Casino - according tot he latest extracts Cameron's fondness for Scotland stretches as far as hunting and grouse moors. Nothing it would appear for the Scottish people themselves. As for Blair I've never got any sense he had much love of the place. He offered devolution because he was afraid of the SNP and thought independence could be bought off.
I'm not reallt taking too much notice of the veracity of Call Me Dave. I think any real claim to objectivity disappeared with the confessions of Ashcroft and Oakeshott this week. Whixh is a shame, as there are real and genuine criticisms to be made of Cameron.
Scottish people are a mixed bunch. On the one hand you have highly intelligent and respectful people like DavidL, and then you have the nationalists.
Business cases over 20-30 years+ are works of fiction anyway. No one has a scooby-do what will happen over that sort of timescale. What happens is that you agree a base set of assumptions for a traffic model and then do a simple extrapolation to low-medium-high growth traffic scenarios. It looks scientific but is basically finger in the air stuff.
For strategic infrastructure, that can alter the economic geography of the country, it could be anything from white elephant to roaring success that hits capacity way ahead of plans - think Jubilee Line to Canary Wharf that only opened in 1999 - sometimes you just have to take an intelligent punt.
If you'd had to write business cases subject to public/judicial review in the 1840s we'd never have built any railways at all. Instead there was an investors prospectus, a sense of the way the wind was blowing, with some important early successes, and a desire not to be left out.
I agree with all of that, and especially the business case point. In fact, that's the same for any investment: there are few (any) investments that you can be 100% sure will pay off, and you have to make punts based on (hopefully intelligent) reasoning. Can we be sure that Crossrail will be a success for the economy as a whole? No. But few particularly doubt it.
There are also the costs of not doing something, and that is often forgotten. The motorway network has been a huge success with some caveats (mainly due to capacity issues), but it was massively costly. Yet if we had not built that network the country's economy would be nowhere near what it is.
IMO infrastructure works best when it is done not just for its own reasons, but to enable further investments. That was accidentally the case for many early railways: their presence enabled new mines and industries to spring up due to the fact that goods could be transported more cheaply. This in turn increased traffic on the routes, and allowed new routes to be opened. To a certain extent the two fed off each other. The railways were enablers.
It should also be noted that many investors in the two railway manias lost their shirts, but in many cases we are still reaping the advantage from their losses.
Re earlier conversations about lies, I was a candidate in the GE, I was (perhaps naively) amazed at how people lie almost as a matter of course. I spoke to some young campaigners about the leaflets they were distributing and questioned some of the "facts". The reply was "I don't what you're worried about, we all tell lies".
Within politics being dishonest is a given, accusing Cameron of telling lies won't affect things in the slightest beyond causing him a bit of embarrassment.
Interesting - who were you standing for? In my experience, selective quotation and misrepresentation are par for the course, but people do feel unhappy at direct lies. I remember complaining about a by-election where there was a pre-printed stock of leaflets to go out on election day afternoon saying "Early returns from this morning show it's very close". The by-election organisers had the grace to look embarrassed and the leaflet was quietly junked.
I think that smaller and newer parties are (even) less scrupulous than the larger ones, since they've not established any sort of borderline beyond which they won't go, and just think, like the people you talked to, that anything goes. I usually found the LibDems less scrupulous than the Tories, with a sense of "we're the underdogs so we have to" about it.
I think the revelation that the Queen did indeed interfere in the referendum at the behest of Cameron is a major story even if it does not resonate within the M25. Trying to define how far she could go by leaks which were then reported as royal sources in purdah period broke many rules. Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain is clearly Queen Elizabeth the Second of England at heart. Fair enough, but do not complain when royalty despite Witchell's fawnings continues to be as popular as a fart in a spacesuit north of the Tweed.
The Queen is also Elizabeth II as the higher regnal number is used from the former kingdoms of England and Scotland.
What chance an heir to the throne being named James, David, or indeed Malcolm? Miniscule to f.all. Can't have the Jocks considering they have any sort of primacy.
Edward VIII was known as 'David' prior to his accession. There's no reason why he couldn't have chosen it as his regnal name.
Prince George - who stands an excellent chance of becoming king - also has Alexander as one of his names should he opt not to go with the thoroughly boring first name he's been given (and the only realistic alternative given that Louis is probably out of bounds).
So, form versus hypothetical? As a bettor which would you go with? The prospect of Eck IV is entertaining though.
Hypothetical is all we have to go on; there is no form - the convention was established after the current queen became monarch so there've been no instances since it came into being.
You mentioned Edward VIII.. Were you suggesting hypothetically that he might have been David I or David III?
That dilemma may well have been why he didn't go with it.
(Though that was more to answer your point about heirs not being named James, David or Malcolm than as a historical might-have-been).
Business cases over 20-30 years+ are works of fiction anyway. No one has a scooby-do what will happen over that sort of timescale. What happens is that you agree a base set of assumptions for a traffic model and then do a simple extrapolation to low-medium-high growth traffic scenarios. It looks scientific but is basically finger in the air stuff.
For strategic infrastructure, that can alter the economic geography of the country, it could be anything from white elephant to roaring success that hits capacity way ahead of plans - think Jubilee Line to Canary Wharf that only opened in 1999 - sometimes you just have to take an intelligent punt.
If you'd had to write business cases subject to public/judicial review in the 1840s we'd never have built any railways at all. Instead there was an investors prospectus, a sense of the way the wind was blowing, with some important early successes, and a desire not to be left out.
