Mr. Sandpit, Hamilton should not get a knighthood, certainly not at this stage.
I thought that engine-spec rule was set for 2017, in response to the fact Red Bull had been faced with either sticking with Renault or shifting to an out-of-date Ferrari engine.
I think Haas will do well. Got a good engine, done lots of homework this year and Grosjean's an impressive driver. McLaren's fate is largely tied to Honda. From one year to the next, Ferrari improved a fair bit, but Renault went backwards. We'll have to see.
Edited extra bit: thanks
Hamilton doesn't need a knighthood when he can write SPOTY after his name.
OGH/TSE - During this period between Christmas and the New Year which is always very quiet on PB.com, might I suggest that the punters amongst us nominate one wager for 2016 (or even beyond) currently on offer, which they believe will prove profitable, giving brief reasons for their choice. This needn't involve a dedicated thread, although it would help to keep such suggestions together, making it easier to check back over time to see which proved successful.
Tottenham to finish top 4, 4/5 in a few places, 80% return in less than 5 months. A young, fit, competitive side that can only improve.
But Spurs have been nailed on certs to finish in the top 4 for the past half a dozen years, and they've bottled it every single time - why would this year be any different?
Leicester will fall from their perch eventually, they have a horrible run of away games to come. Ditto Palace and Watford who won't stay there forever either. Arsenal and MC will qualify, with probably MU in third. The last CL place is then between everyone else, one of Liverpool, Everton or Spurs,so that 4/5 looks very skinny to me. Chelski are too far back even if they win every remaining match.
MU will not make the top 4. The problems are not just with LVG. They will take more than a season and lots of money to fix. Leicester have a nine point cushion from 5th place and can cope with some tough away games - we also have some easy ones such as Villa away. We also have wealthy owners who want to strengthen this window.
Spurs for 4th place is a reasonable tip, but they are still too patchy and have European games on Thursdays to cope with, I cannot see them overtaking Arsenal.
Why should it take lots of money to fix MU? If other teams are doing very nicely thank you by not spending large sums then why need it be the opposite for MU. What MU need to do is what all teams need to do which is to buy wisely. This season may be presaging a future where more teams have the funds to build a competitive team and the headline teams will have to show some vision and not just a fat cheque book. In fact the exact opposite of what F1 has become. How most of the F1 grid must look on at Watford and Crystal Palace with envy.
Very good linking of the football and F1 discussions. Yes imagine if Manor and Haas are fighting with Mercedes and Ferrari, that's what Leicester and Watford feel right now.
The term dates at least to the 17th century, when it was applied to Puritan roundheads during the English Civil War.[3] The term came to include residents of colonial New England, who were mostly Puritans in support of the Parliamentarians during the war. It probably derives from the Biblical words spoken by David after the death of his estranged friend Jonathan, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan" (2 Samuel 1:26) . As Kenneth Hopper and William Hopper put it, "Used as a term of abuse for their Bible-thumping Puritan opponents by Royalists during the English Civil War, it was applied by British officers to the rebellious colonists during the American Revolution".[4]
A popular folk tale about the origin of the term holds that the character derives from Jonathan Trumbull (1710–85), Governor of the State of Connecticut, which was the main source of supplies for the Northern and Middle Departments during the American Revolutionary War. It is said that George Washington uttered the words: "We must consult Brother Jonathan" when asked how he could win the war.[5] That origin is doubtful, however, as neither man made reference to the story during his lifetime and the first appearance of the story has been traced to the mid-19th century, long after their deaths.[6]
No-one defending government cuts to flood defences? Or attacking them? Maybe tomorrow, once the party lines have been decided.
A statement from the the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reads:
“Over the next six years we will be investing £2.3 billion in flood defences which is a real terms increase on the £1.7bn invested in the last Parliament. This which will see 1,500 new defences built and 300,000 homes better protected. "In addition, flood maintenance spending will be protected in real terms over this Parliament. “There has been no cut to flood spending and during the last Parliament we spent £3.2 billion on flood management and defences compared to £2.7 billion in the previous five years. “After the 2013/14 floods there was a special one-off additional investment from the Treasury of £270 million spread across three years to improve and repair flood defences which inflated the overall spend.”
' "Comrades!" cried an eager youthful voice. "Attention, comrades! We have glorious news for you. We have won the battle for production! Returns now completed of the output of all classes of consumption goods show that the standard of living has risen by no less than 20 per cent over the past year." '
The term dates at least to the 17th century, when it was applied to Puritan roundheads during the English Civil War.[3] The term came to include residents of colonial New England, who were mostly Puritans in support of the Parliamentarians during the war. It probably derives from the Biblical words spoken by David after the death of his estranged friend Jonathan, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan" (2 Samuel 1:26) . As Kenneth Hopper and William Hopper put it, "Used as a term of abuse for their Bible-thumping Puritan opponents by Royalists during the English Civil War, it was applied by British officers to the rebellious colonists during the American Revolution".[4]
A popular folk tale about the origin of the term holds that the character derives from Jonathan Trumbull (1710–85), Governor of the State of Connecticut, which was the main source of supplies for the Northern and Middle Departments during the American Revolutionary War. It is said that George Washington uttered the words: "We must consult Brother Jonathan" when asked how he could win the war.[5] That origin is doubtful, however, as neither man made reference to the story during his lifetime and the first appearance of the story has been traced to the mid-19th century, long after their deaths.[6]
Thanks for that Mr. Eagles, another gap in my knowledge has been filled.
OGH/TSE - During this period between Christmas and the New Year which is always very quiet on PB.com, might I suggest that the punters amongst us nominate one wager for 2016 (or even beyond) currently on offer, which they believe will prove profitable, giving brief reasons for their choice. This needn't involve a dedicated thread, although it would help to keep such suggestions together, making it easier to check back over time to see which proved successful.
Tottenham to finish top 4, 4/5 in a few places, 80% return in less than 5 months. A young, fit, competitive side that can only improve.
But Spurs have been nailed on certs to finish in the top 4 for the past half a dozen years, and they've bottled it every single time - why would this year be any different?
Leicester will fall from their perch eventually, they have a horrible run of away games to come. Ditto Palace and Watford who won't stay there forever either. Arsenal and MC will qualify, with probably MU in third. The last CL place is then between everyone else, one of Liverpool, Everton or Spurs,so that 4/5 looks very skinny to me. Chelski are too far back even if they win every remaining match.
MU will not make the top 4. The problems are not just with LVG. They will take more than a season and lots of money to fix. Leicester have a nine point cushion from 5th place and can cope with some tough away games - we also have some easy ones such as Villa away. We also have wealthy owners who want to strengthen this window.
Spurs for 4th place is a reasonable tip, but they are still too patchy and have European games on Thursdays to cope with, I cannot see them overtaking Arsenal.
Why should it take lots of money to fix MU? If other teams are doing very nicely thank you by not spending large sums then why need it be the opposite for MU. What MU need to do is what all teams need to do which is to buy wisely. This season may be presaging a future where more teams have the funds to build a competitive team and the headline teams will have to show some vision and not just a fat cheque book. In fact the exact opposite of what F1 has become. How most of the F1 grid must look on at Watford and Crystal Palace with envy.
I think that while ManU have a few decent players such as Mata and Smalling they have real problems elsewhere.
I also think that they cannot progress without getting rid of Giggs. He constantly undermines the manager, and poisons the players against the game plan. Jose will have the same poison chalice as LVG.
@rustinpeace00: Arise, Sir Lynton Crosby. A stunning piece of absolutely world class trolling. The lefties are in bits. Bravo Cameron!
For shits'n'giggles, Cameron should make Rupert Murdoch a Lord. I think Twitter would have a meltdown
He's a Septic isn't he now; can't be a Lord.
He's American. So a slight problem.
Indeed. Rhyming slang. Septic Tank = Yank. Aka American.
Unless you're one of the people who was 21 before they knew "damnyankees" was two words!
A small piece of trivia considering we are in the Christmas season:
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries Americans were known by Brits as "Jonathans". I don't know why.
