French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
There is a lot more kicking in Rugby, all throughout the game, however the general point stands.
Punts, kickoffs, extra points - I don't believe the point stands at all. Texas A&M have had many '3 and outs' - punts - as the Tide have held them today. And I say that as a rugby fan.
Punts, kickoffs and extra points are essentially set piece events - Rugby has kicking throughout general play. Up and under kicks, grubber kicks, kicks to touch, drop goals, cross field kicks, box kicks. It is an integral element of the type of strategic play a team might attempt. The two are not equivalent (the occasional punt hardly seems the same). And I say that as a former fan of the American game.
The Indy are reporting Corbyn is following my suggestion re Trident's replacement.
Commit to the the Nato 2% of GDP spending on defence and use it to boost our peacekeeping/conventional forces
The man who has questioned why the RAF need transport aircraft is going to commit to 2% spent on defence? Laughable. That 2% will be anything but defence spending, all kinds of stuff will end up in that bucket with a weasel like Corbyn in charge.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
There is a lot more kicking in Rugby, all throughout the game, however the general point stands.
Punts, kickoffs, extra points - I don't believe the point stands at all. Texas A&M have had many '3 and outs' - punts - as the Tide have held them today. And I say that as a rugby fan.
Punts, kickoffs and extra points are essentially set piece events - Rugby has kicking throughout general play. Up and under kicks, grubber kicks, kicks to touch, drop goals, cross field kicks, box kicks. It is an integral element of the type of strategic play a team might attempt. The two are not equivalent.
Who said they were? Your comment was about the number of kicks.
The Indy are reporting Corbyn is following my suggestion re Trident's replacement.
Commit to the the Nato 2% of GDP spending on defence and use it to boost our peacekeeping/conventional forces
The man who has questioned why the RAF need transport aircraft is going to commit to 2% spent on defence? Laughable. That 2% will be anything but defence spending, all kinds of stuff will end up in that bucket with a weasel like Corbyn in charge.
Sacre Bleu France! I'm not a rugby fan or anything, but even I know 62 to 13 is a diabolical scoreline.
It's a product of professionalisation. Now everyone gets paid not just the French. It would be interesting to know just how many in the 'NZ' team were actually born in the pacific islands.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
A lot in the Middle Ages, where the term football comes from.
By contrast, 57% either agree with the government on tax credits or are neutral / don't know. That's enough. You'll never persuade everyone and realistically, you don't need to.
LMAO, taking "don't know" to mean tacit agreement is a new peak of spin even by PBTories' standards. By that logic, I might as well say 60% of people think Corbyn is a strong leader.
If there is a prize for pb stupidity, then I'm afraid it must go to lefties who support Corbyn in the face of truly catastrophic polling, like this.
I don't get it. You're clearly not an actual moron, yet you express apparently moronic opinions. Corbynism is a most peculiar pathology.
I don't think that's true. It's a different world-view. Polls measure popularity with the electorate. Supporters of Mr Corbyn aren't concerned with what the electorate thinks of him - it's his world-view that enthuses them.
Probably true , Ma'am, but what I don't get is why. What is the point of getting fired up by politics and all the dreary guff of going to meetings, passing resolutions, getting worked up about who is or isn't on the Executive and all the rest of it if you are going to ignore the electorate? Without convincing the electorate of your ideas you are never going to get the chance to put them into practice. I confess I don't understand the mindset.
Unless of course they think that the pendulum will swing back to them regardless of what they do and say and they will gain power because the other lot are too tired, worn out, have exhausted their stock of ideas, whatever. Is that really a realistic position?
It is certainly true that for nearly all of the 20th century there were frequent changes in governing party. I am not sure that imbues such a regular switch with the force of nature or anything like. Were there not long periods in previous centuries when one party was dominant? Different circumstances then, of course, and a very different world, however the world we live in today is very different from that of even forty years ago. Is there really any reason to suppose that a, for example, Conservative led government could not go on winning elections for the next thirty years? It has happened in the past.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
There is a lot more kicking in Rugby, all throughout the game, however the general point stands.
Punts, kickoffs, extra points - I don't believe the point stands at all. Texas A&M have had many '3 and outs' - punts - as the Tide have held them today. And I say that as a rugby fan.
Punts, kickoffs and extra points are essentially set piece events - Rugby has kicking throughout general play. Up and under kicks, grubber kicks, kicks to touch, drop goals, cross field kicks, box kicks. It is an integral element of the type of strategic play a team might attempt. The two are not equivalent.
Who said they were? Your comment was about the number of kicks.
No it wasn't, you're being overly defensive - your comment was that Rugby is not played with the feet anymore than the American game, and I pointed out there is a lot more kicking 'all throughout the game'.
You see the bit there about 'all throughout the game'? - perhaps I could have labelled that as meaning in general play, but I didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence by being that blatant! It was in agreement with your point about Rugby not involving much kicking for christ's sake, but that doesn't mean they have the same amount (amount in terms of total kicks, not just set piece kicks, since you are taking a joke to the point of defensiveness)
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
What about ideological lefties such as Corbyn, who found it perfectly reasonable to befriend terrorists who not only attempted to kill Thatcher and the government, but many innocent civilians as well? And that's just one small part of his hideous ideology.
"Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded."
Rubbish. Absolute, utter rubbish.