I agree with all of that, and especially the business case point. In fact, that's the same for any investment: there are few (any) investments that you can be 100% sure will pay off, and you have to make punts based on (hopefully intelligent) reasoning. Can we be sure that Crossrail will be a success for the economy as a whole? No. But few particularly doubt it.
There are also the costs of not doing something, and that is often forgotten. The motorway network has been a huge success with some caveats (mainly due to capacity issues), but it was massively costly. Yet if we had not built that network the country's economy would be nowhere near what it is.
IMO infrastructure works best when it is done not just for its own reasons, but to enable further investments. That was accidentally the case for many early railways: their presence enabled new mines and industries to spring up due to the fact that goods could be transported more cheaply. This in turn increased traffic on the routes, and allowed new routes to be opened. To a certain extent the two fed off each other. The railways were enablers.
It should also be noted that many investors in the two railway manias lost their shirts, but in many cases we are still reaping the advantage from their losses.
Agree with all of that.
Oi! This is PB. We can't just gratuitously agree with each other.
In the Times today Corbyn confirms he will oppose the benefits cap completely, oppose Trident renewal if Conference does and also refuses to commit to meet any business leaders at Conference focusing on members
All falling nicely into place.
Yes, it's lovely isn't it? I'll own to feeling unworthy amounts of schadenfreude as sensible Labour MPs are tipped off the electoral cliff by fanatic, virtue-signalling activists. Then I slap myself and remember I'm an adult and want a decent opposition. Oh, the dissonance!
Business cases over 20-30 years+ are works of fiction anyway. No one has a scooby-do what will happen over that sort of timescale. What happens is that you agree a base set of assumptions for a traffic model and then do a simple extrapolation to low-medium-high growth traffic scenarios. It looks scientific but is basically finger in the air stuff.
For strategic infrastructure, that can alter the economic geography of the country, it could be anything from white elephant to roaring success that hits capacity way ahead of plans - think Jubilee Line to Canary Wharf that only opened in 1999 - sometimes you just have to take an intelligent punt.
If you'd had to write business cases subject to public/judicial review in the 1840s we'd never have built any railways at all. Instead there was an investors prospectus, a sense of the way the wind was blowing, with some important early successes, and a desire not to be left out.
I agree with all of that, and especially the business case point. In fact, that's the same for any investment: there are few (any) investments that you can be 100% sure will pay off, and you have to make punts based on (hopefully intelligent) reasoning. Can we be sure that Crossrail will be a success for the economy as a whole? No. But few particularly doubt it.
There are also the costs of not doing something, and that is often forgotten. The motorway network has been a huge success with some caveats (mainly due to capacity issues), but it was massively costly. Yet if we had not built that network the country's economy would be nowhere near what it is.
IMO infrastructure works best when it is done not just for its own reasons, but to enable further investments. That was accidentally the case for many early railways: their presence enabled new mines and industries to spring up due to the fact that goods could be transported more cheaply. This in turn increased traffic on the routes, and allowed new routes to be opened. To a certain extent the two fed off each other. The railways were enablers.
It should also be noted that many investors in the two railway manias lost their shirts, but in many cases we are still reaping the advantage from their losses.
Agree with all of that.
Oi! This is PB. We can't just gratuitously agree with each other.
In the Times today Corbyn confirms he will oppose the benefits cap completely, oppose Trident renewal if Conference does and also refuses to commit to meet any business leaders at Conference focusing on members
All falling nicely into place.
Yes, it's lovely isn't it? I'll own to feeling unworthy amounts of schadenfreude as sensible Labour MPs are tipped off the electoral cliff by fanatic, virtue-signalling activists. Then I slap myself and remember I'm an adult and want a decent opposition. Oh, the dissonance!
There's a 5% return available for anyone who thinks Khan or Goldsmith is going to win.
Bit of a risk there - one or other of them forced to withdraw for some reason, or either of them flouncing out or getting deselected because of a bust-up with their respective party leaders.
I know you said it's Eid, but is that the equivalent of Christmas Mass for a Catholic?
On an unrelated note, tomorrow is Saint Lancelot's Day.
Kinda. My Dad, Mum and a lot of their friends are going and then to an after mosque party.
It's the Muslim equivalent of Christmas
So I have to make an appearance. My parents understand I'm not very religious but they do like me to keep up appearances that I'm a Muslim.
Is it normal to have to keep up appearances in Muslim families even if you're no longer a believer, or do you just come from a strict family? I ask because my family is very Christian, but my brother was happy to come out as an atheist. We all went to his non-religious wedding.
I know you said it's Eid, but is that the equivalent of Christmas Mass for a Catholic?
On an unrelated note, tomorrow is Saint Lancelot's Day.
Kinda. My Dad, Mum and a lot of their friends are going and then to an after mosque party.
It's the Muslim equivalent of Christmas
So I have to make an appearance. My parents understand I'm not very religious but they do like me to keep up appearances that I'm a Muslim.
Is it normal to have to keep up appearances in Muslim families even if you're no longer a believer, or do you just come from a strict family? I ask because my family is very Christian, but my brother was happy to come out as an atheist. We all went to his non-religious wedding.
My parents aren't strict at all. It's just to keep up appearances. Some of the people who are at the Mosque have known my parents/me for nearly 40 years.
Most of them came to my wedding when I married an infidel.