Wikipedia has a plausible suggestion as follows:
The term dates at least to the 17th century, when it was applied to Puritan roundheads during the English Civil War.[3] The term came to include residents of colonial New England, who were mostly Puritans in support of the Parliamentarians during the war. It probably derives from the Biblical words spoken by David after the death of his estranged friend Jonathan, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan" (2 Samuel 1:26) . As Kenneth Hopper and William Hopper put it, "Used as a term of abuse for their Bible-thumping Puritan opponents by Royalists during the English Civil War, it was applied by British officers to the rebellious colonists during the American Revolution".
OGH/TSE - During this period between Christmas and the New Year which is always very quiet on PB.com, might I suggest that the punters amongst us nominate one wager for 2016 (or even beyond) currently on offer, which they believe will prove profitable, giving brief reasons for their choice. This needn't involve a dedicated thread, although it would help to keep such suggestions together, making it easier to check back over time to see which proved successful.
Hillary to win the presidency at 8/11 looks very tempting. The Republicans don't seem serious about winning the White House - if they were they'd have reduced the field to no more than six by now, one of whom would be a credible candidate.
I think the best spread has to be selling Rubio to be the Republican nominee, but covering it with buying him as President. He is the only Republican nominee I see as near cert against Hillary.
That looks like a very smart bet! The best odds currently available for both elements are on the Betfair Exchange - Rubio is the narrow favourite for the Republican nomination and can be sold at 2.16/1 in old money, net of commission. He can be backed on the exchange at 5.7/1, again net of commission, to become the next POTUS.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
The term dates at least to the 17th century, when it was applied to Puritan roundheads during the English Civil War.[3] The term came to include residents of colonial New England, who were mostly Puritans in support of the Parliamentarians during the war. It probably derives from the Biblical words spoken by David after the death of his estranged friend Jonathan, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan" (2 Samuel 1:26) . As Kenneth Hopper and William Hopper put it, "Used as a term of abuse for their Bible-thumping Puritan opponents by Royalists during the English Civil War, it was applied by British officers to the rebellious colonists during the American Revolution".[4]
A popular folk tale about the origin of the term holds that the character derives from Jonathan Trumbull (1710–85), Governor of the State of Connecticut, which was the main source of supplies for the Northern and Middle Departments during the American Revolutionary War. It is said that George Washington uttered the words: "We must consult Brother Jonathan" when asked how he could win the war.[5] That origin is doubtful, however, as neither man made reference to the story during his lifetime and the first appearance of the story has been traced to the mid-19th century, long after their deaths.[6]
Thanks for that Mr. Eagles, another gap in my knowledge has been filled.
Is nice for me to help educate PBers other than Mr Dancer on historical matters.
The first round of local elections has a rather good record of predicting the subsequent general election:
2011 Gov lead +1 = Gov reelected 2006 Opp lead +13 = Opp gain power 2002 Opp lead +1 = Gov reelected 1998 Gov lead +4 = Gov reelected 1993 Opp lead +8 = Opp gain power * 1988 Gov lead +1 = Gov reelected 1984 Gov lead +1 = Gov reelected 1980 Opp lead +2 = Gov reelected **
* Blair replacing Smith was beneficial to the Opposition ** Foot replacing Callaghan was detrimental to the Opposition
Taking the pattern back further we see that the Opposition had a big lead in 1975 and went on to gain power in 1979:
I wonder how to interpret it. In the cases where the Opposition surges post-GE, is the point that they have suddenly gained credibility (through a change of leader, though that doesn't apply to 67 or 71) and that voters who were already disenchanted with the Government but didn't feel they could back the Opposition at the GE, are enthused by the new-look Opposition sufficiently to give the Government a kicking in the locals and at the next GE?
Worth noting that while swapping Smith for Blair benefited the Opposition, so did swapping Kinnock for Smith.
If we compare the big Opposition leads:
2006 The government was only narrowly reelected in 2005 and had been heavily defeated in the 2006 locals. The 2005 reelection was based upon a seemingly strong economy (with rapidly increasing consumer spending) and an Opposition which didn't 'seal the deal'.
1993 Followed a surprise government reelection the previous year which was subsequently followed by economic (ERM) and political turmoil (sleeze and Maastricht).
1975 Government only narrowly took power the previous year and the economy has subsequently entered recession.
1971 Not sure why the government did so badly but the decision to change economic strategy (reflate the economy) followed soon after.
1967 Not sure why the government did so badly but sterling was devalued later in the year so there must have been some economic difficulties.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Its insane, the blame for the excess rain and subsequent flooding, and the necessary solutions all seem to miraculously coincide with whatever political opinion you have. Hard left greenie: It's all the fault of capitalism, oil, global warming, war in syria, american neo cons, council cuts, flood defence cuts, bedroom tax and zero hours contracts (i made the last two up).
I am amazed how people see Hillary Clinton with rose tinted spectacles. She is a deeply, deeply, flawed candidate. She is assailable on so many fronts.
But the (relatively left wing) American press won't assail her. I do think that Mr Trump won't appeal to sufficiently broad a base to win (remember the phrase that the Republicans ran out of White males in the last election - well that is worse now. In the meantime we can watch America slowly strangle itself in its quagmire of debt.)
Given Miliband had a comfortable poll lead when the 2012 local elections were held and Corbyn has not led in one poll since becoming leader it is highly likely the Tories will make gains. However if Labour win the London Mayoral election, something Ed Miliband failed to do and win in Wales Corbyn should survive at least for one more year anyway
No-one defending government cuts to flood defences? Or attacking them? Maybe tomorrow, once the party lines have been decided.
Have there actually been any cuts to flood defence budgets? AIUI there was some extra payments made last year after a serious flood, and any 'cuts' are due solely to this one-off payment not being made (so far) this year.
And you have to add into that the base line for cuts is usually the 2009/10 budget which was a fiscal stimulus budget, which brought forward huge amounts of capital spend, and pissed money all over other public services. Every peacetime budget before and since will seem austerity in comparison.
Mr. Sandpit, not sure that Button/Alonso remaining is necessarily indicative of an improvement of that magnitude. The problem seems understood but the rules don't allow for unlimited action to be taken to remedy problems and improve performance.
Both men are nearing the end of their careers, which is probably also a factor.
"I think that while ManU have a few decent players such as Mata and Smalling they have real problems elsewhere.
I also think that they cannot progress without getting rid of Giggs. He constantly undermines the manager, and poisons the players against the game plan. Jose will have the same poison chalice as LVG."
I wouldn't be surprised to see Ryan Giggs take a management job away from MU in the near future. He must sense that his days are numbered insofar as the likes of Mourinho, or indeed any top man moving into Old Trafford would insist on picking their own senior team and would probably resist being foisted with Giggs. On the other hand, if LVG really is at the end of his tether there, then perhaps his assistant is hanging on for what would doubtless be a very lucrative compensation package.
A brief weather note. It was 75 here yesterday. Same today.
Meanwhile 650 miles away in Dallas TX the Cotton Bowl game is also being played. started at 70 and sunny, now it's pouring with rain and cooler.
This weather is just bizarre. They keep saying it's a big El Nino year.
This is a British blog - we use degrees Celsius here!
They didn't when I grew up there
Times have changed, old man. Using Celsius is all part of our utterly logical unit of measurement adoption, along with partway metric on some things, but not others, and that's just the way we like it. I'll buy my coke by the litre, but by gods I will not accept milk in anything other than pints!
I buy coke by the Big Bottle, Small Bottle or the Can. Milk is also by relative box size. Petrol goes in by cash amount.
Distances and measurements are still Imperial. I'm genuinely struggling to think of anything that I'd instinctively think of in metric that's genuinely meaningful.
Metric paper sizes make far more sense than imperial.
Why? You can measure what someone randomly christened A4 in both systems and neither come out neatly in round numbers.
210 × 297 millimeters or 8.27 × 11.69 inches
Why does one of those sets of odd numbers make more "sense" than the other?
Because an A0 sheet is 1 square metre. A4 isn't remotely random, it's one sixteenth of an A0.
Is it really. That's a pointless bit of trivia I'll have no trouble forgetting.