But if you believe that, then surely you must also believe that Labour are showing how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector needs to be shredded, and anything related to the state is amazing and wonderful ?
I rest my case.
I didn't really say the Left weren't ideological; I simply said the Right were just ideological as them. Despite your 'utter rubbish' retort I stand by my words, and I agree that the exact same in reverse applies to Labour.
But it doesn't. The ideology of Labour under Corbyn far outweighs any right-wing ideology the Conservatives have.
Sacre Bleu France! I'm not a rugby fan or anything, but even I know 62 to 13 is a diabolical scoreline.
It's a product of professionalisation. Now everyone gets paid not just the French. It would be interesting to know just how many in the 'NZ' team were actually born in the pacific islands.
Yep,British rugby league still hasn't caught up with the Aussies.
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
It is starting to change now, though: even Hillary is talking about expansion of government programmes now.
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
I'm not sure I'd agree - the US seems to do best with divided government: i.e 1 party runs Congress and the other occupies the WH.
Yes, but no one could doubt that when Clinton was in the White House and the GOP in Congress the US was better run than when the GOP ran the lot under George W Bush
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
A lot in the Middle Ages, where the term football comes from.
You sure?
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
What about ideological lefties such as Corbyn, who found it perfectly reasonable to befriend terrorists who not only attempted to kill Thatcher and the government, but many innocent civilians as well? And that's just one small part of his hideous ideology.
"Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded."
Rubbish. Absolute, utter rubbish.
But if you believe that, then surely you must also believe that Labour are showing how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector needs to be shredded, and anything related to the state is amazing and wonderful ?
I rest my case.
I didn't really say the Left weren't ideological; I simply said the Right were just ideological as them. Despite your 'utter rubbish' retort I stand by my words, and I agree that the exact same in reverse applies to Labour.
But it doesn't. The ideology of Labour under Corbyn far outweighs any right-wing ideology the Conservatives have.
An unusually extreme occurrence, even for our Left. Not typical of them generally; we'll have to see if the Tories ever get a similarly extreme element in charge.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
A lot in the Middle Ages, where the term football comes from.
You sure?
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
I'm not sure I'd agree - the US seems to do best with divided government: i.e 1 party runs Congress and the other occupies the WH.
Yes, but no one could doubt that when Clinton was in the White House and the GOP in Congress the US was better run than when the GOP ran the lot under George W Bush
Just because you believe it doesn't mean that "no one could doubt".
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
What about ideological lefties such as Corbyn, who found it perfectly reasonable to befriend terrorists who not only attempted to kill Thatcher and the government, but many innocent civilians as well? And that's just one small part of his hideous ideology.
"Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded."
Rubbish. Absolute, utter rubbish.
But if you believe that, then surely you must also believe that Labour are showing how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector needs to be shredded, and anything related to the state is amazing and wonderful ?
I rest my case.
I didn't really say the Left weren't ideological; I simply said the Right were just ideological as them. Despite your 'utter rubbish' retort I stand by my words, and I agree that the exact same in reverse applies to Labour.
But it doesn't. The ideology of Labour under Corbyn far outweighs any right-wing ideology the Conservatives have.
Looking at the broad historical span the Tories have proved the most adaptable in terms of ideology to reality - from Corn Laws to ballots in the c19th and to a bigger role for govt more recently. The party least bound up in ideology will always be the most successful overall as most voter aren't ideological. Cameron gets it, IDS didn't and Corbyn is off the scale. Osborne gets it in spades and may yet be PM as a result.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
A lot in the Middle Ages, where the term football comes from.
You sure?
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
Sacre Bleu France! I'm not a rugby fan or anything, but even I know 62 to 13 is a diabolical scoreline.
It's a product of professionalisation. Now everyone gets paid not just the French. It would be interesting to know just how many in the 'NZ' team were actually born in the pacific islands.
Yep,British rugby league still hasn't caught up with the Aussies.
They keep trying and we are producing good young players who are being snapped up by the NRL. The Aussie RL are very very professional. They are very coachable I think. The forthcoming RL tests against NZ should be interesting.
What I picked out tonight was the way NZ attacked the high ball, even in midfield.
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
I'm not sure I'd agree - the US seems to do best with divided government: i.e 1 party runs Congress and the other occupies the WH.
Yes, but no one could doubt that when Clinton was in the White House and the GOP in Congress the US was better run than when the GOP ran the lot under George W Bush
'no one could doubt'? That's a very sweeping statement. Then you take my general observation, with which you obviously agree, and make a political point of it, as you often do. I was not being political.
Please don't bother to respond to me on this topic.
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
What about ideological lefties such as Corbyn, who found it perfectly reasonable to befriend terrorists who not only attempted to kill Thatcher and the government, but many innocent civilians as well? And that's just one small part of his hideous ideology.
"Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded."
Rubbish. Absolute, utter rubbish.
But if you believe that, then surely you must also believe that Labour are showing how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector needs to be shredded, and anything related to the state is amazing and wonderful ?
I rest my case.
I didn't really say the Left weren't ideological; I simply said the Right were just ideological as them. Despite your 'utter rubbish' retort I stand by my words, and I agree that the exact same in reverse applies to Labour.
But it doesn't. The ideology of Labour under Corbyn far outweighs any right-wing ideology the Conservatives have.