SW1 certainly expected the worst from the new SNP cohort. As the Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry puts it, ‘They thought we would come down waving flags, with our faces painted blue and white.’ Yet those preconceptions were not without substance. An extraordinary, never-before-seen document written by disgruntled SNP aides — and passed to me while researching this article — reveals that even the party’s own employees have been horrified by their MPs’ behaviour for a while. In their own staff’s words, the Westminster group are described as ‘complete arseholes’ and Alex Salmond is nicknamed ‘Mr Terror’, while Angus MacNeil is accused of being ‘arrogant, demanding and in general behaving like a five-year-old… [He] has some problems understanding why he is here, although the Sports and Social bar is extremely happy that he is.’
There's a 5% return available for anyone who thinks Khan or Goldsmith is going to win.
Bit of a risk there - one or other of them forced to withdraw for some reason, or either of them flouncing out or getting deselected because of a bust-up with their respective party leaders.
Yes, there is a bit of risk, but it's 5% over 8 months. And if one is forced to withdraw the other would probably be quite a strong favourite in the circumstances.
I'm already colossally red the field so am prepared to give away 1%-2% by laying both Zac & Sadiq, so I thought I'd advertise the fact that some tosser is beating my prices to get them cleared out of the way
I know you said it's Eid, but is that the equivalent of Christmas Mass for a Catholic?
On an unrelated note, tomorrow is Saint Lancelot's Day.
Kinda. My Dad, Mum and a lot of their friends are going and then to an after mosque party.
It's the Muslim equivalent of Christmas
So I have to make an appearance. My parents understand I'm not very religious but they do like me to keep up appearances that I'm a Muslim.
Is it normal to have to keep up appearances in Muslim families even if you're no longer a believer, or do you just come from a strict family? I ask because my family is very Christian, but my brother was happy to come out as an atheist. We all went to his non-religious wedding.
My parents aren't strict at all. It's just to keep up appearances. Some of the people who are at the Mosque have known my parents/me for nearly 40 years.
Most of them came to my wedding when I married an infidel.
Ah, I see. Your parents aren't strict, but some in the rest of the community are. That makes sense. Would they have been as comfortable attending a wedding if it was a Muslim woman marrying an infidel man, out of interest?
There's a 5% return available for anyone who thinks Khan or Goldsmith is going to win.
Bit of a risk there - one or other of them forced to withdraw for some reason, or either of them flouncing out or getting deselected because of a bust-up with their respective party leaders.
Yes, there is a bit of risk, but it's 5% over 8 months. And if one is forced to withdraw the other would probably be quite a strong favourite in the circumstances.
I'm already colossally red the field so am prepared to give away 1%-2% by laying both Zac & Sadiq, so I thought I'd advertise the fact that some tosser is beating my prices to get them cleared out of the way
Fair enough!
I'd only caution that, if Khan dropped out for some reason, it's reasonably likely that Tessa would be installed by Labour as the candidate, perhaps without a further contest. That would change the dynamics not necessarily to the advantage of anyone trying to pick up the 5% return.
There's a 5% return available for anyone who thinks Khan or Goldsmith is going to win.
Bit of a risk there - one or other of them forced to withdraw for some reason, or either of them flouncing out or getting deselected because of a bust-up with their respective party leaders.
Yes, there is a bit of risk, but it's 5% over 8 months. And if one is forced to withdraw the other would probably be quite a strong favourite in the circumstances.
I'm already colossally red the field so am prepared to give away 1%-2% by laying both Zac & Sadiq, so I thought I'd advertise the fact that some tosser is beating my prices to get them cleared out of the way
Fair enough!
I'd only caution that, if Khan dropped out for some reason, it's reasonably likely that Tessa would be installed by Labour as the candidate, perhaps without a further contest. That would change the dynamics not necessarily to the advantage of anyone trying to pick up the 5% return.
She might be, but then again in today's Labour Party she might not! They might co-opt Galloway instead...
I know you said it's Eid, but is that the equivalent of Christmas Mass for a Catholic?
On an unrelated note, tomorrow is Saint Lancelot's Day.
Kinda. My Dad, Mum and a lot of their friends are going and then to an after mosque party.
It's the Muslim equivalent of Christmas
So I have to make an appearance. My parents understand I'm not very religious but they do like me to keep up appearances that I'm a Muslim.
Is it normal to have to keep up appearances in Muslim families even if you're no longer a believer, or do you just come from a strict family? I ask because my family is very Christian, but my brother was happy to come out as an atheist. We all went to his non-religious wedding.
My parents aren't strict at all. It's just to keep up appearances. Some of the people who are at the Mosque have known my parents/me for nearly 40 years.
Most of them came to my wedding when I married an infidel.
Ah, I see. Your parents aren't strict, but some in the rest of the community are. That makes sense. Would they have been as comfortable attending a wedding if it was a Muslim woman marrying an infidel man, out of interest?
It's not about being strict.
Some of them attended a Muslim female marrying an infidel party last year. As did I.
It was all good fun. There was some regret but they got over it.
There's a 5% return available for anyone who thinks Khan or Goldsmith is going to win.
Bit of a risk there - one or other of them forced to withdraw for some reason, or either of them flouncing out or getting deselected because of a bust-up with their respective party leaders.
Yes, there is a bit of risk, but it's 5% over 8 months. And if one is forced to withdraw the other would probably be quite a strong favourite in the circumstances.