But the fact that A0 is a square metre, and that A1 is half a square metre, and that A2 is a quarter of a square metre, and that A3 is an eighth of a square metre, and that A4 is a sixteenth of a square metre, is the whole point of the whole point of the whole point of the whole point of the A3/A4 etc. paper size system! Have you not been paying attention?!?
Yeh ! The wonders of Europe [ France, actually ] ! Just like the kilometre. The distance from the North pole to the Equator = 10000 km. Guess what, 1/10000th of that is a metre.
Even Wall St would not use decimals for share prices. I hope they have changed now.
So quaint. Where did the pint come from that we are so wedded to ?
I am amazed how people see Hillary Clinton with rose tinted spectacles. She is a deeply, deeply, flawed candidate. She is assailable on so many fronts.
Yes but fortunately for Hillary the GOP seem intent on firing at each other rather than her and will probably end up with a candidate who Hillary could have designed herself as her dream opponent
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Its insane, the blame for the excess rain and subsequent flooding, and the necessary solutions all seem to miraculously coincide with whatever political opinion you have. Hard left greenie: It's all the fault of capitalism, oil, global warming, war in syria, american neo cons, council cuts, flood defence cuts, bedroom tax and zero hours contracts (i made the last two up).
OGH/TSE - During this period between Christmas and the New Year which is always very quiet on PB.com, might I suggest that the punters amongst us nominate one wager for 2016 (or even beyond) currently on offer, which they believe will prove profitable, giving brief reasons for their choice. This needn't involve a dedicated thread, although it would help to keep such suggestions together, making it easier to check back over time to see which proved successful.
Tottenham to finish top 4, 4/5 in a few places, 80% return in less than 5 months. A young, fit, competitive side that can only improve.
But Spurs have been nailed on certs to finish in the top 4 for the past half a dozen years, and they've bottled it every single time - why would this year be any different?
Leicester will fall from their perch eventually, they have a horrible run of away games to come. Ditto Palace and Watford who won't stay there forever either. Arsenal and MC will qualify, with probably MU in third. The last CL place is then between everyone else, one of Liverpool, Everton or Spurs,so that 4/5 looks very skinny to me. Chelski are too far back even if they win every remaining match.
MU will not make the top 4. The problems are not just with LVG. They will take more than a season and lots of money to fix. Leicester have a nine point cushion from 5th place and can cope with some tough away games - we also have some easy ones such as Villa away. We also have wealthy owners who want to strengthen this window.
Spurs for 4th place is a reasonable tip, but they are still too patchy and have European games on Thursdays to cope with, I cannot see them overtaking Arsenal.
Why should it take lots of money to fix MU? If other teams are doing very nicely thank you by not spending large sums then why need it be the opposite for MU. What MU need to do is what all teams need to do which is to buy wisely. This season may be presaging a future where more teams have the funds to build a competitive team and the headline teams will have to show some vision and not just a fat cheque book. In fact the exact opposite of what F1 has become. How most of the F1 grid must look on at Watford and Crystal Palace with envy.
I think that while ManU have a few decent players such as Mata and Smalling they have real problems elsewhere.
I also think that they cannot progress without getting rid of Giggs. He constantly undermines the manager, and poisons the players against the game plan. Jose will have the same poison chalice as LVG.
'' I do think that Mr Trump won't appeal to sufficiently broad a base to win (remember the phrase that the Republicans ran out of White males in the last election - well that is worse now. '''
True but America is still about 65% white, isn;t it? Sounds like the white female vote is a key battleground and Clinton may not be as strong there as expected.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Its insane, the blame for the excess rain and subsequent flooding, and the necessary solutions all seem to miraculously coincide with whatever political opinion you have. Hard left greenie: It's all the fault of capitalism, oil, global warming, war in syria, american neo cons, council cuts, flood defence cuts, bedroom tax and zero hours contracts (i made the last two up).
All of them including the last two. Roadworks ? Lack of money for A&E ?
''Yes but fortunately for Hillary the GOP seem intent on firing at each other rather than her and will probably end up with a candidate who Hillary could have designed herself as her dream opponent''
We'll see. The Clintons are dogs with a huge number of fleas and there's a dangerous air of complacency surrounding their campaign right now.
Clinton's early attacks on Trump have backfired badly, it seems.
In some respects Clinton is the opponent Trump might have designed for himself.
Mr. L, I think the large rainfall, and persistent recurrence of new rainfall, makes it tricky.
Flood defences aren't magic. It's hard to assess how much difference they have made, or would have made, or the damage to them has made to subsequent flooding.
There'll be criticism about the shortage of sandbags available, but that also might be due to the prolonged and repeated nature of the flooding.
My local authority stopped giving out sandbags in 2013. Hoped no one would notice, and the district ended up eight foot under water three weeks ago.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
Given Miliband had a comfortable poll lead when the 2012 local elections were held and Corbyn has not led in one poll since becoming leader it is highly likely the Tories will make gains. However if Labour win the London Mayoral election, something Ed Miliband failed to do and win in Wales Corbyn should survive at least for one more year anyway
I think there's very little chance he fails whatever notional test is set.
It strikes me that it's more likely that he will outperform extremely low expectations and emerge strengthened.
''Yes but fortunately for Hillary the GOP seem intent on firing at each other rather than her and will probably end up with a candidate who Hillary could have designed herself as her dream opponent''
We'll see. The Clintons are dogs with a huge number of fleas and there's a dangerous air of complacency surrounding their campaign right now.
Clinton's early attacks on Trump have backfired badly, it seems.
Really? A recent Fox poll had her leading Trump by 11%. An Hispanic baiting, misogynist loudmouth is a candidate Hillary could have produced in a lab of 'unelectable GOP opponents' indeed I would expect even the Bush family to vote for Hillary in the privacy of the voting booth when the alternative is Trump
''Yes but fortunately for Hillary the GOP seem intent on firing at each other rather than her and will probably end up with a candidate who Hillary could have designed herself as her dream opponent''
We'll see. The Clintons are dogs with a huge number of fleas and there's a dangerous air of complacency surrounding their campaign right now.
Clinton's early attacks on Trump have backfired badly, it seems.
In some respects Clinton is the opponent Trump might have designed for himself.
Someone like Trump carries plenty of baggage. Those will come out when he gets the nomination.
OGH/TSE - During this period between Christmas and the New Year which is always very quiet on PB.com, might I suggest that the punters amongst us nominate one wager for 2016 (or even beyond) currently on offer, which they believe will prove profitable, giving brief reasons for their choice. This needn't involve a dedicated thread, although it would help to keep such suggestions together, making it easier to check back over time to see which proved successful.
Tottenham to finish top 4, 4/5 in a few places, 80% return in less than 5 months. A young, fit, competitive side that can only improve.
But Spurs have been nailed on certs to finish in the top 4 for the past half a dozen years, and they've bottled it every single time - why would this year be any Chelski are too far back even if they win every remaining match.
MU will not make the top 4. The problems are not just with LVG. They will take more than a season and lots of money to fix. Leicester have a nine point cushion from 5th place and can cope with some tough away games - we also have some easy ones such as Villa away. We also have wealthy owners who want to strengthen this window.
Spurs for 4th place is a reasonable tip, but they are still too patchy and have European games on Thursdays to cope with, I cannot see them overtaking Arsenal.
Why should it take lots of money to fix MU? If other teams are doing very nicely thank you by not spending large sums then why need it be the opposite for MU. What MU need to do is what all teams need to do which is to buy wisely. This season may be presaging a future where more teams have the funds to build a competitive team and the headline teams will have to show some vision and not just a fat cheque book. In fact the exact opposite of what F1 has become. How most of the F1 grid must look on at Watford and Crystal Palace with envy.
I think that while ManU have a few decent players such as Mata and Smalling they have real problems elsewhere.
I also think that they cannot progress without getting rid of Giggs. He constantly undermines the manager, and poisons the players against the game plan. Jose will have the same poison chalice as LVG.
At least when they pick him as a batsman, we're only down to 10 men.
Now Bairstow is keeping his incompetence can sabotage the 5 bowlers too. There have been many beneficiaries of the Yorkshire hype machine getting unearned Test spots (hi Adil!) but Bairstow still playing after 4 years and 20 tests of failure is beyond a joke.