Looking at the broad historical span the Tories have proved the most adaptable in terms of ideology to reality - from Corn Laws to ballots in the c19th and to a bigger role for govt more recently. The party least bound up in ideology will always be the most successful overall as most voter aren't ideological. Cameron gets it, IDS didn't and Corbyn is off the scale. Osborne gets it in spades and may yet be PM as a result.
What matters is what works. As time goes on, what works may change.
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
I'm not sure I'd agree - the US seems to do best with divided government: i.e 1 party runs Congress and the other occupies the WH.
Yes, but no one could doubt that when Clinton was in the White House and the GOP in Congress the US was better run than when the GOP ran the lot under George W Bush
Just because you believe it doesn't mean that "no one could doubt".
When Clinton left office the economy was growing, more people had got off welfare into jobs, the US was not involved in any major foreign wars and the budget was in surplus. When George W Bush left office the economy was in recession, unemployment was rising, the US was involved in too costly foreign wars and the budget was in a huge deficit. I don't think there is much doubt about it!
The Indy are reporting Corbyn is following my suggestion re Trident's replacement.
Commit to the the Nato 2% of GDP spending on defence and use it to boost our peacekeeping/conventional forces
The man who has questioned why the RAF need transport aircraft is going to commit to 2% spent on defence? Laughable. That 2% will be anything but defence spending, all kinds of stuff will end up in that bucket with a weasel like Corbyn in charge.
Don't worry, he never will be.
On the assumption that we will replace Trident with conventional nuclear submarines (otherwise there will be job losses in Barrow) then there will be little extra money beyond that to add to other conventional forces. 500 to 700 million a year.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
A lot in the Middle Ages, where the term football comes from.
You sure?
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
That is an unreferenced statement on an editable encyclopedia, but I suppose it is true if your bar for conclusiveness is high enough. The former explanation is clearly incorrect, however, given that medieval football was primarily played with the hands, as this image shows:
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
Isn't the actual City of London just a few tens of thousands?
The actual City of London is the ancient city dating back to Roman times, you may as well restrict the population of Paris to the area around Notre Dame and the Louvre
Eww I have written a draft article about Labour MPs peeing on Corbyn. I was talking about the LBJ maxim about tents. #MindBleachRequired
Too late - I'm already picturing phrases about Corbyn and the old awkward squad assigned a bucket in the corner of the tent to piss in, but now he's in the middle with a bunch of new mates and there's too many people trying to use the old bucket and it's just getting everywhere and not able to be carried outside.
I think that's a sign I should leave it there - good night all.
The Indy are reporting Corbyn is following my suggestion re Trident's replacement.
Commit to the the Nato 2% of GDP spending on defence and use it to boost our peacekeeping/conventional forces
The man who has questioned why the RAF need transport aircraft is going to commit to 2% spent on defence? Laughable. That 2% will be anything but defence spending, all kinds of stuff will end up in that bucket with a weasel like Corbyn in charge.
Don't worry, he never will be.
On the assumption that we will replace Trident with conventional nuclear submarines (otherwise there will be job losses in Barrow) then there will be little extra money beyond that to add to other conventional forces. 500 to 700 million a year.
A very good point Mr. Path and which most people overlook. Even if we just scrapped the nuclear deterrent without increasing conventional forces the additional money would just be lost in the accounts. When a government is spending £700bn a year the one or two billion for maintaining the Deterrent barley features
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
I'm not sure I'd agree - the US seems to do best with divided government: i.e 1 party runs Congress and the other occupies the WH.
Yes, but no one could doubt that when Clinton was in the White House and the GOP in Congress the US was better run than when the GOP ran the lot under George W Bush
'no one could doubt'? That's a very sweeping statement. Then you take my general observation, with which you obviously agree, and make a political point of it, as you often do. I was not being political.
Please don't bother to respond to me on this topic.
I have responded earlier because it was a blatantly obvious statement. For balance I would say that America was better run under Eisenhower and Reagan when the US was also under divided government than under Carter when it was not, but overall under Democrat Presidents since 1960 the deficit has been $30 billion, under Republican Presidents $131 billion http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/02/the-black-and-white-numbers-democrats-are-better-than-republicans/
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
A lot in the Middle Ages, where the term football comes from.
You sure?
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
That is an unreferenced statement on an editable encyclopedia, but I suppose it is true if your bar for conclusiveness is high enough. The former explanation is clearly incorrect, however, given that medieval football was primarily played with the hands, as this image shows:
Even in the earliest forms of association football, after codification, you were still allowed to catch the ball in certain circumstances.
According to FIFA the competitive game cuju is the earliest form of football for which there is scientific evidence.[10] It appears to be the first competitive game that involves kicking a ball through an opening into a net and occurs namely as an exercise in a military manual from the third and second centuries BC.[10] Documented evidence of an activity resembling football can be found in the Chinese military manual Zhan Guo Ce compiled between the 3rd century and 1st century BC.[11] It describes a practice known as cuju (蹴鞠, literally "kick ball"), which originally involved kicking a leather ball through a small hole in a piece of silk cloth which was fixed on bamboo canes and hung about 9 m above ground.
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly been vigorously anti immigrant in its rhetoric, Cameron even emphasised the need for more positive action and an end to discrimination against ethnic minorities in his conference speech
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
What about ideological lefties such as Corbyn, who found it perfectly reasonable to befriend terrorists who not only attempted to kill Thatcher and the government, but many innocent civilians as well? And that's just one small part of his hideous ideology.
"Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded."
Rubbish. Absolute, utter rubbish.
But if you believe that, then surely you must also believe that Labour are showing how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector needs to be shredded, and anything related to the state is amazing and wonderful ?
I rest my case.
I didn't really say the Left weren't ideological; I simply said the Right were just ideological as them. Despite your 'utter rubbish' retort I stand by my words, and I agree that the exact same in reverse applies to Labour.
But it doesn't. The ideology of Labour under Corbyn far outweighs any right-wing ideology the Conservatives have.
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
What about ideological lefties such as Corbyn, who found it perfectly reasonable to befriend terrorists who not only attempted to kill Thatcher and the government, but many innocent civilians as well? And that's just one small part of his hideous ideology.
"Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded."
Rubbish. Absolute, utter rubbish.
But if you believe that, then surely you must also believe that Labour are showing how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector needs to be shredded, and anything related to the state is amazing and wonderful ?
I rest my case.
I didn't really say the Left weren't ideological; I simply said the Right were just ideological as them. Despite your 'utter rubbish' retort I stand by my words, and I agree that the exact same in reverse applies to Labour.
But it doesn't. The ideology of Labour under Corbyn far outweighs any right-wing ideology the Conservatives have.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
A lot in the Middle Ages, where the term football comes from.
You sure?
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
When this all kicked off I thought it was a bit like the satanic ritual abuse scares which ran from the early 80s up to the late 90s, and some of the less publicised claims that have been floating around for a couple of decades now do reference satanic ritual. I would have thought that the police and social services had learnt their lesson, but maybe not.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
That is an unreferenced statement on an editable encyclopedia, but I suppose it is true if your bar for conclusiveness is high enough. The former explanation is clearly incorrect, however, given that medieval football was primarily played with the hands, as this image shows:
Even in the earliest forms of association football, after codification, you were still allowed to catch the ball in certain circumstances.
According to FIFA the competitive game cuju is the earliest form of football for which there is scientific evidence.[10] It appears to be the first competitive game that involves kicking a ball through an opening into a net and occurs namely as an exercise in a military manual from the third and second centuries BC.[10] Documented evidence of an activity resembling football can be found in the Chinese military manual Zhan Guo Ce compiled between the 3rd century and 1st century BC.[11] It describes a practice known as cuju (蹴鞠, literally "kick ball"), which originally involved kicking a leather ball through a small hole in a piece of silk cloth which was fixed on bamboo canes and hung about 9 m above ground.
Interesting, but surely at this point any statement beginning "According to FIFA", unless it concerns surreptitious transfers of money on a 'gentlemans agreement' or regarding World Cup locations, can be assumed to be at best dubious
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly been vigorously anti immigrant in its rhetoric, Cameron even emphasised the need for more positive action and an end to discrimination against ethnic minorities in his conference speech
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
A lot in the Middle Ages, where the term football comes from.
You sure?
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly been vigorously anti immigrant in its rhetoric, Cameron even emphasised the need for more positive action and an end to discrimination against ethnic minorities in his conference speech
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
They could start on all those coming to Europe then
Isn't the actual City of London just a few tens of thousands?
Yes but as you know, that's the historic square mile City of London and not modern Metropolitan London.
Right but it was the difference between city limits and the metropolitan area we were talking about.
OK I thought it was relative populations of London and Paris. The City is pretty deserted at weekends from what I have seen. I would be surprised if the wall street end of new York was any different.
Probably true , Ma'am, but what I don't get is why. What is the point of getting fired up by politics and all the dreary guff of going to meetings, passing resolutions, getting worked up about who is or isn't on the Executive and all the rest of it if you are going to ignore the electorate? Without convincing the electorate of your ideas you are never going to get the chance to put them into practice. I confess I don't understand the mindset.
Unless of course they think that the pendulum will swing back to them regardless of what they do and say and they will gain power because the other lot are too tired, worn out, have exhausted their stock of ideas, whatever. Is that really a realistic position?
(snipped)
I can only suppose they don't find it dreary - they're passionate about it and committed to it. And some of them at least aren't that bothered about elections because they have revolution in mind.
Their time-scale is likely to be much longer than we are accustomed to in our politics. Mr Corbyn had no expectation of winning the leadership; he's devoted his life to keeping the flame alive and was just carrying on his ordinary daily slog by putting his name forward.
Now that he's in situ, I really don't see how the PLP will be able to dislodge him. The party has filled up with the once-disillusioned left wing people. The erst-while mainstream Labour MPs have been cut off by the tide. Naturally the very left wing people will want their PPCs to represent their views.
They may possibly not be a majority of members but they are utterly committed to their cause. They will stick out any meeting however long & boring, until normal people have been driven away & gone home.
And maybe they will come to power through a swing of the pendulum if they wait long enough. Labour voters are nothing if not loyal, and for many of them the leader of the Labour party is their leader & they don't need to know anything else.
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
That is an unreferenced statement on an editable encyclopedia, but I suppose it is true if your bar for conclusiveness is high enough. The former explanation is clearly incorrect, however, given that medieval football was primarily played with the hands, as this image shows:
Even in the earliest forms of association football, after codification, you were still allowed to catch the ball in certain circumstances.