I'm already colossally red the field so am prepared to give away 1%-2% by laying both Zac & Sadiq, so I thought I'd advertise the fact that some tosser is beating my prices to get them cleared out of the way
Fair enough!
I'd only caution that, if Khan dropped out for some reason, it's reasonably likely that Tessa would be installed by Labour as the candidate, perhaps without a further contest. That would change the dynamics not necessarily to the advantage of anyone trying to pick up the 5% return.
She might be, but then again in today's Labour Party she might not! They might co-opt Galloway instead...
Unlikely. Hasn't Corbyn criticised Galloway for his smears/campaigns against Naz Shah
There's a 5% return available for anyone who thinks Khan or Goldsmith is going to win.
Bit of a risk there - one or other of them forced to withdraw for some reason, or either of them flouncing out or getting deselected because of a bust-up with their respective party leaders.
Yes, there is a bit of risk, but it's 5% over 8 months. And if one is forced to withdraw the other would probably be quite a strong favourite in the circumstances.
I'm already colossally red the field so am prepared to give away 1%-2% by laying both Zac & Sadiq, so I thought I'd advertise the fact that some tosser is beating my prices to get them cleared out of the way
Fair enough!
I'd only caution that, if Khan dropped out for some reason, it's reasonably likely that Tessa would be installed by Labour as the candidate, perhaps without a further contest. That would change the dynamics not necessarily to the advantage of anyone trying to pick up the 5% return.
She might be, but then again in today's Labour Party she might not! They might co-opt Galloway instead...
Unlikely. Hasn't Corbyn criticised Galloway for his smears/campaigns against Naz Shah
The Tories haven't actually backed Zac yet.
I gave him my second preference yesterday in fact.
Went to a wedding recently where the bride and her family were very definetly non-religious. Last year her sister got married in a humanist ceremony that sometimes verged on Third Age.
However at this years wedding, although the groom is, I think, non-religious his family are Irish, therefore theoretically at any rate Catholic
So there had to be some sort of compromise and they married in the local CoE Church. Everyone seemed happy, and afterwards quite a lot of drink was taken in celebration!
Over the past two weeks Westminster has been focused almost exclusively on the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Which has obscured the fact we are now living through the days of the Osborne Ascendancy.
When the Conservative Party launched those early attack ads on Corbyn, emphasising the need for stability and security, they weren’t just aimed at the Labour Party. By accident, or – as more cynical observers have concluded – by design, they also exploded in the face of Osborne’s closest challenger. The unspoken message was: Boris Johnson. Great guy. But do you really want him in the room negotiating with Putin? Or steering the country through the latest economic crisis? Or in the room with the nuclear button? He might accidentally sit on it.
The Tories' 2020 election strategy is already set. Safety. Stability. Continuity. The opposite of Corbyn’s Labour Party, in other words. And the opposite of Johnson’s Tory party.
First the crane collapse, and now this. Mind you, managing crowds of that sort of size must be incredibly complex.
I went to Spurs v Arsenal last night (I'm a Gooner) and the police escorted us all the way to Seven Sisters and that wasn't very nice. I can't imagine what it's like to be in a crowd of the size they get at Mecca.
Went to a wedding recently where the bride and her family were very definetly non-religious. Last year her sister got married in a humanist ceremony that sometimes verged on Third Age.
However at this years wedding, although the groom is, I think, non-religious his family are Irish, therefore theoretically at any rate Catholic
So there had to be some sort of compromise and they married in the local CoE Church. Everyone seemed happy, and afterwards quite a lot of drink was taken in celebration!
Since neither of us are religious, and Mrs J comes from a Muslim background and myself from a Christian, a church wedding didn't seem right. I've also been to scores of church weddings that sadly all tend to merge into one unmemorable lump. For this reason we wanted something distinctive, and we chose to get married on a Victorian warship.
It suited both sides of the family rather well, and was surprisingly cheap.
Went to a wedding recently where the bride and her family were very definetly non-religious. Last year her sister got married in a humanist ceremony that sometimes verged on Third Age.
However at this years wedding, although the groom is, I think, non-religious his family are Irish, therefore theoretically at any rate Catholic
So there had to be some sort of compromise and they married in the local CoE Church. Everyone seemed happy, and afterwards quite a lot of drink was taken in celebration!
Since neither of us are religious, and Mrs J comes from a Muslim background and myself from a Christian, a church wedding didn't seem right. I've also been to scores of church weddings that sadly all tend to merge into one unmemorable lump. For this reason we wanted something distinctive, and we chose to get married on a Victorian warship.
It suited both sides of the family rather well, and was surprisingly cheap.
Oi! This is PB. We can't just gratuitously agree with each other.
Post of the day!
And on that happy note I must leave you and be about my duties - people to see, drinks to be taken, luncheon to be eaten, games to be played; busy, busy , busy - it is hell being a modern pensioner.
Thanks all for some interesting conversation this morning.
Went to a wedding recently where the bride and her family were very definetly non-religious. Last year her sister got married in a humanist ceremony that sometimes verged on Third Age.
However at this years wedding, although the groom is, I think, non-religious his family are Irish, therefore theoretically at any rate Catholic
So there had to be some sort of compromise and they married in the local CoE Church. Everyone seemed happy, and afterwards quite a lot of drink was taken in celebration!
