Jeremy Corbyn has called for annual TV debates with the PM and other party leaders
Does he think that people will come to love him more when they really find out what he believes in?
Dave should immediately call his bluff, say it's a fantastic idea and he's looking forward to the first debate!
He knows Cameron will say no, fir understandable reasons, PMQs etc, so they won't happen but he can say Cameron is running scared of him and the people. Political gameplaying at its most obvious.
Agree completely, which is why Dave should call him on it. If it does happen then the PM gets a much larger audience than PMQs to repeat the line about terrorist sympathisers and support for Mao, Venezuela, Cuba etc. Dave would have a field day, it would be starting the election campaign 4 years early.
And how does he get out of it when Labour come to their senses? Never make long term changes for short term gain.
Besides, it's a daft idea on its own merits. There are far more effective ways of holding leaders to account than debates, which only really have value in an election time when the public are being asked to assess the potential PMs against each other.
I'd quite like to see more public debates with leaders and aspiring leaders. Cameron himself did loads of town hall meetings while LotO and has done a few as PM.
I disagree with pretty much all John Bercow's says, but he is right that the PMQs format shows MPs from all sides in a very poor light. A more civilised format including the public might assist in countering the stereotype of politicians being aloof and out of touch with the average man in the street.
Well, outside of PMQs, the House of Commons is generally polite and considered in its deliberations. It's there for free on the Parliament Channel and has a tiny audience. TV news takes PMQs clips precisely because they are combative and therefore worth covering. tldr - I don't think people really do want a more civilised format, they just like saying they do.
Also, I would bear in mind that if we have regular TV debates then Prime Ministers will prioritise preparing for them and looking good in them. Is that what we want?
Also regarding Trump, I don't think he's the electoral liability (in the General) people think he is. He appeals to a demographic which has simply not turned up to vote in the past: the angry white man. And he appeals to a lot of former and current Democrats.
I think he could beat Hillary, although she would have to be favourite,
The candidate the Democrats truly want to run against is Ted Cruz. He'd go down 55:45 to Hillary.
Yes. Although Cruz is often seen here as a safe, Establishment candidate, on closer examination he looks more like Trump without the positives.
Jeremy Corbyn has called for annual TV debates with the PM and other party leaders
Does he think that people will come to love him more when they really find out what he believes in?
Dave should immediately call his bluff, say it's a fantastic idea and he's looking forward to the first debate!
He knows Cameron will say no, fir understandable reasons, PMQs etc, so they won't happen but he can say Cameron is running scared of him and the people. Political gameplaying at its most obvious.
Agree completely, which is why Dave should call him on it. If it does happen then the PM gets a much larger audience than PMQs to repeat the line about terrorist sympathisers and support for Mao, Venezuela, Cuba etc. Dave would have a field day, it would be starting the election campaign 4 years early.
And how does he get out of it when Labour come to their senses? Never make long term changes for short term gain.
Besides, it's a daft idea on its own merits. There are far more effective ways of holding leaders to account than debates, which only really have value in an election time when the public are being asked to assess the potential PMs against each other.
I'd quite like to see more public debates with leaders and aspiring leaders. Cameron himself did loads of town hall meetings while LotO and has done a few as PM.
I disagree with pretty much all John Bercow's says, but he is right that the PMQs format shows MPs from all sides in a very poor light. A more civilised format including the public might assist in countering the stereotype of politicians being aloof and out of touch with the average man in the street.
Well, outside of PMQs, the House of Commons is generally polite and considered in its deliberations. It's there for free on the Parliament Channel and has a tiny audience. TV news takes PMQs clips precisely because they are combative and therefore worth covering. tldr - I don't think people really do want a more civilised format, they just like saying they do.
Also, I would bear in mind that if we have regular TV debates then Prime Ministers will prioritise preparing for them and looking good in them. Is that what we want?
Do politicians run the country? I thought bankers did that...
Interesting things are going on in Catalonia: the two pro independence movements (Junts pel si and the CUP) are at loggerheads. The latter is refusing to back the re-election of Artur Mas as President of the regional government, and the former is refusing to back down. If they cannot choose a regional President by early January (I think it's about the 10th), then it's back to the polls for the Catalonians.
The CUP has always been sceptical of independence without a proper electoral mandate (either winning a referendum or pro-independence parties winning a majority of votes in an election). Artur Mas and the JpS are much more gung ho: their view is that winning a majority of seats, even without a majority of votes, is sufficient for independence. Furthermore, Artur Mas has been implicated in a bunch of corruption scandals, and the CUP has always said that he is the wrong man to lead Catalonia or head up the campaign for independence. (One of their leaders said - more or less - that Artur Mas wants Catalonian independence because that is the only way he's going to avoid a prison cell.)
Worth remembering that the pro-independence parties went backward in the Spanish General a few weeks ago.
I very much doubt his net worth is anywhere near $4bn. He's the pointy bit on top of a mountain of leverage. If asset prices were to fall, or interest rates were to rise, he might find that his net worth diminished very rapidly.
Careful. Trump has been known to sue people who've questioned his bank balance.
Edit: while we are on the subject of The Apprentice, iirc Lord Sugar suggested to Piers Morgan in an ITV documentary that there should be a separate "rich list" based on how big a cheque someone could write.
If JpS got rid of Artur Mas, and campaigned for a proper referendum on independence, I think they probably get it (especially if they offered support to a PP/C government).
And who knows who would win in a proper referendum?
But the current strategy makes independence seems significantly less likely.
I had a wonderful day at the garden centre yesterday, buying far too much and having a most enjoyable time putting it all in the garden. It simply is not winter and hooray for that! Being outdoors in fresh air surrounded by the beauty of nature is some of the most fun you can have with your clothes on. (Sorry TSE!)
Anyway, OT: there is a marvellous documentary by Dan Cruickshank on Warsaw - about its reconstruction and about his time there in the 1950's when he was a boy (his father was a journalist with the Daily Worker and posted there as their correspondent) - on BBC iPlayer. Well worth catching if you can.
I very much doubt his net worth is anywhere near $4bn. He's the pointy bit on top of a mountain of leverage. If asset prices were to fall, or interest rates were to rise, he might find that his net worth diminished very rapidly.
Careful. Trump has been known to sue people who've questioned his bank balance.