According to FIFA the competitive game cuju is the earliest form of football for which there is scientific evidence.[10] It appears to be the first competitive game that involves kicking a ball through an opening into a net and occurs namely as an exercise in a military manual from the third and second centuries BC.[10] Documented evidence of an activity resembling football can be found in the Chinese military manual Zhan Guo Ce compiled between the 3rd century and 1st century BC.[11] It describes a practice known as cuju (蹴鞠, literally "kick ball"), which originally involved kicking a leather ball through a small hole in a piece of silk cloth which was fixed on bamboo canes and hung about 9 m above ground.
Interesting, but surely at this point any statement beginning "According to FIFA", unless it concerns surreptitious transfers of money on a 'gentlemans agreement' or regarding World Cup locations, can be assumed to be at best dubious
Hopefully Blatter doesn't date from the 3rd cen BC!
French have the right idea; Only way to win this is run it, outrageously.
Great game - again! This World Cup has been remarkable. Rugby has hugely improved as a spectacle.
This is a great match and there have been a few such matches but rugby has some serious problems. The number of serious injuries in this WC is unacceptable. The rules were not designed for 18 stone men running at each other at 20mph. Sooner or later someone is going to be killed doing this.
Feck it. Let em die. It's great sport.
Compare this gloriousness to the turgid idiocy of American Football. Pah.
I'm not going to bite this time
- Too busy watching a great afternoon of college football games.
Love rugby (union and league), and cricket. Will watch baseball under protest. Just don't like association football (didn't even call it soccer). Didn't like playing it at school, nor watching it at all.
TRUE FOOTBALL should be played with the FEET
Rugby football is not played with the feet any more than American football.
Yes, it refers to a sport being played ON feet, as opposed to on horseback.
Rubbish! What sports are played on horseback, save for Polo?
A lot in the Middle Ages, where the term football comes from.
You sure?
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
True, but would you rather be consoling yourself on the streets of Paris tonight or celebrating on the streets of Wellington? (Nothing against New Zealand which is a great country but it is hardly the centre of the universe)
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly been vigorously anti immigrant in its rhetoric, Cameron even emphasised the need for more positive action and an end to discrimination against ethnic minorities in his conference speech
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
Yes, but Hillary is probably a shade to the right of the average Democrat and Cameron a shade to the left of the average Tory so they meet in the middle. There is a larger difference between Thatcherite Tories and Sanders Democrats but neither are presently leading their parties
I don't agree the Left are more ideological than the Right; both sets are pretty ideological. Certainly between 1997-2005, the Conservative party clung to Thatcherism like an umblical cord clings to a womb. Arguably, the Tories in their first few months in government alone have shown how very ideological they are; with this awfully simplistic view that anything related to the private sector is amazing and wonderful, and anything related to the state is awful and needs to be shredded. The difference, the Tories have a electable face to put on their ideology in David Cameron, and the common sense to conceal some of the more undesirable parts of their party. Labour doesn't.
No, the difference is that conservative economics work and socialist economics does not. I don't mean to come across as ideological saying that, but the economic records of the Tories and Labour in power ade very clear.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly been vigorously anti immigrant in its rhetoric, Cameron even emphasised the need for more positive action and an end to discrimination against ethnic minorities in his conference speech
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
Indeed, the idea of sanctuary cities would be anathema to anyone in the Tory party.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly been vigorously anti immigrant in its rhetoric, Cameron even emphasised the need for more positive action and an end to discrimination against ethnic minorities in his conference speech
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
The Democrats are not the party they were a decade ago. They have moved FAR to the left. Bernie Sanders was asked if he was a capitalist and replied he wasn't, but a socialist. A decade ago that comment would have been almost inconceivable in a presidential candidate. Hillary is now moving left on issue after issue, trying to 'out-Bernie' Sanders, to get the leftie vote in her party in the primary. In the general she will have to move to the center.
Regarding gun rights, the Dem POTUS candidates - or the GOP ones for that matter - can say what they want about limiting this or that, enhanced background checks, limiting mental cases buying guns, and so on, in the sure and comfortable knowledge that it's never going to happen. Gun rights is not a litmus left/right demarcation. Sanders is from Vermont, a state full of hunters. OF COURSE he's pro gun rights.
That is an unreferenced statement on an editable encyclopedia, but I suppose it is true if your bar for conclusiveness is high enough. The former explanation is clearly incorrect, however, given that medieval football was primarily played with the hands, as this image shows:
Even in the earliest forms of association football, after codification, you were still allowed to catch the ball in certain circumstances.
According to FIFA the competitive game cuju is the earliest form of football for which there is scientific evidence.[10] It appears to be the first competitive game that involves kicking a ball through an opening into a net and occurs namely as an exercise in a military manual from the third and second centuries BC.[10] Documented evidence of an activity resembling football can be found in the Chinese military manual Zhan Guo Ce compiled between the 3rd century and 1st century BC.[11] It describes a practice known as cuju (蹴鞠, literally "kick ball"), which originally involved kicking a leather ball through a small hole in a piece of silk cloth which was fixed on bamboo canes and hung about 9 m above ground.
Interesting, but surely at this point any statement beginning "According to FIFA", unless it concerns surreptitious transfers of money on a 'gentlemans agreement' or regarding World Cup locations, can be assumed to be at best dubious
Hopefully Blatter doesn't date from the 3rd cen BC!