Since neither of us are religious, and Mrs J comes from a Muslim background and myself from a Christian, a church wedding didn't seem right. I've also been to scores of church weddings that sadly all tend to merge into one unmemorable lump. For this reason we wanted something distinctive, and we chose to get married on a Victorian warship.
It suited both sides of the family rather well, and was surprisingly cheap.
My younger son had three celebrations. He and his wife married in Hong Kong, where they were living. Just a couple of officials as witnesses. Then they had a ceremony in her home (Thai) village, to which we, plus a few of his British friends, went, and which was quite a party. Finally they cam to UK and had a party for the friends and relatives who hadn’t been able to get to Thailand. That was quite a party, too.
Osbourne seems to cause a blind spot. I posted that here yesterday and nobody noticed. It will be interesting to see if they notice today with all the scandals they have to choose from.
Once again Cameron has been underestimated. I think it was very canny of him to keep the VW scandal handy for distracting from issues with Lord A, but he gets no credit for it
Meirion Jones lays into Alan Yentob here - but the history fans on here will probably appreciate his Tony Hall = Aethelred comparison even more:
When the Vikings — sorry, the Chancellor — turned up demanding £750 million from the BBC, Hall had two options: fight or pay the Danegeld. The Vikings promised they would never come back to demand more money but, like politicians, the Vikings weren’t known for keeping promises. They started treating Aethelred as a sort of medieval cashpoint, until they’d taken out 100 tons of silver. This they celebrated in the traditional way, by having a feast at their camp in Greenwich, kidnapping the Archbishop, and bludgeoning him to death with ox bones.
Went to a wedding recently where the bride and her family were very definetly non-religious. Last year her sister got married in a humanist ceremony that sometimes verged on Third Age.
However at this years wedding, although the groom is, I think, non-religious his family are Irish, therefore theoretically at any rate Catholic
So there had to be some sort of compromise and they married in the local CoE Church. Everyone seemed happy, and afterwards quite a lot of drink was taken in celebration!
Since neither of us are religious, and Mrs J comes from a Muslim background and myself from a Christian, a church wedding didn't seem right. I've also been to scores of church weddings that sadly all tend to merge into one unmemorable lump. For this reason we wanted something distinctive, and we chose to get married on a Victorian warship.
It suited both sides of the family rather well, and was surprisingly cheap.
My younger son had three celebrations. He and his wife married in Hong Kong, where they were living. Just a couple of officials as witnesses. Then they had a ceremony in her home (Thai) village, to which we, plus a few of his British friends, went, and which was quite a party. Finally they cam to UK and had a party for the friends and relatives who hadn’t been able to get to Thailand. That was quite a party, too.
Some friends of mine are rather new-age. The bride's father was rather high-up in the military and insisted on a church ceremony to which he could invite lots of his military friends, especially as he was paying for it. They wanted a woodland wedding.
There are two sets of wedding pictures. In the first, church wedding, the bride and groom look glum. In the second, the bride looks glorious, with flowers woven into her hair, and the groom is beaming.
Meirion Jones lays into Alan Yentob here - but the history fans on here will probably appreciate his Tony Hall = Aethelred comparison even more:
When the Vikings — sorry, the Chancellor — turned up demanding £750 million from the BBC, Hall had two options: fight or pay the Danegeld. The Vikings promised they would never come back to demand more money but, like politicians, the Vikings weren’t known for keeping promises. They started treating Aethelred as a sort of medieval cashpoint, until they’d taken out 100 tons of silver. This they celebrated in the traditional way, by having a feast at their camp in Greenwich, kidnapping the Archbishop, and bludgeoning him to death with ox bones.
Meirion Jones lays into Alan Yentob here - but the history fans on here will probably appreciate his Tony Hall = Aethelred comparison even more:
When the Vikings — sorry, the Chancellor — turned up demanding £750 million from the BBC, Hall had two options: fight or pay the Danegeld. The Vikings promised they would never come back to demand more money but, like politicians, the Vikings weren’t known for keeping promises. They started treating Aethelred as a sort of medieval cashpoint, until they’d taken out 100 tons of silver. This they celebrated in the traditional way, by having a feast at their camp in Greenwich, kidnapping the Archbishop, and bludgeoning him to death with ox bones.
F1: not news, but worth repeating given the engine chatter: Manor may well have a Mercedes engine next year. Could have the chance for snaffling the odd points, if that's the case.
Does anybody worry about the shoes a 1500m runner is wearing? Why should engine specs be so expensively hyper technical as to dilute the efforts of the driver, and freeze out alternative suppliers. What's wrong with them having to actually think about a suspension set up? Why can't we actually put more emphasis on the driver instead of an overblown bunch of boffins in front of computers. And then we have 'mechanics' (don't make me laugh) whose sole job is to dash out every 30 minutes and change a wheel. The formula is pants. The sooner it expunges the word 'telemetry' from it's lexicon the better.
Mr. Flightpath, well, several teams do have the Mercedes engine. I think most people would agree with the driver being more important being a good thing, but having that whilst allowing the cars to be developed differently is tricky. The aerodynamic changes coming next year (wider front wing, narrower rear wing) may help in that regard.
Re earlier conversations about lies, I was a candidate in the GE, I was (perhaps naively) amazed at how people lie almost as a matter of course. I spoke to some young campaigners about the leaflets they were distributing and questioned some of the "facts". The reply was "I don't what you're worried about, we all tell lies".