Hypothetically, imagine someone with assets worth $25bn, and with debts of $21bn. They would have a net worth of $4bn, and would probably earn a decent spread on the difference between profits from assets and the cost (interest charge) of holding them
Now, imagine that interest costs were to rise by 1% - suddenly you're not earning much of a spread... your cash flow has just got $200m worse per year.
Or imagine that the value of your assets falls by just 10%... suddenly, your net worth would have dropped to just $1.5bn.
He knows Cameron will say no, fir understandable reasons, PMQs etc, so they won't happen but he can say Cameron is running scared of him and the people. Political gameplaying at its most obvious.
Agree completely, which is why Dave should call him on it. If it does happen then the PM gets a much larger audience than PMQs to repeat the line about terrorist sympathisers and support for Mao, Venezuela, Cuba etc. Dave would have a field day, it would be starting the election campaign 4 years early.
And how does he get out of it when Labour come to their senses? Never make long term changes for short term gain.
Besides, it's a daft idea on its own merits. There are far more effective ways of holding leaders to account than debates, which only really have value in an election time when the public are being asked to assess the potential PMs against each other.
I'd quite like to see more public debates with leaders and aspiring leaders. Cameron himself did loads of town hall meetings while LotO and has done a few as PM.
I disagree with pretty much all John Bercow's says, but he is right that the PMQs format shows MPs from all sides in a very poor light. A more civilised format including the public might assist in countering the stereotype of politicians being aloof and out of touch with the average man in the street.
Well, outside of PMQs, the House of Commons is generally polite and considered in its deliberations. It's there for free on the Parliament Channel and has a tiny audience. TV news takes PMQs clips precisely because they are combative and therefore worth covering. tldr - I don't think people really do want a more civilised format, they just like saying they do.
Also, I would bear in mind that if we have regular TV debates then Prime Ministers will prioritise preparing for them and looking good in them. Is that what we want?
You are right that outside of PMQs the level of debate in Parliament is generally very good. A great example was the Syria debate from a few weeks ago with a lot of excellent speeches.
A good point about whether our leaders should be preparing for debates rather than running the country, but it happens anyway if he is to stay on top of his brief. ISTR that Brown as PM used to spend all day Tuesday and rise early on Wednesday to prepare for PMQs. Cameron makes it look quite easy now, but that takes a lot of practice and he's not getting a particularly hard time from Corbyn as LotO.
Tributes were today paid to Motörhead frontman Lemmy who died just days after being diagnosed with an "extremely aggressive cancer."
The rock star, whose real name was Ian Kilmister, died at the age of 70 after he was diagnosed with the disease on Boxing Day.
A post on the band's Facebook page said: "There is no easy way to say this ... our mighty, noble friend Lemmy passed away today after a short battle with an extremely aggressive cancer.
The last New Hampshire poll from ARG actually had Trump doing slightly better with independents than Republicans in New Hampshire. In any case just as there were 'Tories for Corbyn' there may well be 'Democrats for Trump' who may well vote in the GOP primary to help him beat Rubio, a more dangerous opponent for them
Trump attracts many people who have never bothered to vote before, and there is a vague concern on how many of his people will actually turn out, particularly in the peculiar oddness that is the Iowa caucuses, which takes a lot longer than merely casting a vote in a primary.
That's right , voters in Iowa tend to be serious , sober minded and informed ; the exact opposite of Trumpsters ....Trump is Howard Dean on steroids and is heading for a massive fail in Iowa and it may well be the event that bursts the Trump bubble
It's possible that Trump still goes on to win in NH due to the fragmentation of the establishment candidate , but so long as Rubio comes in second , he can even afford to lose in South Carolina just so long as he wins in Nevada .
..I expect Rubio to be behind Cruz until possibly April but sooner or later he is going to start winning as the race moves away from the Old South and Bible Belt
...Nate Silver is correct , those Blue States are weighted in favour of a ''moderate conservative '' and have more delegates ...Marco Rubio will be the nominee and is very likely to defeat Hilary
If Rubio fails to win at least one of Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina he is done, no nominee in history got the nomination without winning one of those three
That's RRRRRRubbish ......there has never been a ''reality TV'' egomaniac with a serios chance of winning in NH ....Trump is not a serious GOP nominee ...he loves running for President but hates the idea of actually being President
Rubio can afford to lose NH to a ''reality TV star'' just so long as he comes in second place !
Also regarding Trump, I don't think he's the electoral liability (in the General) people think he is. He appeals to a demographic which has simply not turned up to vote in the past: the angry white man. And he appeals to a lot of former and current Democrats.
I think he could beat Hillary, although she would have to be favourite,
The candidate the Democrats truly want to run against is Ted Cruz. He'd go down 55:45 to Hillary.
I'd agree with that. Trump would be a fascinating candidate because he'd blow UNS out of the water. States in the Mid West that the GOP hasn't been competitive in (for the presidency) since Reagan could come into play, while others could go the other way.
Jeremy Corbyn has called for annual TV debates with the PM and other party leaders
Does he think that people will come to love him more when they really find out what he believes in?
Dave should immediately call his bluff, say it's a fantastic idea and he's looking forward to the first debate!
He knows Cameron will say no, fir understandable reasons, PMQs etc, so they won't happen but he can say Cameron is running scared of him and the people. Political gameplaying at its most obvious.
Agree completely, which is why Dave should call him on it. If it does happen then the PM gets a much larger audience than PMQs to repeat the line about terrorist sympathisers and support for Mao, Venezuela, Cuba etc. Dave would have a field day, it would be starting the election campaign 4 years early.
And how does he get out of it when Labour come to their senses? Never make long term changes for short term gain.
Besides, it's a daft idea on its own merits. There are far more effective ways of holding leaders to account than debates, which only really have value in an election time when the public are being asked to assess the potential PMs against each other.
I'd quite like to see more public debates with leaders and aspiring leaders. Cameron himself did loads of town hall meetings while LotO and has done a few as PM.
I disagree with pretty much all John Bercow's says, but he is right that the PMQs format shows MPs from all sides in a very poor light. A more civilised format including the public might assist in countering the stereotype of politicians being aloof and out of touch with the average man in the street.
I'd agree. The GE debates were essentially big versions of PMQs. I don't think it was a coincidence that the one TV event that did move (or finally solidify) opinion was a town hall-style Q&A session.