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly been vigorously anti immigrant in its rhetoric, Cameron even emphasised the need for more positive action and an end to discrimination against ethnic minorities in his conference speech
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
The Democrats are not the party they were a decade ago. They have moved FAR to the left. Bernie Sanders was asked if he was a capitalist and replied he wasn't, but a socialist. A decade ago that comment would have been almost inconceivable in a presidential candidate. Hillary is now moving left on issue after issue, trying to 'out-Bernie' Sanders, to get the leftie vote in her party in the primary. In the general she will have to move to the center.
Regarding gun rights, the Dem POTUS candidates - or the GOP ones for that matter - can say what they want about limiting this or that, enhanced background checks, limiting mental cases buying guns, and so on, in the sure and comfortable knowledge that it's never going to happen. Gun rights is not a litmus left/right demarcation. Sanders is from Vermont, a state full of hunters. OF COURSE he's pro gun rights.
Actually scrap the "denominational" part of education. Democrats would hate academies or free schools, or anything that the NUT disagreed with. I agree, the right wing of the Democratic Party has just disappeared.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.' Bernie Sanders may be a bit more leftwing but even he is pro gun rights. Hillary Democrats probably have more in common with Cameron Tories than Corbyn Labour. The GOP of Trump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly been vigorously anti immigrant in its rhetoric, Cameron even emphasised the need for more positive action and an end to discrimination against ethnic minorities in his conference speech
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
The Democ
Regarding gun rights, the Dem POTUS candidates - or the GOP ones for that matter - can say what they want about limiting this or that, enhanced background checks, limiting mental cases buying guns, and so on, in the sure and comfortable knowledge that it's never going to happen. Gun rights is not a litmus left/right demarcation. Sanders is from Vermont, a state full of hunters. OF COURSE he's pro gun rights.
Actually scrap the "denominational" part of education. Democrats would hate academies or free schools, or anything that the NUT disagreed with. I agree, the right wing of the Democratic Party has just disappeared.
The last time there was a Clinton in the White House the budget was balanced, just as Cameron is trying to achieve, Hillary is also hawkish on foreign policy. Cameron Tories may not be Bernie Sanders fans but most have few problems with Hillary, only the right of the Tories and UKIP would really back the GOP in their present guise with much enthusiasm
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.ump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly minorities in his conference speech
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
The Democ
Regarding gun rights, the Dem POTUS candidates - or the GOP ones for that matter - can say what they want about limiting this or that, enhanced background checks, limiting mental cases buying guns, and so on, in the sure and comfortable knowledge that it's never going to happen. Gun rights is not a litmus left/right demarcation. Sanders is from Vermont, a state full of hunters. OF COURSE he's pro gun rights.
Actually scrap the "denominational" part of education. Democrats would hate academies or free schools, or anything that the NUT disagreed with. I agree, the right wing of the Democratic Party has just disappeared.
The last time there was a Clinton in the White House the budget was balanced, just as Cameron is trying to achieve, Hillary is also hawkish on foreign policy. Cameron Tories may not be Bernie Sanders fans but most have few problems with Hillary, only the right of the Tories and UKIP would really back the GOP in their present guise with much enthusiasm
One needs to look at the position overall, and at State level. Most Tories don't favour amnesties for illegal immigrants, the Closed Shop, teacher unions, or affirmative action. Most Democrats do support these things.
True, but would you rather be consoling yourself on the streets of Paris tonight or celebrating on the streets of Wellington? (Nothing against New Zealand which is a great country but it is hardly the centre of the universe)
O/T I see a firm of lawyers is trying to encourage VW shareholders to join up to a class action to sue VW.
So the shareholders will be sueing the company that they own and, if they are successful in the courts, they will pay themselves vast amounts of money (40bn Euros according to the Telegraph), less many millions in lawyers fees, of course, and probably destroy the company that they own.
The Telegraph report this nonsense with a straight face.
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
han the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
The Democrats are not the party they were a decade ago. They have moved FAR to the left. Bernie Sanders was asked if he was a capitalist and replied he wasn't, but a socialist. A decade ago that comment would have been almost inconceivable in a presidential candidate. Hillary is now moving left on issue after issue, trying to 'out-Bernie' Sanders, to get the leftie vote in her party in the primary. In the general she will have to move to the center.
Regarding gun rights, the Dem POTUS candidates - or the GOP ones for that matter - can say what they want about limiting this or that, enhanced background checks, limiting mental cases buying guns, and so on, in the sure and comfortable knowledge that it's never going to happen. Gun rights is not a litmus left/right demarcation. Sanders is from Vermont, a state full of hunters. OF COURSE he's pro gun rights.
The relative decline of America continues apace. Remember the hyperpower? The idea that, with the death of communism, America was a unique global hegemon that might never be surpassed? That was just 15 years ago.
Now China has a larger economy, by PPP.
15 years.
A decade is a long time in geopolitics.
A hegemon with 5% of the world's population was never likely to be sustained. One of the reasons that the neocons wanted such an assertive foreign policy was because they knew the window for American dominance wouldn't last forever.
An equally valid headline would be "just a third say that a Labour government would not lead to economic chaos" with a red highlight around that claim.
But 13% government lead during an opposition leaders honeymoon period. Wow.
[my italics]
It's not though. It's a government's post-election honeymoon period.
The government's election win was 5 months ago, the opposition leader was elected one month ago.
O/T I see a firm of lawyers is trying to encourage VW shareholders to join up to a class action to sue VW.