Within politics being dishonest is a given, accusing Cameron of telling lies won't affect things in the slightest beyond causing him a bit of embarrassment.
Interesting - who were you standing for? In my experience, selective quotation and misrepresentation are par for the course, but people do feel unhappy at direct lies. I remember complaining about a by-election where there was a pre-printed stock of leaflets to go out on election day afternoon saying "Early returns from this morning show it's very close". The by-election organisers had the grace to look embarrassed and the leaflet was quietly junked.
I think that smaller and newer parties are (even) less scrupulous than the larger ones, since they've not established any sort of borderline beyond which they won't go, and just think, like the people you talked to, that anything goes. I usually found the LibDems less scrupulous than the Tories, with a sense of "we're the underdogs so we have to" about it.
I stood for ukip.
Your post makes my point actually, its always the other lot telling lies, the naïve students I spoke of were far more brazen. The animosity between labour and tories is so great that telling lies is tacitly accepted. Its no wonder respect of politicians is so low, the revelations this week haven't changed a thing, the tories defend, the rest sneer.
F1: not news, but worth repeating given the engine chatter: Manor may well have a Mercedes engine next year. Could have the chance for snaffling the odd points, if that's the case.
Does anybody worry about the shoes a 1500m runner is wearing? Why should engine specs be so expensively hyper technical as to dilute the efforts of the driver, and freeze out alternative suppliers. What's wrong with them having to actually think about a suspension set up? Why can't we actually put more emphasis on the driver instead of an overblown bunch of boffins in front of computers. And then we have 'mechanics' (don't make me laugh) whose sole job is to dash out every 30 minutes and change a wheel. The formula is pants. The sooner it expunges the word 'telemetry' from it's lexicon the better.
Hear hear! Would be much better if it were a bunch of chavs in Mark 1 Golf GTIs racing around a retail park. Bridge is more of a sport than F1.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34342808 Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn is the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee. Asked what scientific evidence would persuade her that climate change was a threat, she replied - "I don't think you will see me being persuaded." Asked whether she accepted the theory of evolution she said: "No I do not." Ms Blackburn's views matter because Republicans in Congress are trying to roll back President Obama's attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee
VW were being investigated by then weren't they? Results just published but investigation going on for some time.
Germany's transport minister says Volkswagen has admitted using the same fake emissions test in Europe as it used to falsify results in the US. Alexander Dobrindt said it was not known how many of the 11 million vehicles affected were in Europe.
Your post makes my point actually, its always the other lot telling lies, the naïve students I spoke of were far more brazen. The animosity between labour and tories is so great that telling lies is tacitly accepted. Its no wonder respect of politicians is so low, the revelations this week haven't changed a thing, the tories defend, the rest sneer.
No, not really - I was making the point that I've generally found that the Tories (and Labour) don't like to lie outright, though they're fine with quoting out of context and all that stuff. That's why I think the Ashcroft non-dom thing will be viewed with some discomfort within the Westminster bubble, as if the report is correct it appears to involve a direct lie.
Having already admitted that some of the rest of the stuff is unsubstantiated hearsay that they do not themselves claim to believe, it's hard to say that the rest is unadulterated truth
F1: not news, but worth repeating given the engine chatter: Manor may well have a Mercedes engine next year. Could have the chance for snaffling the odd points, if that's the case.
Does anybody worry about the shoes a 1500m runner is wearing? Why should engine specs be so expensively hyper technical as to dilute the efforts of the driver, and freeze out alternative suppliers. What's wrong with them having to actually think about a suspension set up? Why can't we actually put more emphasis on the driver instead of an overblown bunch of boffins in front of computers. And then we have 'mechanics' (don't make me laugh) whose sole job is to dash out every 30 minutes and change a wheel. The formula is pants. The sooner it expunges the word 'telemetry' from it's lexicon the better.
Hear hear! Would be much better if it were a bunch of chavs in Mark 1 Golf GTIs racing around a retail park. Bridge is more of a sport than F1.
You're making a common mistake. F1 is not a sport.
It is a business.
It becomes much more relaxing to follow it once you know that. I think the machinations behind the scenes have much in common with PB's favourite strategic board game.
“Call me Dave”: The Ashcroft revelations in the Mail appear to have run out of steam – a bit like this thread.
There was an excellent documentary on the Beeb the other night about James Randi. It was fairly riveting stuff, and well worth watching if it's on iPlayer.
I'm not gay, but I started to develop a severe man-crush on him. What a mind! There's something almost hypnotising about him, even at his advanced age. I've been reading his website for years, but it was only in this film that I really got a glimpse of his personality.
I think he has something of the Clinton about him: he has the natural ability to bewitch. Unlike Clinton, he realised he had it, and has chosen to be a force for good rather than ill.
Your post makes my point actually, its always the other lot telling lies, the naïve students I spoke of were far more brazen. The animosity between labour and tories is so great that telling lies is tacitly accepted. Its no wonder respect of politicians is so low, the revelations this week haven't changed a thing, the tories defend, the rest sneer.
No, not really - I was making the point that I've generally found that the Tories (and Labour) don't like to lie outright, though they're fine with quoting out of context and all that stuff. That's why I think the Ashcroft non-dom thing will be viewed with some discomfort within the Westminster bubble, as if the report is correct it appears to involve a direct lie.