Bairstow and Ali now going at it with the bat. Lead of 327 is only a dozen from the highest score ever chased on this ground, and more than SA have scored in over a year. Declaration coming around lunch time?
Might not matter with England now 7 down but yes, it'd be worth sending SA in for three or four overs before lunch if England are still going by then.
I very much doubt his net worth is anywhere near $4bn. He's the pointy bit on top of a mountain of leverage. If asset prices were to fall, or interest rates were to rise, he might find that his net worth diminished very rapidly.
Careful. Trump has been known to sue people who've questioned his bank balance.
Hypothetically, imagine someone with assets worth $25bn, and with debts of $21bn. They would have a net worth of $4bn, and would probably earn a decent spread on the difference between profits from assets and the cost (interest charge) of holding them
Now, imagine that interest costs were to rise by 1% - suddenly you're not earning much of a spread... your cash flow has just got $200m worse per year.
Or imagine that the value of your assets falls by just 10%... suddenly, your net worth would have dropped to just $1.5bn.
In Trump's case there is also the paradox that part of his wealth is the value of the Trump brand name, which in turn is based on Trump's wealth. What could possibly go wrong?
Jeremy Corbyn has called for annual TV debates with the PM and other party leaders
Does he think that people will come to love him more when they really find out what he believes in?
Dave should immediately call his bluff, say it's a fantastic idea and he's looking forward to the first debate!
He knows Cameron will say no, fir understandable reasons, PMQs etc, so they won't happen but he can say Cameron is running scared of him and the people. Political gameplaying at its most obvious.
Agree completely, which is why Dave should call him on it. If it does happen then the PM gets a much larger audience than PMQs to repeat the line about terrorist sympathisers and support for Mao, Venezuela, Cuba etc. Dave would have a field day, it would be starting the election campaign 4 years early.
And how does he get out of it when Labour come to their senses? Never make long term changes for short term gain.
Besides, it's a daft idea on its own merits. There are far more effective ways of holding leaders to account than debates, which only really have value in an election time when the public are being asked to assess the potential PMs against each other.
I'd quite like to see more public debates with leaders and aspiring leaders. Cameron himself did loads of town hall meetings while LotO and has done a few as PM.
I disagree with pretty much all John Bercow's says, but he is right that the PMQs format shows MPs from all sides in a very poor light. A more civilised format including the public might assist in countering the stereotype of politicians being aloof and out of touch with the average man in the street.
I'd agree. The GE debates were essentially big versions of PMQs. I don't think it was a coincidence that the one TV event that did move (or finally solidify) opinion was a town hall-style Q&A session.
I'm not sure though how much impact they would really have. what do you reckon the viewership of that would be when it's a regular thing outside of election time? a few million at best, and the wider media would quickly bore of it.
Jeremy Corbyn has called for annual TV debates with the PM and other party leaders
Does he think that people will come to love him more when they really find out what he believes in?
Dave should immediately call his bluff, say it's a fantastic idea andebate!
He knows Cameron will say no, fir understandable reasons, PMQs etc, so they won't happen but he can say Cameron is running scared of him and the people. Political gameplaying at its most obvious.
Agree completely, which is why Dave should call him on it. If it does happen then the PM gets a much larger audience than PMQs to repeat the line about terrorist sympathisers and support for Mao, Venezuela, Cuba etc. Dave would have a field day, it would be starting the election campaign 4 years early.
And how does he get out of it when Labour come to their senses? Never make long term changes for short term gain.
Besides, it's a daft idea on its own merits. There are far more effective ways of holding leaders to account than debates, which only really have value in an election time when the public are being asked to assess the potential PMs against each other.
I'd quite like to see more public debates with leaders and aspiring leaders. Cameron himself did loads of town hall meetings while LotO and has done a few as PM.
I disagree with pretty much all John Bercow's says, but he is right that the PMQs format shows MPs from all sides in a very poor light. A more civilised format including the public might assist in countering the stereotype of politicians being aloof and out of touch with the average man in the street.
Well, outside of PMQs, the House of Commons is generally polite and considered in its deliberations. It's there for free on the Parliament Channel and has a tiny audience. TV news takes PMQs clips precisely because they are combative and therefore worth covering. tldr - I don't think people really do want a more civilised format, they just like saying they do.
Also, I would bear in mind that if we have regular TV debates then Prime Ministers will prioritise preparing for them and looking good in them. Is that what we want?
I think your point about PMQs and people just saying they want more civilised debate is spot on. If it were really the problem bercow and others claim - and of course it gives hi. A chance to shine in any case - the leaders would change tack pretty quick as they would suffer for not doing so. Partisan cheap shots and other PMQ style efforts cheer the sides more and are more entertaining, and people want to see that, they complain when people don't do it
On topic, it's an interesting thought, but there's only one circumstance I can see it happening in - if Democratic voters genuinely thought Trump was in with a chance of being the final nominee. At the moment, so far as I can judge, they don't (as with rather a lot of tribal voters especially on the left, cf Corbyn, they don't quite understand their opponents).
The reason I think they might do such a thing is that, let's face it, we all know that unless she's actually arrested for something in the next seven weeks, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. However, unlike in Britain, effectively we will have two candidates competing from a standing start in November. And while you would have thought Clinton was likely to beat Trump, she is by no means a certainty to do so. Not only does she polarize opinion in a way entirely reminiscent of Trump, but she carries even more baggage than he does and is the ultimate Washington insider at a time people appear to be sick of them. One scandal in October could well propel the GOP nominee - as long as whoever it is has vague plausibility as a candidate, which you have have to say Trump probably does to those who don't know much about his backstory (successful businessman, patriotic American - simple and attractive, never mind it's wrong) - to the White House.
Therefore, any sensible Democratic voter may feel that actually there is mileage in voting for a different candidate - possibly Cruz - who has a lower profile and would damage Trump without building up a massive head of steam that could carry them to the White House. Like a sane Labour voter in a safe Labour seat switching their vote to the Liberal Democrats to hurt Corbyn's vote share without increasing the government majority.
However, I doubt if many Democrats will see it that way. They appear to be so starry-eyed about Hilary that it hasn't occurred to them that she is actually a rather weak and inept candidate who isn't a certainty. So it's unlikely.