Buttler's nightmare year of bad form consisted of dropping to Bairstow's career average level.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
And yet the highest 24hr rainfall total for the England was in 1955, and none of the short rainfall records from 5 minutes to 3hrs was topped within the last 25 years, with the highest hourly rainfall being recorded in 1901.
Given Miliband had a comfortable poll lead when the 2012 local elections were held and Corbyn has not led in one poll since becoming leader it is highly likely the Tories will make gains. However if Labour win the London Mayoral election, something Ed Miliband failed to do and win in Wales Corbyn should survive at least for one more year anyway
I think there's very little chance he fails whatever notional test is set.
It strikes me that it's more likely that he will outperform extremely low expectations and emerge strengthened.
He will do enough to survive but if he is doing worse than even IDS did in his first local elections he will hardly be strengthened
''Yes but fortunately for Hillary the GOP seem intent on firing at each other rather than her and will probably end up with a candidate who Hillary could have designed herself as her dream opponent''
We'll see. The Clintons are dogs with a huge number of fleas and there's a dangerous air of complacency surrounding their campaign right now.
Clinton's early attacks on Trump have backfired badly, it seems.
In some respects Clinton is the opponent Trump might have designed for himself.
Someone like Trump carries plenty of baggage. Those will come out when he gets the nomination.
I have a suspicion that a lot of that baggage is already well known and priced in... interesting times.
I am amazed how people see Hillary Clinton with rose tinted spectacles. She is a deeply, deeply, flawed candidate. She is assailable on so many fronts.
She is indeed, but the Dems are setting up the debates to limit her exposure - only 6 of them, either on Saturday nights (lowest TV ratings of the week), or the next one is on a Sunday night up against 2 NFL playoff games (very low ratings for the debate). The last dem debate got about 6 million viewers, this will get less. GOP debates get double and triple that.
The GOP problem is Trump. His negatives among women and hispanics are very high. He can win the nomination going away, but unless something changes I don't think he can beat Clinton in the general.
There is little or no enthusiasm among the dems for Hillary, but they will mostly hold their noses and vote for her.
Hillary has been around long enough that pretty much everyone already has their mind made up about her. many dems will not let the email scandal or Benghazi etc affect their decision to vote for her.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
And yet the highest 24hr rainfall total for the England was in 1955, and none of the short rainfall records from 5 minutes to 3hrs was topped within the last 25 years, with the highest hourly rainfall being recorded in 1901.
Yeah. I find ascribing every single bad weather event to global warming as very tedious. It is the trend which matters, with bad weather becoming more common/more extreme.
''Yes but fortunately for Hillary the GOP seem intent on firing at each other rather than her and will probably end up with a candidate who Hillary could have designed herself as her dream opponent''
We'll see. The Clintons are dogs with a huge number of fleas and there's a dangerous air of complacency surrounding their campaign right now.
Clinton's early attacks on Trump have backfired badly, it seems.
In some respects Clinton is the opponent Trump might have designed for himself.
Someone like Trump carries plenty of baggage. Those will come out when he gets the nomination.
I doubt there's any Trump baggage we don't know about. He's always had a fairly hostile press.
The baggage we don't know about belongs to Clinton - the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. Charity Navigator will not touch them and there are issues with foreign donations when Hillary was SOS and Bill made speeches abroad.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Its insane, the blame for the excess rain and subsequent flooding, and the necessary solutions all seem to miraculously coincide with whatever political opinion you have. Hard left greenie: It's all the fault of capitalism, oil, global warming, war in syria, american neo cons, council cuts, flood defence cuts, bedroom tax and zero hours contracts (i made the last two up).
Yes, ukip moved on from blaming Gay Marriage for the floods, to apparently flood defences in Serbia. Serbia had some £1million flood defences built with development funds for a town. It saved their town from whatever flooding they had.
And the conclusion was that, if we hadnt spent £1million on theirs, the £38 million we spent on the flood defences in our town wouldnt have failed.
Given Miliband had a comfortable poll lead when the 2012 local elections were held and Corbyn has not led in one poll since becoming leader it is highly likely the Tories will make gains. However if Labour win the London Mayoral election, something Ed Miliband failed to do and win in Wales Corbyn should survive at least for one more year anyway
I think there's very little chance he fails whatever notional test is set.
It strikes me that it's more likely that he will outperform extremely low expectations and emerge strengthened.
He will do enough to survive but if he is doing worse than even IDS did in his first local elections he will hardly be strengthened
I think predictions of Labour disaster will run ahead of reality and allow him to beat expectations. His supporters will say, "Jeremy is awesome! He kept most of our seats and this was his first try."
''An Hispanic baiting, misogynist loudmouth is a candidate Hillary could have produced in a lab of 'unelectable GOP opponents' ''
I see what you mean, but I think if Trump were the two dimensional caricature you describe he would be out by now.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
And yet the highest 24hr rainfall total for the England was in 1955, and none of the short rainfall records from 5 minutes to 3hrs was topped within the last 25 years, with the highest hourly rainfall being recorded in 1901.
Yeah. I find ascribing every single bad weather event to global warming as very tedious. It is the trend which matters, with bad weather becoming more common/more extreme.
If that is the case. Sometimes we have to make sure we are making the assumption of trends on data and not reporting of them.
''Yes but fortunately for Hillary the GOP seem intent on firing at each other rather than her and will probably end up with a candidate who Hillary could have designed herself as her dream opponent''
We'll see. The Clintons are dogs with a huge number of fleas and there's a dangerous air of complacency surrounding their campaign right now.
Clinton's early attacks on Trump have backfired badly, it seems.
In some respects Clinton is the opponent Trump might have designed for himself.
Someone like Trump carries plenty of baggage. Those will come out when he gets the nomination.
I doubt there's any Trump baggage we don't know about. He's always had a fairly hostile press.
The baggage we don't know about belongs to Clinton - the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. Charity Navigator will not touch them and there are issues with foreign donations when Hillary was SOS and Bill made speeches abroad.
That is what you Republicans will say. Remember Kenneth Starr was appointed to investigate Whitewater , found zilch but then asked Congress to impeach Bill because he lied about where the stain on his trousers came from.
How much would it cost Man Utd were they to miss out on the Champions League next season, by not finishing in the top 4 of the PL ..... £40 million ..... £50 million ........ £60 million ...... more? This is the one key factor which will be exercising the Old Trafford Boardroom right now.
PS Strange how relatively poor LVG's English is for a Dutchman, who usually speak it like a native Brit, having been brought up on a diet of BBC Radio and TV. Has anyone else noticed how he uses the word "shall" ad nauseam, instead of "will".
''Yes but fortunately for Hillary the GOP seem intent on firing at each other rather than her and will probably end up with a candidate who Hillary could have designed herself as her dream opponent''
We'll see. The Clintons are dogs with a huge number of fleas and there's a dangerous air of complacency surrounding their campaign right now.
Clinton's early attacks on Trump have backfired badly, it seems.
In some respects Clinton is the opponent Trump might have designed for himself.
Someone like Trump carries plenty of baggage. Those will come out when he gets the nomination.
I doubt there's any Trump baggage we don't know about. He's always had a fairly hostile press.
The baggage we don't know about belongs to Clinton - the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. Charity Navigator will not touch them and there are issues with foreign donations when Hillary was SOS and Bill made speeches abroad.
That is what you Republicans will say. Remember Kenneth Starr was appointed to investigate Whitewater , found zilch but then asked Congress to impeach Bill because he lied about where the stain on his trousers came from.
No - it is a fact that Charity Navigator will not touch them. That's not a political point of view.
Rallings and Thrasher also say “Labour voters who deserted the party at the general election are starting to back the Liberal Democrats rather than Corbyn” which should bring some cheer to Tim Farron’s party and give them grounds for optimism for retaking the parliamentary seats they lost in May.
But the Liberals didn't generally lose seats to Labour. They lost seats to the Tories. It is Tory to Liberal swing that they need and Labour to Liberal swing will help them very little in terms of parliamentary representation.
This whole piece smacks of Liberal Democrat "Comfort Analysis".
To all extent and purposes the Liberals are dead and trying to read tea leaves to see a glimmer of hope seems like a false perspective.