When is a lie not a lie? I have been with a conservative MP who blatantly lied, people on both sides bend the truth, its still lying. I think this is the problem, which I've discussed at length with others, politicians spend so much time in each others company trying to outdo the opposition that not telling the truth - lying - becomes second nature, I'll be charitable and say they don't even know they're doing it, like biting your nails it becomes a habit.
The pig/coke/non dom thing this week is a perfect example, nobody knows or cares if its true, Ashcroft has had his fun, that's what it was all about. 99% of the population don't even know what a non dom is, they do know they can't trust politicians and I have to say your post goes some way at an attempt to justify dishonesty.
What stands out there to me is that at the election Labour and the Conservatives were both seen as divided by equal numbers of respondents. Today Labour is seen as divided by fully three quarters of respondents, twice as many as the Conservatives.
Oh, and only 35% see Labour as fit to govern. That's a pretty low ceiling for votes.
But just 37 per cent view Mr Corbyn as patriotic, which suggests the public has not forgiven his refusal to sing the national anthem at a Battle of Britain memorial. Some 76 per cent see Mr Cameron as a patriot.
I'm quietly confident my Peugeot will be fine as I can't see French engineers being industrious enough to bother with a cheat device.
Probably a scare story if you check out BMW's denial. Diesel cars drive well, but the obsession with NO2 is a result of the previous obsession with CO2 which was a result of the obsession with AGM. It's the regulations that need scrapping not the cars. Any diminishing chance of me converting to Catholicism was expunged yesterday when I heard the pope bleating on about global warming.
Oh dear. The voters verdict: yes he's honest, and thanks for that, and that's precisely why we want him a million miles away from having any real powe.
Oh dear. The voters verdict: yes he's honest, and thanks for that, and that's precisely why we want him a million miles away from having any real powe.
The big leap is in 'divided' and 'extreme' for Labour. Divided and extreme parties don't win elections.
Oh dear. The voters verdict: yes he's honest, and thanks for that, and that's precisely why we want him a million miles away from having any real powe.
The big leap is in 'divided' and 'extreme' for Labour. Divided and extreme parties don't win elections.
We should be grateful. Corbyn is the Ronseal politician, so at least the electorate can see him coming (and, in my view, run away screaming).
Mr. Song, worth recalling some MPs voted for a believer in homeopathy to chair the Health Select Committee.
Oh yes, David Tredinnick is also a complete loony. “People such as Professor Brian Cox [a Pisces], who called astrology ‘rubbish’ have simply not studied the subject.”
As Chinese companies are invited to get involved with British high-speed rail projects, British railway companies win contracts on American high-speed rail projects.
Mr. Song, worth recalling some MPs voted for a believer in homeopathy to chair the Health Select Committee.
Oh yes, David Tredinnick is also a complete loony. “People such as Professor Brian Cox [a Pisces], who called astrology ‘rubbish’ have simply not studied the subject.”
There’s also the nagging problem of the sunken ammunition ship off Sheerness.
Something should have been done about the Montgomery decades ago. The longer we leave it, the more expensive it will get, and potentially the more danger there is.
If Wiki is correct, the sunken SS Richard Montgomery has 1400 tonnes of explosives (2700 tonnes including the casings, etc) just off the coast
I'm not the world's greatest fan of South Essex/North Kent, but even I would baulk at letting off something around 10% of the Hiroshima bomb near the deckchairs
(NB I know that "tonne", "US ton" and "UK ton" are subtly different, but this is back-of-an-envelope, OK)
Comments
Scottish people are a mixed bunch. On the one hand you have highly intelligent and respectful people like DavidL, and then you have the nationalists.
It's the Muslim equivalent of Christmas
So I have to make an appearance. My parents understand I'm not very religious but they do like me to keep up appearances that I'm a Muslim.
I think that smaller and newer parties are (even) less scrupulous than the larger ones, since they've not established any sort of borderline beyond which they won't go, and just think, like the people you talked to, that anything goes. I usually found the LibDems less scrupulous than the Tories, with a sense of "we're the underdogs so we have to" about it.
One hopes you tone down your lurid raiment for appearances in the mosque, though.
"If you see a fork in the road, take it."
Yogi Berra R.I.P.
(Though that was more to answer your point about heirs not being named James, David or Malcolm than as a historical might-have-been).
Most of them came to my wedding when I married an infidel.
I'm already colossally red the field so am prepared to give away 1%-2% by laying both Zac & Sadiq, so I thought I'd advertise the fact that some tosser is beating my prices to get them cleared out of the way
I'd only caution that, if Khan dropped out for some reason, it's reasonably likely that Tessa would be installed by Labour as the candidate, perhaps without a further contest. That would change the dynamics not necessarily to the advantage of anyone trying to pick up the 5% return.
Some of them attended a Muslim female marrying an infidel party last year. As did I.
It was all good fun. There was some regret but they got over it.
I gave him my second preference yesterday in fact.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34346449
First the crane collapse, and now this. Mind you, managing crowds of that sort of size must be incredibly complex.
"A mother has admitted falsely claiming a Primark security guard assaulted her and ordered her to leave the store for breastfeeding."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-34346798
Stupid, stupid woman.
However at this years wedding, although the groom is, I think, non-religious his family are Irish, therefore theoretically at any rate Catholic
So there had to be some sort of compromise and they married in the local CoE Church. Everyone seemed happy, and afterwards quite a lot of drink was taken in celebration!
It suited both sides of the family rather well, and was surprisingly cheap.