So the shareholders will be sueing the company that they own and, if they are successful in the courts, they will pay themselves vast amounts of money (40bn Euros according to the Telegraph), less many millions in lawyers fees, of course, and probably destroy the company that they own.
The Telegraph report this nonsense with a straight face.
The farce of all this is if you are a VW owner that if you disable the emission controls, you will get better fuel mileage - it is saving you money!
When this all kicked off I thought it was a bit like the satanic ritual abuse scares which ran from the early 80s up to the late 90s, and some of the less publicised claims that have been floating around for a couple of decades now do reference satanic ritual. I would have thought that the police and social services had learnt their lesson, but maybe not.
Never have we needed the genius of Chris Morris more. Its paedogeddon. We need Nonce sense!
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
han the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
's pro gun rights.
The relative decline of America continues apace. Remember the hyperpower? The idea that, with the death of communism, America was a unique global hegemon that might never be surpassed? That was just 15 years ago.
Now China has a larger economy, by PPP.
15 years.
A decade is a long time in geopolitics.
A hegemon with 5% of the world's population was never likely to be sustained. One of the reasons that the neocons wanted such an assertive foreign policy was because they knew the window for American dominance wouldn't last forever.
You say that now, and you might be right - but I remember when I first started my Chinaporn remarks on pb (in about 2005 maybe?) - this was when I first suggested that China would overtake America.
I was roundly ridiculed by many on this site. But I was right. China is overtaking America as we speak, faster than almost anyone expected, and America is in global retreat.
e.g. China now has the world's largest middle class:
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
han the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
's pro gun rights.
The relative decline of America continues apace. Remember the hyperpower? The idea that, with the death of communism, America was a unique global hegemon that might never be surpassed? That was just 15 years ago.
Now China has a larger economy, by PPP.
15 years.
A decade is a long time in geopolitics.
A hegemon with 5% of the world's populativer.
You say that now, and you might be right - but I remember when I first started my Chinaporn remarks on pb (in about 2005 maybe?) - this was when I first suggested that China would overtake America.
I was roundly ridiculed by many on this site. But I was right. China is overtaking America as we speak, faster than almost anyone expected, and America is in global retreat.
e.g. China now has the world's largest middle class:
China has the world's largest population, 3 times that of the US, so it ought to be a surprise China ever stopped being the world's largest economy (as it was until the 17th century). On a gdp per capita basis though the US is still well ahead of China and even as China closes the gap that is unlikely to change nor is China likely to match the US leadership in overseas affairs
O/T I see a firm of lawyers is trying to encourage VW shareholders to join up to a class action to sue VW.
So the shareholders will be sueing the company that they own and, if they are successful in the courts, they will pay themselves vast amounts of money (40bn Euros according to the Telegraph), less many millions in lawyers fees, of course, and probably destroy the company that they own.
The Telegraph report this nonsense with a straight face.
The farce of all this is if you are a VW owner that if you disable the emission controls, you will get better fuel mileage - it is saving you money!
They are only disabled on a rolling road. If these engines were genuinely efficient then they might save you money. Logic suggests that it is because the engines can only meet the test by cheating and so they are less efficient in the real world than other companies engines.
True, but would you rather be consoling yourself on the streets of Paris tonight or celebrating on the streets of Wellington? (Nothing against New Zealand which is a great country but it is hardly the centre of the universe)
Wellington is more exciting than Canberra!
A bit like saying Birmingham is more lively than Leicester! Australia also has Sydney
Although in the US the Democrats have tended to produce more surpluses than the Republicans, which reinforced the point that in Europe it is the left which is ideological for more spending, in the US it is the right who are ideological for tax cuts
American Democrats seem pretty centrist on economic policy and generally run from the word socialism. They can be very left wing on social matters though.
Even Hillary only recently came out for gay marriage and has said 'abortion is a tragic choice.ump and Cruz has more in common with UKIP than the Tories
They are all very keen on amnesty for illegal immigrants, support 'affirmative' discrimination and banning prayer in schools.
Bar Theresa May Cameron's team has hardly minorities in his conference speech
On immigration, trade union rights, affirmative action, denominational education, the mid-point in the US Democrats is now well to the Left of the mid-point of the Conservatives. The Democrats would give citizenship to every illegal immigrant, if they could get away with it.
The Democ
Regarding gun rights, the Dem POTUS candidates - or the GOP ones for that matter - can say what they want about limiting this or that, enhanced background checks, limiting mental cases buying guns, and so on, in the sure and comfortable knowledge that it's never going to happen. Gun rights is not a litmus left/right demarcation. Sanders is from Vermont, a state full of hunters. OF COURSE he's pro gun rights.
Actually scrap the "denominational" part of education. Democrats would hate academies or free schools, or anything that the NUT disagreed with. I agree, the right wing of the Democratic Party has just disappeared.
The last time there was a Clinton in the White House the budget was balanced, just as Cameron is trying to achieve, Hillary is also hawkish on foreign policy. Cameron Tories may not be Bernie Sanders fans but most have few problems with Hillary, only the right of the Tories and UKIP would really back the GOP in their present guise with much enthusiasm
One needs to look at the position overall, and at State level. Most Tories don't favour amnesties for illegal immigrants, the Closed Shop, teacher unions, or affirmative action. Most Democrats do support these things.