''The baggage we don't know about belongs to Clinton - the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. Charity Navigator will not touch them and there are issues with foreign donations when Hillary was SOS and Bill made speeches abroad.''
Given Bill Clinton's relations with female workers whilst in government, I fail to see how Hillary can cast Trump as anti-female and get away with it.
Mr Dancer, I agree that Lewis is probably too young for the big Sir, so I would give it instead to the very large brain behind their utterly dominant car. Step forward Sir Paddy Lowe.
Surely Ron Dennis is greatly overdue a Knighthood. Forgetting sporting achievement, he's created many hundreds of very highly skilled, well paid jobs.
''An Hispanic baiting, misogynist loudmouth is a candidate Hillary could have produced in a lab of 'unelectable GOP opponents' ''
I see what you mean, but I think if Trump were the two dimensional caricature you describe he would be out by now.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
David Frum, George W Bush's speech writer, had an excellent article on the GOP's predicament in the Atlantic 4 days ago.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
And yet the highest 24hr rainfall total for the England was in 1955, and none of the short rainfall records from 5 minutes to 3hrs was topped within the last 25 years, with the highest hourly rainfall being recorded in 1901.
Yeah. I find ascribing every single bad weather event to global warming as very tedious. It is the trend which matters, with bad weather becoming more common/more extreme.
Given Miliband had a comfortable poll lead when the 2012 local elections were held and Corbyn has not led in one poll since becoming leader it is highly likely the Tories will make gains. However if Labour win the London Mayoral election, something Ed Miliband failed to do and win in Wales Corbyn should survive at least for one more year anyway
I think there's very little chance he fails whatever notional test is set.
It strikes me that it's more likely that he will outperform extremely low expectations and emerge strengthened.
He will do enough to survive but if he is doing worse than even IDS did in his first local elections he will hardly be strengthened
I think predictions of Labour disaster will run ahead of reality and allow him to beat expectations. His supporters will say, "Jeremy is awesome! He kept most of our seats and this was his first try."
Yet he won't keep most of the seats, Rallings and Thrasher are already predicting he will lose at least 200!
''The baggage we don't know about belongs to Clinton - the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. Charity Navigator will not touch them and there are issues with foreign donations when Hillary was SOS and Bill made speeches abroad.''
Given Bill Clinton's relations with female workers whilst in government, I fail to see how Hillary can cast Trump as anti-female and get away with it.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
And yet the highest 24hr rainfall total for the England was in 1955, and none of the short rainfall records from 5 minutes to 3hrs was topped within the last 25 years, with the highest hourly rainfall being recorded in 1901.
Yeah. I find ascribing every single bad weather event to global warming as very tedious. It is the trend which matters, with bad weather becoming more common/more extreme.
Which it isn't.
I'd argue that it is too early to tell, especially if the trends are very long term. With the benefit of hindsight it will be much easier.
''An Hispanic baiting, misogynist loudmouth is a candidate Hillary could have produced in a lab of 'unelectable GOP opponents' ''
I see what you mean, but I think if Trump were the two dimensional caricature you describe he would be out by now.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
We all thought Trump would have imploded completely by now.
He addresses people's fears, and what people are looking for is someone who speaks his mind, is a plain speaker, doesn't subscribe to all the PC crap, and is a person who people think can break the logjam and can get things done in DC. People are angry because they elected a Republican House and Senate to do just that and so far the party hasn't delivered. Maybe Paul Ryan will change things.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.
Given Miliband had a comfortable poll lead when the 2012 local elections were held and Corbyn has not led in one poll since becoming leader it is highly likely the Tories will make gains. However if Labour win the London Mayoral election, something Ed Miliband failed to do and win in Wales Corbyn should survive at least for one more year anyway
I think there's very little chance he fails whatever notional test is set.
It strikes me that it's more likely that he will outperform extremely low expectations and emerge strengthened.
He will do enough to survive but if he is doing worse than even IDS did in his first local elections he will hardly be strengthened
I think predictions of Labour disaster will run ahead of reality and allow him to beat expectations. His supporters will say, "Jeremy is awesome! He kept most of our seats and this was his first try."
Yet he won't keep most of the seats, Rallings and Thrasher are already predicting he will lose at least 200!
So, R&T knows what the economy will be in May 2016 ? They should give up their current jobs then.
I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.
They gave him much needed credibility by joining his shadow cabinet in the first place.
Is there a betting market in which it is possible to oppose Wayne Rooney continuing as England Captain for the European tournament next summer? I'm looking for odds of 2/1 or longer.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
And yet the highest 24hr rainfall total for the England was in 1955, and none of the short rainfall records from 5 minutes to 3hrs was topped within the last 25 years, with the highest hourly rainfall being recorded in 1901.
Yeah. I find ascribing every single bad weather event to global warming as very tedious. It is the trend which matters, with bad weather becoming more common/more extreme.
If that is the case. Sometimes we have to make sure we are making the assumption of trends on data and not reporting of them.
It seems to me, Mr. Me, that every time someone puts forward a trend as regards extreme weather events subsequent data promptly proves it to be false. For example do you remember the Hurricane scare a few years ago? They were supposed to become more frequent stronger, that didn't happen. Then there was arctic sea ice that was disappearing, that didn't happen either. No snow in Winter, melting Himalayan glaciers even a consistent warming trend, all those predictions proved false.
I am quite sure that the earth's climate is changing, it always has, but to pretend that we understand it, let alone what causes it, strikes me as crackers.
''The baggage we don't know about belongs to Clinton - the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. Charity Navigator will not touch them and there are issues with foreign donations when Hillary was SOS and Bill made speeches abroad.''
Given Bill Clinton's relations with female workers whilst in government, I fail to see how Hillary can cast Trump as anti-female and get away with it.
I am completely unable to see any connection or relevance between what I said and your reply. I did not mention or infer anything about females or Trump.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
You are confusing climate and weather.....
No, I am not. These extreme weather patterns all over the world is due to climate change.
Not every single event, of course, but the pattern. For example, the warmest 8 years in the last 100, came about in the last 20.
Edit: I was being optimistic !
"Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."
I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.
Corbyn needs every warm body he can get.
The events since the election have been as seismic as the result itself. That Labour decided it was embarrassed by a tattoo on its arm saying WE LOVE TONY was one thing. But rather than have it removed by laser surgery, the Labour membership has, like some crystal meth-head, thought it a good idea to hack the offending arm off with a nail file. Bloody but gruesomely amusing....
I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.
A delicious typo there Surbiton! After he is sacked in the New Year, will Hilary henceforth be known as the HasBenn? (I do hope not - I've £2k riding on him becoming the next Prime Minister).
''An Hispanic baiting, misogynist loudmouth is a candidate Hillary could have produced in a lab of 'unelectable GOP opponents' ''
I see what you mean, but I think if Trump were the two dimensional caricature you describe he would be out by now.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
We all thought Trump would have imploded completely by now.
He addresses people's fears, and what people are looking for is someone who speaks his mind, is a plain speaker, doesn't subscribe to all the PC crap, and is a person who people think can break the logjam and can get things done in DC. People are angry because they elected a Republican House and Senate to do just that and so far the party hasn't delivered. Maybe Paul Ryan will change things.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I don't think he can win against her at present.
Trump espouses what a lot of voters, especially in the South, are thinking but he is not espousing a message which will take him to the White House
I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.
I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue
Given Miliband had a comfortable poll lead when the 2012 local elections were held and Corbyn has not led in one poll since becoming leader it is highly likely the Tories will make gains. However if Labour win the London Mayoral election, something Ed Miliband failed to do and win in Wales Corbyn should survive at least for one more year anyway
I think there's very little chance he fails whatever notional test is set.
It strikes me that it's more likely that he will outperform extremely low expectations and emerge strengthened.
He will do enough to survive but if he is doing worse than even IDS did in his first local elections he will hardly be strengthened
I think predictions of Labour disaster will run ahead of reality and allow him to beat expectations. His supporters will say, "Jeremy is awesome! He kept most of our seats and this was his first try."
Yet he won't keep most of the seats, Rallings and Thrasher are already predicting he will lose at least 200!