Bairstow and Ali now going at it with the bat. Lead of 327 is only a dozen from the highest score ever chased on this ground, and more than SA have scored in over a year. Declaration coming around lunch time?
Might not matter with England now 7 down but yes, it'd be worth sending SA in for three or four overs before lunch if England are still going by then.
They're just heading for lunch now, lead up to 364 thanks to Bairstow with a very quick 49no. Maybe they will set them 400 if possible, but they don't want to wait too long to declare lest the Saffas think they can bat it out.
Latest Betfair back prices Eng 1.48 SA 9.6 Draw 4.4
Tributes were today paid to Motörhead frontman Lemmy who died just days after being diagnosed with an "extremely aggressive cancer."
The rock star, whose real name was Ian Kilmister, died at the age of 70 after he was diagnosed with the disease on Boxing Day.
A post on the band's Facebook page said: "There is no easy way to say this ... our mighty, noble friend Lemmy passed away today after a short battle with an extremely aggressive cancer.
On topic, it's an interesting thought, but there's only one circumstance I can see it happening in - if Democratic voters genuinely thought Trump was in with a chance of being the final nominee. At the moment, so far as I can judge, they don't (as with rather a lot of tribal voters especially on the left, cf Corbyn, they don't quite understand their opponents).
The reason I think they might do such a thing is that, let's face it, we all know that unless she's actually arrested for something in the next seven weeks, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. However, unlike in Britain, effectively we will have two candidates competing from a standing start in November. And while you would have thought Clinton was likely to beat Trump, she is by no means a certainty to do so. Not only does she polarize opinion in a way entirely reminiscent of Trump, but she carries even more baggage than he does and is the ultimate Washington insider at a time people appear to be sick of them. One scandal in October could well propel the GOP nominee - as long as whoever it is has vague plausibility as a candidate, which you have have to say Trump probably does to those who don't know much about his backstory (successful businessman, patriotic American - simple and attractive, never mind it's wrong) - to the White House.
Therefore, any sensible Democratic voter may feel that actually there is mileage in voting for a different candidate - possibly Cruz - who has a lower profile and would damage Trump without building up a massive head of steam that could carry them to the White House. Like a sane Labour voter in a safe Labour seat switching their vote to the Liberal Democrats to hurt Corbyn's vote share without increasing the government majority.
However, I doubt if many Democrats will see it that way. They appear to be so starry-eyed about Hilary that it hasn't occurred to them that she is actually a rather weak and inept candidate who isn't a certainty. So it's unlikely.
I agree with that: Hillary is a bad candidate. Luckily for the Democrats Ted Cruz is a worse one.
I don't buy Trump running as an Independent. I do buy Michael Bloomberg potentially standing as Independent if it's Trump vs Clinton.
My bets are the following: Long Cruz for the nomination, Short him for the Presidency Short Rubio for the nomination, Long him for the Presidency
Tributes were today paid to Motörhead frontman Lemmy who died just days after being diagnosed with an "extremely aggressive cancer."
The rock star, whose real name was Ian Kilmister, died at the age of 70 after he was diagnosed with the disease on Boxing Day.
A post on the band's Facebook page said: "There is no easy way to say this ... our mighty, noble friend Lemmy passed away today after a short battle with an extremely aggressive cancer.
Rubio is the obvious winner of the GOP nomination ; he may be behind in the early stages but sooner or later he will win ...if you cannot see that then you simply are not paying attention , or are ''tone deaf'' to the music of politics
If this GOP race is ran 50 times then each and every time Rubio will remain as the last man standing ...the race may vary each time insomuch who wins the early states but the end result will always be the same RUBIO WINS ...look upon it as a form of political evolution in process !
The race may look like a maze of twists and turns but in retrospect it will become clear that Rubio was always going to win , as inevitable as water finding its own way down a hill , because Rubio just ticks sooo many boxes and is by far the best candidate and the ONLY one who is polling better than Hilary
Nate Silver is exactly correct insomuch the Blue States primaries are weighted in favour of a ''moderate conservative ''and Ted Cruz is a redneck zealot ...the further away the race moves from the evangelical states of the South and Bible Belt , then the worse he will do
The lasting impact of both Cruz and Trump will be to have made a conservative candidate look moderate as he wins the White House !
Tributes were today paid to Motörhead frontman Lemmy who died just days after being diagnosed with an "extremely aggressive cancer."
The rock star, whose real name was Ian Kilmister, died at the age of 70 after he was diagnosed with the disease on Boxing Day.
A post on the band's Facebook page said: "There is no easy way to say this ... our mighty, noble friend Lemmy passed away today after a short battle with an extremely aggressive cancer.
A cancer that kills within 48 hours of diagnosis isn't "extremely aggressive", it is positively psychopathic.
We've lost a rare guy. Witty, warty and known by a single name. Not many of those come around in a lifetime.
I suppose he was diagnosed at quite a late stage, hence how rapid it appears. I don't think it is the case that the cancer only started on Boxing day. Still, RIP.
Rather than commit to the debate and dialogue Corbyn so desperately wanted, several briefed against him and made public their disagreements with the leader who had empowered them. Like naughty children at home or in the classroom, they were given extra responsibilities and they abused them.
This was particularly apparent during the Syria vote a few weeks ago, where Corbyn demonstrated his fairness once again in offering Labour MPs a free vote. In voting with the Tories and rallying around an entirely contradictory argument - as presented in a speech by the Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn – certain members of Corbyn’s cabinet made it painfully clear how they were going to repay their leader’s faith in them.
So Corbyn wants "debate and dialogue", but only with those who agree with him? He was fair in offering MPs a free vote but it was unfair of MPs to utilise that freedom to vote and speak against Corbyn's view?
And of course, that's before we get into the history of loyalty towards the leadership given by those now making these arguments.
Tributes were today paid to Motörhead frontman Lemmy who died just days after being diagnosed with an "extremely aggressive cancer."
The rock star, whose real name was Ian Kilmister, died at the age of 70 after he was diagnosed with the disease on Boxing Day.
A post on the band's Facebook page said: "There is no easy way to say this ... our mighty, noble friend Lemmy passed away today after a short battle with an extremely aggressive cancer.
A cancer that kills within 48 hours of diagnosis isn't "extremely aggressive", it is positively psychopathic.
