currently under concerted IS attack.
I fail to understand why HRC is seen as a given to become next POTUS.
The Dems are headed, by all accounts, for a drubbing in the mid terms next month. HRC is far more widely disliked than her hubby (who I never liked anyway). And he never won over 50% of the vote.
She is the Dem front runner, the GOP have none yet - so in a way it´s normal for her to be ahead in these polls.
I know over here it is inconceivable among polite society to even consider voting Rep but luckily it´s decided over there not here.
Might HRC win in 2016? Definitely. Will it be a cake walk? Not necessarily. Can she lose? Of course.
Remember back in 1972 Nixon´s win was met with the following from the trendies, "how could Nixon win, I know ABSOLUTELY NO ONE who voted for him". Move forward to 2004 and President Kerry.
PS MA upgrades at Oxford are only a tenner as far as I remember, are Cambridge ones more?
Rand Paul in a "We're all going to die!" moment.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rand-paul-warns-of-whole-ship-full-of-soldiers-catching-ebola/
Apparently According to Romney´s son, he never really wanted to be president. Hunky dory then! Why didn´t he let someone else have a go then?
But what a disaster it has been. And what on earth can possibly change in the next six months to encourage any of the LibDem>Lab switchers to return to the fold? The parliamentary party has turned out to be full of orange-bookers happy to lick Tory posteriors. Clegg has either been invisible or awful. And as for the boundaries/AV debacle...
The best thing now would be for the LibDems to start picking fights with the Tories. Regrow a pair of balls and the electorate might take notice. Otherwise all that they will remember is their uselessness.
Estimates of prostitute use among British Males range from as low as 7%, which would imply that at least 35 MPs in the House of Commons have bought the services of a prostitute.
The tabloids would not be able to believe their luck if this became a major political issue.
The Turks are not reliable allies as the present government has it's own separate agenda of reforming into the old Ottoman Empire, taking Syria for themselves is I believe their policy.
However on American casualties, it will be a big blow politically.
http://www.ukip.org/medway_councillor_joins_ukip
"People report having received polls where they are down as Tory, UKIP or floaters, but not where they said they were Labour supporters."
Giles Watling@GilesWatling·2 hrs2 hours ago
Watch this video to find out how I'll stand up for you and your family: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmHEw3g41iI … #Clacton
The Conservatives may be more serious about Rochester & Strood than Clacton, but an open primary is not evidence one way or another.
She's favorite, but that's because she's a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. The Republican field is very open, by contrast. Once the GOP has decided we'll see whether she remains favorite.
Edit: By the way, do you have a vote in the US elections?
I have since come to view the Oxbridge MA as a way of identifying prats - particularly the vintage pompous self-important type, but it also works on the flashy wideboys confidence tricksters. It is not, however, a foolproof means of identifying prats, as on principle, I never claimed mine. (Though I did tag along to the ceremony for social purposes.)
Your theoretical ship would have to also have to be theoretically smooth, otherwise the water molecules would be forced into the crystalline gaps in the steel?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2647544/?ref_=nv_sr_1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2402137/?ref_=nv_sr_1
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2741602/
No I don´t!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD_jcTQMYjk
'“Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria,” he said, explaining that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were “so determined to take down Assad,” that in a sense they started a “proxy Sunni-Shia war” by pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” towards anyone who would fight against Assad.
“And we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them,” said Biden, thus disassociating the US from unleashing the civil war in Syria.'
Basically, with the key difference that Biden absolves the US of all blame, this is exactly what those of us with sense have been saying the entire time -against the furious denials of many in this very thread.
http://rt.com/news/192880-biden-isis-us-allies/
Please also bear in mind that the US has just agreed with Saudi Arabia to flood Syria with even more of these militants.
All I indicated was that I believed Jeb was the talented one, and even that is only hearsay.
The Conservatives may be more serious about Rochester & Strood than Clacton, but an open primary is not evidence one way or another.
According to what Reckless reported of the conversation between Cameron and Sarah Wollaston, Cameron expects Conservatives chosen by open primary to be as much order obeying drones as any other MP.
What's the point of a "people's candidate" if the "people's candidate" does nothing but follow orders from the PPEocrachy ?
What's the point of a "people's candidate" if the "people's candidate" does nothing but follow orders from the PPEocrachy ?
At least with open primaries we will have lots of ads like the Giles Watling one, fun for all the family:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3MpFKGNZZA
Even in the USA it is not a crime to be caught in possession of a vote.
UKIP 1.91
Con 2.52
Lab 10
Other 150
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.115707446
By the way how do the Tories confirm attendees are Rochester voters?
Apparently there's some medieval set musical comedy show airing this Fall. Sounds atrocious.
Tony Blair is a disgrace because he earns money says women who gets paid millions for acting...
What an prize pillock. The likes of her, Russell Brand, etc should stick to what they are good at (well allegedly in the case of Brand), entertainment.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
http://jezebel.com/whats-all-this-half-baked-medieval-crap-doing-on-my-tv-1625741875
OH GOD, its like a very bad american adaptation of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tUW86-hQz8
Do as I say not as I do...
What's the point of a "people's candidate" if the "people's candidate" does nothing but follow orders from the PPEocrachy ?
I had understood Wollaston felt Reckless had misrepresented her on a few things.... don't trust these traitorous pig-dogs!
Bless you, Sidney.
It´s ok for the Millepede brothers not to pay IHT...
What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.
The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
I've telling you - we're blocked up and ready to go though
I still remember back in 2010 the reason that the LD went into coalition and not just confidence&supply was that they wanted power directly. The problem is they don't know what to do with it.
The most likely thing that the 'electorate' will say is that we don't want so many LD MPs...
In anycase, the reality is that the majority of people will have voted against the largest party and in terms of constituencies the majority of seats will be against the largest party too. Its the nature of hung parliaments. So in forming a Coalition any smaller party is arguably going against the will of the people in a hung parliament scenario.
We apologise, as ever, for any confusion caused.
Saw S1 of The Blacklist and isn't James Spader carrying the show?
Will try Legends - not come across that. Has she seen Orange Is The New Black? I rather fancy that.
Not keen on the idea of The 100, seen that one? Also waiting for Lost Girl to kick off again. Oh, and all of the last season of Pretty Little Liars. That's so mind-bendingly convoluted that I have do it in chunks. How they've kept that going is beyond me. Bugger and the other half of Teen Wolf, that's lost its way after a great first few seasons.
I've got Suits to catch up on again and Haven [Nathan is another marvellous bit of eye candy].
I'm a total nut for Damon in TVD. S6 started last night. Supernatural begins Tuesday S10. I have to talk myself into watching S9 again before then - all 23 episodes. I didn't much like S9 and have been putting this off since May... Spent large chunks of the summer playing Guess The Episode using a single line of dialogue with my other TV nerd friends... It makes knowing polling details seem normalish...
If anyone thought I was kidding about my interest in this stuff...