So, R&T knows what the economy will be in May 2016 ? They should give up their current jobs then.
They are predicting based on council by-election swings and they are normally pretty accurate when using that method
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
And yet the highest 24hr rainfall total for the England was in 1955, and none of the short rainfall records from 5 minutes to 3hrs was topped within the last 25 years, with the highest hourly rainfall being recorded in 1901.
Yeah. I find ascribing every single bad weather event to global warming as very tedious. It is the trend which matters, with bad weather becoming more common/more extreme.
If that is the case. Sometimes we have to make sure we are making the assumption of trends on data and not reporting of them.
It seems to me, Mr. Me, that every time someone puts forward a trend as regards extreme weather events subsequent data promptly proves it to be false. For example do you remember the Hurricane scare a few years ago? They were supposed to become more frequent stronger, that didn't happen. Then there was arctic sea ice that was disappearing, that didn't happen either. No snow in Winter, melting Himalayan glaciers even a consistent warming trend, all those predictions proved false.
I am quite sure that the earth's climate is changing, it always has, but to pretend that we understand it, let alone what causes it, strikes me as crackers.
Festive greetings Mr Llama
and yes there have always been panics and scaremongerers. Best to ignore them.
''An Hispanic baiting, misogynist loudmouth is a candidate Hillary could have produced in a lab of 'unelectable GOP opponents' ''
I see what you mean, but I think if Trump were the two dimensional caricature you describe he would be out by now.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
We all thought Trump would have imploded completely by now.
He addresses people's fears, and what people are looking for is someone who speaks his mind, is a plain speaker, doesn't subscribe to all the PC crap, and is a person who people think can break the logjam and can get things done in DC. People are angry because they elected a Republican House and Senate to do just that and so far the party hasn't delivered. Maybe Paul Ryan will change things.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I don't think he can win against her at present.
Trump espouses what a lot of voters, especially in the South, are thinking but he is not espousing a message which will take him to the White House
Which pretty much summarizes what I said - thanks for that.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
You are confusing climate and weather.....
No, I am not. These extreme weather patterns all over the world is due to climate change.
Not every single event, of course, but the pattern. For example, the warmest 8 years in the last 100, came about in the last 20.
Edit: I was being optimistic !
"Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."
Er, you meed to learn some basic logic. If the world has been warming - which it has - then even if that warming has stopped - which it has - you are still going to find that the warmest years are the most recent. Of course this is not the warmest the world has been during human occupation, no where near it.
And the connection with extreme weather patterns is simply not there. Indeed events like hurricanes are running at well below the norm both in numbers and overall intensity.
Sorry Surbiton but you simply don't have the evidence to support your claims.
Btw I just read that Lynton Crosby is to be knighted. I've long considered honours to be outdated and unfettered cronyism, knighting a PR/spin doctor epitomises how shallow a society we've become and demonstrates how worthless our honours system is, it cheapens the whole tawdry process.
I'd say helping prevent five years of EICIPM has been a great service to the nation. The nation is better off for Crosby's contribution and I'm sure the PM would agree.
Incidentally someone like Crosby getting an honour would be not just appropriate but quite traditional. That was the purpose of honours in the very first place!
And I'm sure you'd say the same if Alastair Campbell had been knighted.
''An Hispanic baiting, misogynist loudmouth is a candidate Hillary could have produced in a lab of 'unelectable GOP opponents' ''
I see what you mean, but I think if Trump were the two dimensional caricature you describe he would be out by now.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
We all thought Trump would have imploded completely by now.
He addresses people's fears, and what people are looking for is someone who speaks his mind, is a plain speaker, doesn't subscribe to all the PC crap, and is a person who people think can break the logjam and can get things done in DC. People are angry because they elected a Republican House and Senate to do just that and so far the party hasn't delivered. Maybe Paul Ryan will change things.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I don't think he can win against her at present.
Trump espouses what a lot of voters, especially in the South, are thinking but he is not espousing a message which will take him to the White House
Which pretty much summarizes what I said - thanks for that.
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
And yet the highest 24hr rainfall total for the England was in 1955, and none of the short rainfall records from 5 minutes to 3hrs was topped within the last 25 years, with the highest hourly rainfall being recorded in 1901.
Too much concrete and tarmac nowadays and building has been done on floodplains etc , usual politicians that have caused teh issues looking for short term gains.
''An Hispanic baiting, misogynist loudmouth is a candidate Hillary could have produced in a lab of 'unelectable GOP opponents' ''
I see what you mean, but I think if Trump were the two dimensional caricature you describe he would be out by now.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
We all thought Trump would have imploded completely by now.
He addresses people's fears, and what people are looking for is someone who speaks his mind, is a plain speaker, doesn't subscribe to all the PC crap, and is a person who people think can break the logjam and can get things done in DC. People are angry because they elected a Republican House and Senate to do just that and so far the party hasn't delivered. Maybe Paul Ryan will change things.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I don't think he can win against her at present.
Trump espouses what a lot of voters, especially in the South, are thinking but he is not espousing a message which will take him to the White House
I am no fan of Trump, and have big fears of what the world will be like if he wins.
But I think there is a lot of underestimation of him as a candied, Nobody expected him to get this far, and be this popular in Opinion poles but he has, and he has done it while spending virtually non of his own money, and with very little assistance from other republicans.
I don't know for defiant how he will play out in a general election against Hillary, but my inclination is to say he may do it, if he wines the Republican Nomination.
In terms of which states will he win to carry him, well from my maths:
All Deep Red states, i.e. states that have gone republican in each of the last 4 elections
and
Indiana and North Carolina, both normally quite reliable Republican States.
Ohio and Pennsylvania, both big swing states.
Michigan, and Wisconsin. both states that have enacted right to work lours in last 4 years, decimating trade Unions and therefore substantially weakening the democratic party machine in those states.
All 6 of theses states, have a lot of Blow Collar, Wight, non-university educated people, i.e. the only people Trump has not upset, (at least not yet)
That would give him 270 electoral collage votes i.e. the white house, and he has not had to go near Florida, Colorado, Nevada, or Hew Hampshire.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
We all thought Trump would have imploded completely by now.
He addresses people's fears, and what people are looking for is someone who speaks his mind, is a plain speaker, doesn't subscribe to all the PC crap, and is a person who people think can break the logjam and can get things done in DC. People are angry because they elected a Republican House and Senate to do just that and so far the party hasn't delivered. Maybe Paul Ryan will change things.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I don't think he can win against her at present.
Trump espouses what a lot of voters, especially in the South, are thinking but he is not espousing a message which will take him to the White House
I am no fan of Trump, and have big fears of what the world will be like if he wins.
But I think there is a lot of underestimation of him as a candied, Nobody expected him to get this far, and be this popular in Opinion poles but he has, and he has done it while spending virtually non of his own money, and with very little assistance from other republicans.
I don't know for defiant how he will play out in a general election against Hillary, but my inclination is to say he may do it, if he wines the Republican Nomination.
In terms of which states will he win to carry him, well from my maths:
All Deep Red states, i.e. states that have gone republican in each of the last 4 elections
and
Indiana and North Carolina, both normally quite reliable Republican States.
Ohio and Pennsylvania, both big swing states.
Michigan, and Wisconsin. both states that have enacted right to work lours in last 4 years, decimating trade Unions and therefore substantially weakening the democratic party machine in those states.
All 6 of theses states, have a lot of Blow Collar, Wight, non-university educated people, i.e. the only people Trump has not upset, (at least not yet)
That would give him 270 electoral collage votes i.e. the white house, and he has not had to go near Florida, Colorado, Nevada, or Hew Hampshire.
That post has the worst spelling I have seen in a post on this site. Well done.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
We all thought Trump would have imploded completely by now.
He addresses people's fears, and what people are looking for is someone who speaks his mind, is a plain speaker, doesn't subscribe to all the PC crap, and is a person who people think can break the logjam and can get things done in DC. People are angry because they elected a Republican House and Senate to do just that and so far the party hasn't delivered. Maybe Paul Ryan will change things.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I don't think he can win against her at present.