And on that happy note I must leave you and be about my duties - people to see, drinks to be taken, luncheon to be eaten, games to be played; busy, busy , busy - it is hell being a modern pensioner.
Thanks all for some interesting conversation this morning.
A written parliamentary answer shows that German ministers were warned months ago of the so-called “defeat device” cheat software on diesel engines
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/emissions/11886967/Angela-Merkels-ministers-ignored-warning-over-emissions-rigging.html
Once again Cameron has been underestimated. I think it was very canny of him to keep the VW scandal handy for distracting from issues with Lord A, but he gets no credit for it
When the Vikings — sorry, the Chancellor — turned up demanding £750 million from the BBC, Hall had two options: fight or pay the Danegeld. The Vikings promised they would never come back to demand more money but, like politicians, the Vikings weren’t known for keeping promises. They started treating Aethelred as a sort of medieval cashpoint, until they’d taken out 100 tons of silver. This they celebrated in the traditional way, by having a feast at their camp in Greenwich, kidnapping the Archbishop, and bludgeoning him to death with ox bones.
http://life.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/alan-yentobs-crumbling-empire/
There are two sets of wedding pictures. In the first, church wedding, the bride and groom look glum. In the second, the bride looks glorious, with flowers woven into her hair, and the groom is beaming.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/34345092
http://life.spectator.co.uk/2015/09/the-snp-run-riot-at-westminster/
– a bit like this thread.
Why should engine specs be so expensively hyper technical as to dilute the efforts of the driver, and freeze out alternative suppliers. What's wrong with them having to actually think about a suspension set up? Why can't we actually put more emphasis on the driver instead of an overblown bunch of boffins in front of computers. And then we have 'mechanics' (don't make me laugh) whose sole job is to dash out every 30 minutes and change a wheel.
The formula is pants. The sooner it expunges the word 'telemetry' from it's lexicon the better.
Your post makes my point actually, its always the other lot telling lies, the naïve students I spoke of were far more brazen. The animosity between labour and tories is so great that telling lies is tacitly accepted. Its no wonder respect of politicians is so low, the revelations this week haven't changed a thing, the tories defend, the rest sneer.
PS, If you like disturbing gore on TV - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452046/ -
The summer TV shows were almost all awful this year. I've barely got to the middle of any of them. I'm hoping for a good Fall batch.
Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn is the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee.
Asked what scientific evidence would persuade her that climate change was a threat, she replied - "I don't think you will see me being persuaded."
Asked whether she accepted the theory of evolution she said: "No I do not."
Ms Blackburn's views matter because Republicans in Congress are trying to roll back President Obama's attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the second-highest ranking member on the House energy committee
Alexander Dobrindt said it was not known how many of the 11 million vehicles affected were in Europe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34345210
"BMW shares plunge after SUV breaches EU emissions standards"
http://tinyurl.com/pxkaodd
I'm quietly confident my Peugeot will be fine as I can't see French engineers being industrious enough to bother with a cheat device.
Having already admitted that some of the rest of the stuff is unsubstantiated hearsay that they do not themselves claim to believe, it's hard to say that the rest is unadulterated truth
It is a business.
It becomes much more relaxing to follow it once you know that. I think the machinations behind the scenes have much in common with PB's favourite strategic board game.
Mrs C, well, quite. The Vindictive Vegan won't do much for Labour's prospects.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-honest-but-poor-leader-and-cameron-better-in-a-crisis-poll-shows-a2954801.html
I'm not gay, but I started to develop a severe man-crush on him. What a mind! There's something almost hypnotising about him, even at his advanced age. I've been reading his website for years, but it was only in this film that I really got a glimpse of his personality.
I think he has something of the Clinton about him: he has the natural ability to bewitch. Unlike Clinton, he realised he had it, and has chosen to be a force for good rather than ill.
The pig/coke/non dom thing this week is a perfect example, nobody knows or cares if its true, Ashcroft has had his fun, that's what it was all about. 99% of the population don't even know what a non dom is, they do know they can't trust politicians and I have to say your post goes some way at an attempt to justify dishonesty.
Oh, and only 35% see Labour as fit to govern. That's a pretty low ceiling for votes.
But just 37 per cent view Mr Corbyn as patriotic, which suggests the public has not forgiven his refusal to sing the national anthem at a Battle of Britain memorial. Some 76 per cent see Mr Cameron as a patriot.
Diesel cars drive well, but the obsession with NO2 is a result of the previous obsession with CO2 which was a result of the obsession with AGM. It's the regulations that need scrapping not the cars.
Any diminishing chance of me converting to Catholicism was expunged yesterday when I heard the pope bleating on about global warming.
Only occasionally are TV series worth that kind of obsession.
I remember the 2001-2005 Parliament when this was repeated by the Blair government and the BBC about the Conservatives as if it was axiomatic.
Most floating voters agreed.
“People such as Professor Brian Cox [a Pisces], who called astrology ‘rubbish’ have simply not studied the subject.”
http://www.railengineer.uk/2015/08/28/brits-move-to-california/
Here is an exercise conducted by the US. It simulates a nuclear explosion by exploding 500tons of TNT just off the coast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXNJC9xfWJA
I'm not the world's greatest fan of South Essex/North Kent, but even I would baulk at letting off something around 10% of the Hiroshima bomb near the deckchairs
(NB I know that "tonne", "US ton" and "UK ton" are subtly different, but this is back-of-an-envelope, OK)