We've lost a rare guy. Witty, warty and known by a single name. Not many of those come around in a lifetime.
I suppose he was diagnosed at quite a late stage, hence how rapid it appears. I don't think it is the case that the cancer only started on Boxing day. Still, RIP.
I seem to recall Alec Guinness died within 48 hours of being diagnosed with prostate cancer - not because he had an especially aggressive cancer, but because he put the symptoms down to old age when they first appeared and didn't get them treated for months.
Tributes were today paid to Motörhead frontman Lemmy who died just days after being diagnosed with an "extremely aggressive cancer."
The rock star, whose real name was Ian Kilmister, died at the age of 70 after he was diagnosed with the disease on Boxing Day.
A post on the band's Facebook page said: "There is no easy way to say this ... our mighty, noble friend Lemmy passed away today after a short battle with an extremely aggressive cancer.
A cancer that kills within 48 hours of diagnosis isn't "extremely aggressive", it is positively psychopathic.
We've lost a rare guy. Witty, warty and known by a single name. Not many of those come around in a lifetime. He was certainly a big personality, I don't know why but I thought for some reason he had left us a while ago. I imagine that the funeral and wake will be somewhat more lively than these things usually are - always wanted to hear Ace of Spades at a funeral! Rest in Peace you mad man!
The last New Hampshire poll from ARG actually had Trump doing slightly better with independents than Republicans in New Hampshire. In any case just as there were 'Tories for Corbyn' there may well be 'Democrats for Trump' who may well vote in the GOP primary to help him beat Rubio, a more dangerous opponent for them
Trump attracts many people who have never bothered to vote before, and there is a vague concern on how many of his people will actually turn out, particularly in the peculiar oddness that is the Iowa caucuses, which takes a lot longer than merely casting a vote in a primary.
That's right , voters in Iowa tend to be serious , sober minded and informed ; the exact opposite of Trumpsters ....Trump is Howard Dean on steroids and is heading for a massive fail in Iowa and it may well be the event that bursts the Trump bubble
It's possible that Trump still goes on to win in NH due to the fragmentation of the establishment candidate , but so long as Rubio comes in second , he can even afford to lose in South Carolina just so long as he wins in Nevada .
..I expect Rubio to be behind Cruz until possibly April but sooner or later he is going to start winning as the race moves away from the Old South and Bible Belt
...Nate Silver is correct , those Blue States are weighted in favour of a ''moderate conservative '' and have more delegates ...Marco Rubio will be the nominee and is very likely to defeat Hilary
If Rubio fails to win at least one of Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina he is done, no nominee in history got the nomination without winning one of those three
WHEN exactly has a REALITY TV STAR been running for President who has a good chance of winning NH ?
Trump has no chance of winning the nomination , so as long as RUBIO comes in second it is a defacto victory !
I agree with that: Hillary is a bad candidate. Luckily for the Democrats Ted Cruz is a worse one.
I don't buy Trump running as an Independent. I do buy Michael Bloomberg potentially standing as Independent if it's Trump vs Clinton.
My bets are the following: Long Cruz for the nomination, Short him for the Presidency Short Rubio for the nomination, Long him for the Presidency
Who do you think Bloomberg would hurt more, if he ran? On the face of it, you would think it would be bad news for Hilary, but might he also split any anti-politics vote going?
It would also of course lead to the first US election in history where the average age of the candidates is over 70!
Tributes were today paid to Motörhead frontman Lemmy who died just days after being diagnosed with an "extremely aggressive cancer."
The rock star, whose real name was Ian Kilmister, died at the age of 70 after he was diagnosed with the disease on Boxing Day.
A post on the band's Facebook page said: "There is no easy way to say this ... our mighty, noble friend Lemmy passed away today after a short battle with an extremely aggressive cancer.
A cancer that kills within 48 hours of diagnosis isn't "extremely aggressive", it is positively psychopathic.
We've lost a rare guy. Witty, warty and known by a single name. Not many of those come around in a lifetime.
He was certainly a big personality, I don't know why but I thought for some reason he had left us a while ago. I imagine that the funeral and wake will be somewhat more lively than these things usually are - always wanted to hear Ace of Spades at a funeral! Rest in Peace you mad man!
Rubio is the obvious winner of the GOP nomination ; he may be behind in the early stages but sooner or later he will win ...if you cannot see that then you simply are not paying attention , or are ''tone deaf'' to the music of politics
If this GOP race is ran 50 times then each and every time Rubio will remain as the last man standing ...the race may vary each time insomuch who wins the early states but the end result will always be the same RUBIO WINS ...look upon it as a form of political evolution in process !
The race may look like a maze of twists and turns but in retrospect it will become clear that Rubio was always going to win , as inevitable as water finding its own way down a hill , because Rubio just ticks sooo many boxes and is by far the best candidate and the ONLY one who is polling better than Hilary
Nate Silver is exactly correct insomuch the Blue States primaries are weighted in favour of a ''moderate conservative ''and Ted Cruz is a redneck zealot ...the further away the race moves from the evangelical states of the South and Bible Belt , then the worse he will do
The lasting impact of both Cruz and Trump will be to have made a conservative candidate look moderate as he wins the White House !
OK. Cruz wins Iowa.
What happens if he wins New Hampshire too? It's by no means impossible - he's only a couple of percent behind Rubio, and I could see Trump, Rubio and Cruz all in the low 20s.
Cruz has now won New Hampshire and Iowa.
Where's the first state Rubio will definitely win? Not his home state of Florida, where Trump leads by a mile. And Rubio is polling behind Cruz.
If he's not careful, Rubio's campaign is over before he has time to become the inevitable nominee.
I agree with that: Hillary is a bad candidate. Luckily for the Democrats Ted Cruz is a worse one.
I don't buy Trump running as an Independent. I do buy Michael Bloomberg potentially standing as Independent if it's Trump vs Clinton.
My bets are the following: Long Cruz for the nomination, Short him for the Presidency Short Rubio for the nomination, Long him for the Presidency
Who do you think Bloomberg would hurt more, if he ran? On the face of it, you would think it would be bad news for Hilary, but might he also split any anti-politics vote going?
It would also of course lead to the first US election in history where the average age of the candidates is over 70!
I don't know.
He's a socially liberal New York Jew.