Trump espouses what a lot of voters, especially in the South, are thinking but he is not espousing a message which will take him to the White House
I am no fan of Trump, and have big fears of what the world will be like if he wins.
But I think there is a lot of underestimation of him as a candied, Nobody expected him to get this far, and be this popular in Opinion poles but he has, and he has done it while spending virtually non of his own money, and with very little assistance from other republicans.
I don't know for defiant how he will play out in a general election against Hillary, but my inclination is to say he may do it, if he wines the Republican Nomination.
In terms of which states will he win to carry him, well from my maths:
All Deep Red states, i.e. states that have gone republican in each of the last 4 elections
and
Indiana and North Carolina, both normally quite reliable Republican States.
Ohio and Pennsylvania, both big swing states.
Michigan, and Wisconsin. both states that have enacted right to work lours in last 4 years, decimating trade Unions and therefore substantially weakening the democratic party machine in those states.
All 6 of theses states, have a lot of Blow Collar, Wight, non-university educated people, i.e. the only people Trump has not upset, (at least not yet)
That would give him 270 electoral collage votes i.e. the white house, and he has not had to go near Florida, Colorado, Nevada, or Hew Hampshire.
That post has the worst spelling I have seen in a post on this site. Well done.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
You are confusing climate and weather.....
No, I am not. These extreme weather patterns all over the world is due to climate change.
Not every single event, of course, but the pattern. For example, the warmest 8 years in the last 100, came about in the last 20.
Edit: I was being optimistic !
"Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."
Er, you meed to learn some basic logic. If the world has been warming - which it has - then even if that warming has stopped - which it has - you are still going to find that the warmest years are the most recent. Of course this is not the warmest the world has been during human occupation, no where near it.
And the connection with extreme weather patterns is simply not there. Indeed events like hurricanes are running at well below the norm both in numbers and overall intensity.
Sorry Surbiton but you simply don't have the evidence to support your claims.
Happy New Year, keep your head buried in the sand. Nothing is happening !
I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.
I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue
You mean actually hint or vote directly against the leader ? You think Cameron will allow members of the cabinet to vote to LEAVE ?
As a bare minimum Benn has to be sacked. Then the local party can take care of the rest.
''An Hispanic baiting, misogynist loudmouth is a candidate Hillary could have produced in a lab of 'unelectable GOP opponents' ''
I see what you mean, but I think if Trump were the two dimensional caricature you describe he would be out by now.
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigra
We all thought Trump would have imploded completely by now.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I don't think he can win against her at present.
Trump espouses what a lot of voters, especially in the South, are thinking but he is not espousing a message which will take him to the White House
I am no fan of Trump, and have big fears of what the world will be like if he wins.
But I think there is a lot of underestimation of him as a candied, Nobody expected him to get this far, and be this popular in Opinion poles but he has, and he has done it while spending virtually non of his own money, and with very little assistance from other republicans.
I don't know for defiant how he will play out in a general election against Hillary, but my inclination is to say he may do it, if he wines the Republican Nomination.
In terms of which states will he win to carry him, well from my maths:
All Deep Red states, i.e. states that have gone republican in each of the last 4 elections
and
Indiana and North Carolina, both normally quite reliable Republican States.
Ohio and Pennsylvania, both big swing states.
Michigan, and Wisconsin. both states that have enacted right to work lours in last 4 years, decimating trade Unions and therefore substantially weakening the democratic party machine in those states.
All 6 of theses states, have a lot of Blow Collar, Wight, non-university educated people, i.e. the only people Trump has not upset, (at least not yet)
That would give him 270 electoral collage votes i.e. the white house, and he has not had to go near Florida, Colorado, Nevada, or Hew Hampshire.
Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania even voted for John Kerry, they are not going to vote for Donald Trump, the latest RCP poll average has Trump trailing Hillary by 6.1% a worse result than all the other top-tier GOP candidates and almost double the margin by which Obama beat Romney. White blue collar voters are already voting GOP, it is the overwhelming numbers of Hispanics voting Democrat which is killing them in general elections http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
If only this stupid Government and that goon Cameron had just simply stopped the unprecedented rainfall then there wouldn't be any floods..Incompetent fools.. There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
Yes ! The Right had been pooh-poohing global warming for so long ! GW had the last laugh. More to come..............in years ahead.
And yet the highest 24hr rainfall total for the England was in 1955, and none of the short rainfall records from 5 minutes to 3hrs was topped within the last 25 years, with the highest hourly rainfall being recorded in 1901.
Too much concrete and tarmac nowadays and building has been done on floodplains etc , usual politicians that have caused teh issues looking for short term gains.
Absolutely. The torrential rain in Cumbria earlier in the month was a record but only by a few percent. The real issue is exactly as you say. Building on both flood plain and water run off areas, reducing tree cover which allows soils to wash away and failing to maintain water courses - both by government, local authorities and private individuals.
I think if Corbyn sacks Benn and the Eagles, he will be fully justified. If they want to carp from the side lines, they should have done what Cooper and 4% Kendall did - not join the shadow cabinet.
Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.
I doubt he will sack them just move them and it is a sign of a weak leader that he cannot include capable candidates in his top team because they do not agree with him on every issue
You mean actually hint or vote directly against the leader ? You think Cameron will allow members of the cabinet to vote to LEAVE ?
As a bare minimum Benn has to be sacked. Then the local party can take care of the rest.
I think Cameron will allow Out backers to campaign yes but a party which provides a litmus test to all regardless of talent is one doomed to failure
You are forgetting that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base seems to want at the moment i.e. an anti immigrant, macho, anti Muslim candidate however what the GOP base wants and what the average American voter wants are not the same thing, especially when talking about women and Hispanics
We all thought Trump would have imploded completely by now.
He addresses people's fears, and what people are looking for is someone who speaks his mind, is a plain speaker, doesn't subscribe to all the PC crap, and is a person who people think can break the logjam and can get things done in DC. People are angry because they elected a Republican House and Senate to do just that and so far the party hasn't delivered. Maybe Paul Ryan will change things.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I don't think he can win against her at present.
Trump espouses what a lot of voters, especially in the South, are thinking but he is not espousing a message which will take him to the White House
I am no fan of Trump, and have big fears of what the world will be like if he wins.
But I think there is a lot of underestimation of him as a candied, Nobody expected him to get this far, and be this popular in Opinion poles but he has, and he has done it while spending virtually non of his own money, and with very little assistance from other republicans.
I don't know for defiant how he will play out in a general election against Hillary, but my inclination is to say he may do it, if he wines the Republican Nomination.
In terms of which states will he win to carry him, well from my maths:
All Deep Red states, i.e. states that have gone republican in each of the last 4 elections
and
Indiana and North Carolina, both normally quite reliable Republican States.
Ohio and Pennsylvania, both big swing states.
Michigan, and Wisconsin. both states that have enacted right to work lours in last 4 years, decimating trade Unions and therefore substantially weakening the democratic party machine in those states.
All 6 of theses states, have a lot of Blow Collar, Wight, non-university educated people, i.e. the only people Trump has not upset, (at least not yet)
That would give him 270 electoral collage votes i.e. the white house, and he has not had to go near Florida, Colorado, Nevada, or Hew Hampshire.
That post has the worst spelling I have seen in a post on this site. Well done.
All of them including the last two. Roadworks ? Lack of money for A&E ?
slummie-scum:
Remember how Gormless and Blair-and-the-Witch starved HMAF whilst engineering wars and lawyers-fees. Sometimes I wonder how you have the intelligence to reflex-and-breathe....
Comments
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries Americans were known by Brits as "Jonathans". I don't know why.