Judging by his conference speech Cameron does support affirmative action
The relative decline of America continues apace. Remember the hyperpower? The idea that, with the death of communism, America was a unique global hegemon that might never be surpassed? That was just 15 years ago.
Now China has a larger economy, by PPP.
15 years.
A decade is a long time in geopolitics.
PPP is a very difficult way to measure power though. It is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. It is still going to take quite a few more years before China overtakes the US in absolute terms.
Looking at the regional breakdown of tonight's Comres poll the Tories have a huge lead in the South (albeit this includes London), 45% to Labour's 27% and in the Midlands where they lead on 50% to Labour's 24%. In the North the Tories and Labour are tied on 40% each. Tories lead with ABs, C1s and C2s and the over 45s. Labour lead with DEs and 18 to 44 year olds
Looking at the regional breakdown of tonight's Comres poll the Tories have a huge lead in the South (albeit this includes London), 45% to Labour's 27% and in the Midlands where they lead on 50% to Labour's 24%. In the North the Tories and Labour are tied on 40% each. Tories lead with ABs, C1s and C2s and the over 45s. Labour lead with DEs and 18 to 44 year olds
Looking at the regional breakdown of tonight's Comres poll the Tories have a huge lead in the South (albeit this includes London), 45% to Labour's 27% and in the Midlands where they lead on 50% to Labour's 24%. In the North the Tories and Labour are tied on 40% each. Tories lead with ABs, C1s and C2s and the over 45s. Labour lead with DEs and 18 to 44 year olds
Comments
Unless of course they think that the pendulum will swing back to them regardless of what they do and say and they will gain power because the other lot are too tired, worn out, have exhausted their stock of ideas, whatever. Is that really a realistic position?
It is certainly true that for nearly all of the 20th century there were frequent changes in governing party. I am not sure that imbues such a regular switch with the force of nature or anything like. Were there not long periods in previous centuries when one party was dominant? Different circumstances then, of course, and a very different world, however the world we live in today is very different from that of even forty years ago. Is there really any reason to suppose that a, for example, Conservative led government could not go on winning elections for the next thirty years? It has happened in the past.
France = Labour under Corbyn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBhTIoIXoTI
You see the bit there about 'all throughout the game'? - perhaps I could have labelled that as meaning in general play, but I didn't want to insult anyone's intelligence by being that blatant! It was in agreement with your point about Rugby not involving much kicking for christ's sake, but that doesn't mean they have the same amount (amount in terms of total kicks, not just set piece kicks, since you are taking a joke to the point of defensiveness)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRjAdYLWUAAhHjZ.png
Yep,British rugby league still hasn't caught up with the Aussies.
"There are conflicting explanations of the origin of the word "football". It is widely assumed that the word "football" (or "foot ball") references the action of the foot kicking a ball. There is an alternative explanation, which is that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot. There is no conclusive evidence for either explanation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football
France = Kendall
Population of New Zealand is 4.6 million
The Aussie RL are very very professional. They are very coachable I think.
The forthcoming RL tests against NZ should be interesting.
What I picked out tonight was the way NZ attacked the high ball, even in midfield.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London
I specifically said urban Paris.
Please don't bother to respond to me on this topic.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Mobfooty.jpg
Even in the earliest forms of association football, after codification, you were still allowed to catch the ball in certain circumstances.
BTW on 1st Jan 2016, Paris will be officially expanded to 762 square kilometres and 6.7 million inhabitants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Paris
I think that's a sign I should leave it there - good night all.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRjFm_nWIAAS_TH.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Paris
The only solution is a trip back to may.... Good night!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/02/the-black-and-white-numbers-democrats-are-better-than-republicans/
He may be renferring to rules published in 1858. I am only passing on his 'advice'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football#Football_codes_board
I thought it was relative populations of London and Paris.
The City is pretty deserted at weekends from what I have seen. I would be surprised if the wall street end of new York was any different.
Their time-scale is likely to be much longer than we are accustomed to in our politics. Mr Corbyn had no expectation of winning the leadership; he's devoted his life to keeping the flame alive and was just carrying on his ordinary daily slog by putting his name forward.
Now that he's in situ, I really don't see how the PLP will be able to dislodge him. The party has filled up with the once-disillusioned left wing people. The erst-while mainstream Labour MPs have been cut off by the tide. Naturally the very left wing people will want their PPCs to represent their views.
They may possibly not be a majority of members but they are utterly committed to their cause. They will stick out any meeting however long & boring, until normal people have been driven away & gone home.
And maybe they will come to power through a swing of the pendulum if they wait long enough. Labour voters are nothing if not loyal, and for many of them the leader of the Labour party is their leader & they don't need to know anything else.
(edited to show snips for length)
Regarding gun rights, the Dem POTUS candidates - or the GOP ones for that matter - can say what they want about limiting this or that, enhanced background checks, limiting mental cases buying guns, and so on, in the sure and comfortable knowledge that it's never going to happen. Gun rights is not a litmus left/right demarcation. Sanders is from Vermont, a state full of hunters. OF COURSE he's pro gun rights.
So the shareholders will be sueing the company that they own and, if they are successful in the courts, they will pay themselves vast amounts of money (40bn Euros according to the Telegraph), less many millions in lawyers fees, of course, and probably destroy the company that they own.
The Telegraph report this nonsense with a straight face.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU
UK: 0.54%
China: 0.45%
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
As far as the battle for second is concerned would you prefer to see Lab or Tory as second?