But he's also genuinely competent, genuinely self made, and would collect from both.
He is also worth $40bn "for reals" (as my five year old son would put it). He could sell 10% of his Bloomberg (the company) stake for $4bn in about 20 minutes if he wanted to. Trump would be much more dependent on traditional Republican donors: many of whom abhor his anti-business rhetoric.
On the subject of annual debates, will David Cameron be able to resist declining by saying "No platform for terrorist sympathisers"?
I was texting a Labour friend yesterday, he wistfully commended Dave for his "terrorist sympathisers" line, that ORB poll proved its effectiveness
Strangely enough though, Corbyn actually is a terrorist sympathiser, although I can understand that labour regard it as far worse to be called one by Cameron.
I await with bated breath what totally unsuitable people Corbyn puts in place in his new shadow cabinet. He already has a Maoist chancellor, a vegan farming minister and a communist city minister...A Jehovah's Witness in charge of the NHS? Gerry Adams to run the home office? An illegal immigrant to be immigration minister?
"If the Liberal Democrats are to survive as a party then it must move its practices into a new age based on three key principles of polymathic, multipotentialist evolution rather than on linear process"
@IanAustinMP: Very funny: @grahamemorris, who voted against whip repeatedly, wants people sacked after a free vote! Come on Grahame, name the "mutineers"!
''because Rubio just ticks sooo many boxes and is by far the best candidate and the ONLY one who is polling better than Hilary.''
He ticks so many boxes for the Republican big business establishment, true. Many republican voters hate that establishment more than they hate the democrats. They have seen that establishment play ball with a president they cannot abide.
The last New Hampshire poll from ARG actually had Trump doing slightly better with independents than Republicans in New Hampshire. In any case just as there were 'Tories for Corbyn' there may well be 'Democrats for Trump' who may well vote in the GOP primary to help him beat Rubio, a more dangerous opponent for them
Trump attracts many people who have never bothered to vote before, and there is a vague concern on how many of his people will actually turn out, particularly in the peculiar oddness that is the Iowa caucuses, which takes a lot longer than merely casting a vote in a primary.
That's right , voters in Iowa tend to be serious , sober minded and informed ; the exact opposite of Trumpsters ....Trump is Howard Dean on steroids and is heading for a massive fail in Iowa and it may well be the event that bursts the Trump bubble
It's possible that Trump still goes on to win in NH due to the fragmentation of the establishment candidate , but so long as Rubio comes in second , he can even afford to lose in South Carolina just so long as he wins in Nevada .
..I expect Rubio to be behind Cruz until possibly April but sooner or later he is going to start winning as the race moves away from the Old South and Bible Belt
...Nate Silver is correct , those Blue States are weighted in favour of a ''moderate conservative '' and have more delegates ...Marco Rubio will be the nominee and is very likely to defeat Hilary
If Rubio fails to win at least one of Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina he is done, no nominee in history got the nomination without winning one of those three
That's RRRRRRubbish ......there has never been a ''reality TV'' egomaniac with a serios chance of winning in NH ....Trump is not a serious GOP nominee ...he loves running for President but hates the idea of actually being President
Rubio can afford to lose NH to a ''reality TV star'' just so long as he comes in second place !
I repeat my earlier question: if you are so sure that article you linked to is so good, what odds will you offer me of Trump withdrawing pre-Iowa?
He will run and he stands a good chance of winning: better, at the moment, than anyone else.
Two 'ISIS militants' arrested over plot to launch terror attacks in Brussels on New Year's Eve after police find jihadi material and military clothing in house searches
Tributes were today paid to Motörhead frontman Lemmy who died just days after being diagnosed with an "extremely aggressive cancer."
The rock star, whose real name was Ian Kilmister, died at the age of 70 after he was diagnosed with the disease on Boxing Day.
A post on the band's Facebook page said: "There is no easy way to say this ... our mighty, noble friend Lemmy passed away today after a short battle with an extremely aggressive cancer.
A cancer that kills within 48 hours of diagnosis isn't "extremely aggressive", it is positively psychopathic.
We've lost a rare guy. Witty, warty and known by a single name. Not many of those come around in a lifetime.
He was certainly a big personality, I don't know why but I thought for some reason he had left us a while ago. I imagine that the funeral and wake will be somewhat more lively than these things usually are - always wanted to hear Ace of Spades at a funeral! Rest in Peace you mad man!
Maybe not the Ace of Spades. Apparently, he was so bored of it that live he sang Eight of Spades. But nobody noticed....
There is a wonderful documentary on Hawkwind. Watch from 22 minutes in for how Lemmy joined. And how they used sonic weapons. On their audience. Classic....
I agree with that: Hillary is a bad candidate. Luckily for the Democrats Ted Cruz is a worse one.
I don't buy Trump running as an Independent. I do buy Michael Bloomberg potentially standing as Independent if it's Trump vs Clinton.
My bets are the following: Long Cruz for the nomination, Short him for the Presidency Short Rubio for the nomination, Long him for the Presidency
Who do you think Bloomberg would hurt more, if he ran? On the face of it, you would think it would be bad news for Hilary, but might he also split any anti-politics vote going?
It would also of course lead to the first US election in history where the average age of the candidates is over 70!
I don't know.
He's a socially liberal New York Jew.
But he's also genuinely competent, genuinely self made, and would collect from both.
He is also worth $40bn "for reals" (as my five year old son would put it). He could sell 10% of his Bloomberg (the company) stake for $4bn in about 20 minutes if he wanted to. Trump would be much more dependent on traditional Republican donors: many of whom abhor his anti-business rhetoric.
Bloomberg gives more of an impression of competence and experience than any other candidate.
If the two established parties choose divisive candidates, will the electoral college system allow a independent to actually come through the middle and win the Presidency? I'm sure Bloomberg could get a nationwide plurality of the vote, but not sure that there's enough EC votes in the swing states for him to actually win the race.
Rubio is the obvious winner of the GOP nomination ; he may be behind in the early stages but sooner or later he will win ...if you cannot see that then you simply are not paying attention , or are ''tone deaf'' to the music of politics
If this GOP race is ran 50 times then each and every time Rubio will remain as the last man standing ...the race may vary each time insomuch who wins the early states but the end result will always be the same RUBIO WINS ...look upon it as a form of political evolution in process !