And with that, work to do. Laters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Jonathan
The term dates at least to the 17th century, when it was applied to Puritan roundheads during the English Civil War.[3] The term came to include residents of colonial New England, who were mostly Puritans in support of the Parliamentarians during the war. It probably derives from the Biblical words spoken by David after the death of his estranged friend Jonathan, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan" (2 Samuel 1:26) . As Kenneth Hopper and William Hopper put it, "Used as a term of abuse for their Bible-thumping Puritan opponents by Royalists during the English Civil War, it was applied by British officers to the rebellious colonists during the American Revolution".[4]
A popular folk tale about the origin of the term holds that the character derives from Jonathan Trumbull (1710–85), Governor of the State of Connecticut, which was the main source of supplies for the Northern and Middle Departments during the American Revolutionary War. It is said that George Washington uttered the words: "We must consult Brother Jonathan" when asked how he could win the war.[5] That origin is doubtful, however, as neither man made reference to the story during his lifetime and the first appearance of the story has been traced to the mid-19th century, long after their deaths.[6]
I also think that they cannot progress without getting rid of Giggs. He constantly undermines the manager, and poisons the players against the game plan. Jose will have the same poison chalice as LVG.
Contrast with McLaren and Honda, they managed to hold on to their two champions for next year, so there is obviously a big improvement coming.
The term dates at least to the 17th century, when it was applied to Puritan roundheads during the English Civil War.[3] The term came to include residents of colonial New England, who were mostly Puritans in support of the Parliamentarians during the war. It probably derives from the Biblical words spoken by David after the death of his estranged friend Jonathan, "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan" (2 Samuel 1:26) . As Kenneth Hopper and William Hopper put it, "Used as a term of abuse for their Bible-thumping Puritan opponents by Royalists during the English Civil War, it was applied by British officers to the rebellious colonists during the American Revolution".
The best odds currently available for both elements are on the Betfair Exchange -
Rubio is the narrow favourite for the Republican nomination and can be sold at 2.16/1 in old money, net of commission. He can be backed on the exchange at 5.7/1, again net of commission, to become the next POTUS.
There.. that should stop a few post from the usual suspects.
2006
The government was only narrowly reelected in 2005 and had been heavily defeated in the 2006 locals. The 2005 reelection was based upon a seemingly strong economy (with rapidly increasing consumer spending) and an Opposition which didn't 'seal the deal'.
1993
Followed a surprise government reelection the previous year which was subsequently followed by economic (ERM) and political turmoil (sleeze and Maastricht).
1975
Government only narrowly took power the previous year and the economy has subsequently entered recession.
1971
Not sure why the government did so badly but the decision to change economic strategy (reflate the economy) followed soon after.
1967
Not sure why the government did so badly but sterling was devalued later in the year so there must have been some economic difficulties.
Both men are nearing the end of their careers, which is probably also a factor.
I also think that they cannot progress without getting rid of Giggs. He constantly undermines the manager, and poisons the players against the game plan. Jose will have the same poison chalice as LVG."
I wouldn't be surprised to see Ryan Giggs take a management job away from MU in the near future. He must sense that his days are numbered insofar as the likes of Mourinho, or indeed any top man moving into Old Trafford would insist on picking their own senior team and would probably resist being foisted with Giggs.
On the other hand, if LVG really is at the end of his tether there, then perhaps his assistant is hanging on for what would doubtless be a very lucrative compensation package.
True but America is still about 65% white, isn;t it? Sounds like the white female vote is a key battleground and Clinton may not be as strong there as expected.
Remember, she is married to Bill Clinton.
We'll see. The Clintons are dogs with a huge number of fleas and there's a dangerous air of complacency surrounding their campaign right now.
Clinton's early attacks on Trump have backfired badly, it seems.
In some respects Clinton is the opponent Trump might have designed for himself.
It strikes me that it's more likely that he will outperform extremely low expectations and emerge strengthened.
My sympathies.
Now Bairstow is keeping his incompetence can sabotage the 5 bowlers too. There have been many beneficiaries of the Yorkshire hype machine getting unearned Test spots (hi Adil!) but Bairstow still playing after 4 years and 20 tests of failure is beyond a joke.
Buttler's nightmare year of bad form consisted of dropping to Bairstow's career average level.
The GOP problem is Trump. His negatives among women and hispanics are very high. He can win the nomination going away, but unless something changes I don't think he can beat Clinton in the general.
There is little or no enthusiasm among the dems for Hillary, but they will mostly hold their noses and vote for her.
Hillary has been around long enough that pretty much everyone already has their mind made up about her. many dems will not let the email scandal or Benghazi etc affect their decision to vote for her.
Last time I looked Cruz was making the big moves.
I see what you mean, but I think if Trump were the two dimensional caricature you describe he would be out by now.
The baggage we don't know about belongs to Clinton - the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. Charity Navigator will not touch them and there are issues with foreign donations when Hillary was SOS and Bill made speeches abroad.
And the conclusion was that, if we hadnt spent £1million on theirs, the £38 million we spent on the flood defences in our town wouldnt have failed.
This is the one key factor which will be exercising the Old Trafford Boardroom right now.
PS Strange how relatively poor LVG's English is for a Dutchman, who usually speak it like a native Brit, having been brought up on a diet of BBC Radio and TV.
Has anyone else noticed how he uses the word "shall" ad nauseam, instead of "will".
But the Liberals didn't generally lose seats to Labour. They lost seats to the Tories. It is Tory to Liberal swing that they need and Labour to Liberal swing will help them very little in terms of parliamentary representation.
This whole piece smacks of Liberal Democrat "Comfort Analysis".
To all extent and purposes the Liberals are dead and trying to read tea leaves to see a glimmer of hope seems like a false perspective.
Given Bill Clinton's relations with female workers whilst in government, I fail to see how Hillary can cast Trump as anti-female and get away with it.
'The Great Republican Revolt: The GOP planned a dynastic restoration in 2016. Instead, it triggered an internal class war. Can the party reconcile the demands of its donors with the interests of its rank and file?'
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/
He addresses people's fears, and what people are looking for is someone who speaks his mind, is a plain speaker, doesn't subscribe to all the PC crap, and is a person who people think can break the logjam and can get things done in DC. People are angry because they elected a Republican House and Senate to do just that and so far the party hasn't delivered. Maybe Paul Ryan will change things.
Is Trump the man to get things done in DC, or is he a bull who carries his own china shop around with him? Is he electable against Hillary?
I don't think he can win against her at present.
Corbyn is stronger now than 3 months back. He does not need Been and the Eagles.
New Thread New Thread
I am quite sure that the earth's climate is changing, it always has, but to pretend that we understand it, let alone what causes it, strikes me as crackers.
Not every single event, of course, but the pattern. For example, the warmest 8 years in the last 100, came about in the last 20.
Edit: I was being optimistic !
"Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201313
The events since the election have been as seismic as the result itself. That Labour decided it was embarrassed by a tattoo on its arm saying WE LOVE TONY was one thing. But rather than have it removed by laser surgery, the Labour membership has, like some crystal meth-head, thought it a good idea to hack the offending arm off with a nail file. Bloody but gruesomely amusing....
(I do hope not - I've £2k riding on him becoming the next Prime Minister).
and yes there have always been panics and scaremongerers. Best to ignore them.
And the connection with extreme weather patterns is simply not there. Indeed events like hurricanes are running at well below the norm both in numbers and overall intensity.
Sorry Surbiton but you simply don't have the evidence to support your claims.
But I think there is a lot of underestimation of him as a candied, Nobody expected him to get this far, and be this popular in Opinion poles but he has, and he has done it while spending virtually non of his own money, and with very little assistance from other republicans.
I don't know for defiant how he will play out in a general election against Hillary, but my inclination is to say he may do it, if he wines the Republican Nomination.
In terms of which states will he win to carry him, well from my maths:
All Deep Red states, i.e. states that have gone republican in each of the last 4 elections
and
Indiana and North Carolina, both normally quite reliable Republican States.
Ohio and Pennsylvania, both big swing states.
Michigan, and Wisconsin. both states that have enacted right to work lours in last 4 years, decimating trade Unions and therefore substantially weakening the democratic party machine in those states.
All 6 of theses states, have a lot of Blow Collar, Wight, non-university educated people, i.e. the only people Trump has not upset, (at least not yet)
That would give him 270 electoral collage votes i.e. the white house, and he has not had to go near Florida, Colorado, Nevada, or Hew Hampshire.
As a bare minimum Benn has to be sacked. Then the local party can take care of the rest.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Remember how Gormless and Blair-and-the-Witch starved HMAF whilst engineering wars and lawyers-fees. Sometimes I wonder how you have the intelligence to reflex-and-breathe....