The race may look like a maze of twists and turns but in retrospect it will become clear that Rubio was always going to win , as inevitable as water finding its own way down a hill , because Rubio just ticks sooo many boxes and is by far the best candidate and the ONLY one who is polling better than Hilary
Nate Silver is exactly correct insomuch the Blue States primaries are weighted in favour of a ''moderate conservative ''and Ted Cruz is a redneck zealot ...the further away the race moves from the evangelical states of the South and Bible Belt , then the worse he will do
The lasting impact of both Cruz and Trump will be to have made a conservative candidate look moderate as he wins the White House !
OK. Cruz wins Iowa.
What happens if he wins New Hampshire too? It's by no means impossible - he's only a couple of percent behind Rubio, and I could see Trump, Rubio and Cruz all in the low 20s.
Cruz has now won New Hampshire and Iowa.
Where's the first state Rubio will definitely win? Not his home state of Florida, where Trump leads by a mile. And Rubio is polling behind Cruz.
If he's not careful, Rubio's campaign is over before he has time to become the inevitable nominee.
Cruz is very likely to win Iowa , however , NH is a far different state from Iowa ...it is a secular , non evangelical state , with a rugged sense of independence ...in some ways it is more like a traditional western state like Wyoming or Montana .....Cruz will NOT WIN New Hampshire ...only Trump or Rubio will win there !
Rubio will win Florida and if he failed it really would be all over for him ..Rubio will indeed win Florida !...Trump could be out of the race by Florida and even if he has managed to hang on he will be defeated in Florida
Polling for Primaries must be ''read between the lines '' as they have little predictive value until about 3 days before the vote
Rubio will definitely win Nevada and it could be the first state he actually wins !
Bill Clinton lost the first 5 states and only won one state out of the first eleven and that's why he was called the ''comeback kid ''
Cruz is a very poor candidate who only has a narrow provincial , regional appeal !
Hilary is praying that Cruz is the nominee because she knows , intuitively , that she will be defeated by Rubio !
''because Rubio just ticks sooo many boxes and is by far the best candidate and the ONLY one who is polling better than Hilary.''
He ticks so many boxes for the Republican big business establishment, true. Many republican voters hate that establishment more than they hate the democrats. They have seen that establishment play ball with a president they cannot abide.
If they hate Obama so much why did they keep selecting candidates that lost to him?
"If the Liberal Democrats are to survive as a party then it must move its practices into a new age based on three key principles of polymathic, multipotentialist evolution rather than on linear process"
Maybe not the Ace of Spades. Apparently, he was so bored of it that live he sang Eight of Spades. But nobody noticed....
I can imagine. What did they have 22 or 23 albums and still had to do Ace of Spades every bloody time.
I have absolutely no sympathy with artists that feel like that. They're entertainers. They're there to entertain. It may be the 10,000th time you've sung Angels or Ace of Spades or American Pie, but for many members of the audience it will be the first time they've heard you sing it live. You can show them the respect they deserve by putting your heart and soul into it.
That song you're so bored of is probably the one that means that you're not driving taxis or working in a supermarket.
Maybe not the Ace of Spades. Apparently, he was so bored of it that live he sang Eight of Spades. But nobody noticed....
I can imagine. What did they have 22 or 23 albums and still had to do Ace of Spades every bloody time.
I have absolutely no sympathy with artists that feel like that. They're entertainers. They're there to entertain. It may be the 10,000th time you've sung Angels or Ace of Spades or American Pie, but for many members of the audience it will be the first time they've heard you sing it live. You can show them the respect they deserve by putting your heart and soul into it.
That song you're so bored of is probably the one that means that you're not driving taxis or working in a supermarket.
Sure, but I think it is still a natural human response and especially if you have a vast catalogue of material. I can imagine there is also an element of "what's wrong with my other stuff, I think it is equally good". There are some lucky bands who have a range of really popular songs and so can mix it up from tour to tour.
As I said yesterday, George Mitchell - who pioneered the combination of horizonal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, and therefore led to the recent US oil production surge - will one day be recognised as the true hero in the war against Islamic extremism.
A few (Frank Field, say) might be able to stand and win, but most would not have the name recognition or the apparatus to run as Independent Labour, and would merely split the party's vote.
I think the fate of the UKIP MPs shows how little personal vote actually exists. Carswell defected with his back up staff in a Kipper friendly constituency, and only just scraped home.
I don't think there is great demand out there for an SDP 2 like there was in 1981 either. Dave Cameron is no Thatcher.
The problem with this perfectly obvious statement about personal votes is that the morons who defend undemocratic FPTP offer the core idea of voting for an individual and selecting a local representative is completely undermined.
People vote for parties. Every metric possible supports this.
I agree with that: Hillary is a bad candidate. Luckily for the Democrats Ted Cruz is a worse one.
I don't buy Trump running as an Independent. I do buy Michael Bloomberg potentially standing as Independent if it's Trump vs Clinton.
My bets are the following: Long Cruz for the nomination, Short him for the Presidency Short Rubio for the nomination, Long him for the Presidency
Who do you think Bloomberg would hurt more, if he ran? On the face of it, you would think it would be bad news for Hilary, but might he also split any anti-politics vote going?
It would also of course lead to the first US election in history where the average age of the candidates is over 70!
I don't know.
He's a socially liberal New York Jew.
But he's also genuinely competent, genuinely self made, and would collect from both.
He is also worth $40bn "for reals" (as my five year old son would put it). He could sell 10% of his Bloomberg (the company) stake for $4bn in about 20 minutes if he wanted to. Trump would be much more dependent on traditional Republican donors: many of whom abhor his anti-business rhetoric.
Bloomberg gives more of an impression of competence and experience than any other candidate.
If the two established parties choose divisive candidates, will the electoral college system allow a independent to actually come through the middle and win the Presidency? I'm sure Bloomberg could get a nationwide plurality of the vote, but not sure that there's enough EC votes in the swing states for him to actually win the race.
I think he'd win New York and California; maybe Florida too...
"If the Liberal Democrats are to survive as a party then it must move its practices into a new age based on three key principles of polymathic, multipotentialist evolution rather than on linear process"
"If the Liberal Democrats are to survive as a party then it must move its practices into a new age based on three key principles of polymathic, multipotentialist evolution rather than on linear process"
Political theory rocks! He is wrong in other ways, the tory party for one is not a locomotive 'confined to the tracks they roll upon.' It has evolved beyond the old industrial age the writer goes on about and wants the LDs to mimic. Perversely as he looks to the future he is living in the past.
I can really recommend the documentary series that Dair mentioned. It's full of fascianting stuff - including my facourite statistics that not only does Scotland have over 90% of all of the mainland UK's fresh water but Loch Ness alone holds more water than all of England and Wales combined.
Indeed, the particular documentary on Water has the absolutely stunning closing line "Scotland's Water, beautiful and dammed" which I still think is one of the best lines I've heard in a nature doc.
I'm sure Scotland's topography is helpful but the scale of water management appears massively larger than any that happens in England. The Forth Valley, especially around Stirling should flood every single year (and much of it is so low lying that any attempts at flood defence would be near impossible requiring Levies over 5 meters at least over huge distances). It doesn't because the water is moved from that watershed to the sea lochs and Clyde watersheds.
The key is that once the water is in the river, it is too late to effectively prevent or reduce flooding. From the TV coverage, it seems shoring up the rivers is the focus of the Westminster government policy instead of them telling the water companies that management of water between watersheds is their responsibility.
The idea of Privatised Water seems ridiculous to me, and clearly it does not work. It is strange that re-nationalising Water seems to be so low on the agenda, well behind much less critical choices like Mail, Railways and even Electricity.
Maybe not the Ace of Spades. Apparently, he was so bored of it that live he sang Eight of Spades. But nobody noticed....
I can imagine. What did they have 22 or 23 albums and still had to do Ace of Spades every bloody time.
I have absolutely no sympathy with artists that feel like that. They're entertainers. They're there to entertain. It may be the 10,000th time you've sung Angels or Ace of Spades or American Pie, but for many members of the audience it will be the first time they've heard you sing it live. You can show them the respect they deserve by putting your heart and soul into it.
That song you're so bored of is probably the one that means that you're not driving taxis or working in a supermarket.
There has been a strange evolution or two in music. Health warning: wild generalisations follow.
First, it used to be that loss-making tours subsidised record sales but now tours are where the money is made.
Second, bands have become their own tribute bands. In the old days, bands on tour did the new album (to promote sales) and one or two standards to keep fans from rioting. Then came tribute bands who performed the greatest hits, and played them just like on the records with no fancy new harmonisation or other nonsense you'd get from the real band. But now touring is so profitable, all the real bands are coming out of retirement to play their own back catalogues.
Ironically, a common complaint now is that 60- and 70-year-old singers' voices have gone.
I agree with that: Hillary is a bad candidate. Luckily for the Democrats Ted Cruz is a worse one.
I don't buy Trump running as an Independent. I do buy Michael Bloomberg potentially standing as Independent if it's Trump vs Clinton.
My bets are the following: Long Cruz for the nomination, Short him for the Presidency Short Rubio for the nomination, Long him for the Presidency
Who do you think Bloomberg would hurt more, if he ran? On the face of it, you would think it would be bad news for Hilary, but might he also split any anti-politics vote going?
It would also of course lead to the first US election in history where the average age of the candidates is over 70!
I don't know.
He's a socially liberal New York Jew.
But he's also genuinely competent, genuinely self made, and would collect from both.
He is also worth $40bn "for reals" (as my five year old son would put it). He could sell 10% of his Bloomberg (the company) stake for $4bn in about 20 minutes if he wanted to. Trump would be much more dependent on traditional Republican donors: many of whom abhor his anti-business rhetoric.
Bloomberg gives more of an impression of competence and experience than any other candidate.
If the two established parties choose divisive candidates, will the electoral college system allow a independent to actually come through the middle and win the Presidency? I'm sure Bloomberg could get a nationwide plurality of the vote, but not sure that there's enough EC votes in the swing states for him to actually win the race.
No third party candidate will ever win the presidency while there are open nominations and primaries.
A candidate who cannot win either party's nomination cannot win the 40% or so of the national vote necessary to win the Electoral College. A candidate who can win a party nomination will undoubtedly do so in preference to going it alone.
It might be more than a century ago but 1912 remains the classic example of why the numbers almost inevitably don't stack up (and Bloomberg is no Roosevelt, and TR would have won the nomination under current rules anyway).
No third party candidate will ever win the presidency while there are open nominations and primaries.
A candidate who cannot win either party's nomination cannot win the 40% or so of the national vote necessary to win the Electoral College. A candidate who can win a party nomination will undoubtedly do so in preference to going it alone.
It might be more than a century ago but 1912 remains the classic example of why the numbers almost inevitably don't stack up (and Bloomberg is no Roosevelt, and TR would have won the nomination under current rules anyway).
Trump vs Hillary would be two deeply flawed, highly divisive and anti-business candidates running against each other.
Nothing put me off album PR tours more than playing 90% tracks that weren't single quality. And when you've never heard them before - it's boring and unfamiliar.
And doubly so when the band has decided to have a change of direction and you get an hour of WTFIsThis? with a couple of the ones you actually liked tacked on.
Worst one I experienced was Rush on Signals. Just terrible. That the cover art was a dog peeing on a hydrant summed it up.
Maybe not the Ace of Spades. Apparently, he was so bored of it that live he sang Eight of Spades. But nobody noticed....
I can imagine. What did they have 22 or 23 albums and still had to do Ace of Spades every bloody time.
I have absolutely no sympathy with artists that feel like that. They're entertainers. They're there to entertain. It may be the 10,000th time you've sung Angels or Ace of Spades or American Pie, but for many members of the audience it will be the first time they've heard you sing it live. You can show them the respect they deserve by putting your heart and soul into it.
That song you're so bored of is probably the one that means that you're not driving taxis or working in a supermarket.
There has been a strange evolution or two in music. Health warning: wild generalisations follow.
First, it used to be that loss-making tours subsidised record sales but now tours are where the money is made.
Second, bands have become their own tribute bands. In the old days, bands on tour did the new album (to promote sales) and one or two standards to keep fans from rioting. Then came tribute bands who performed the greatest hits, and played them just like on the records with no fancy new harmonisation or other nonsense you'd get from the real band. But now touring is so profitable, all the real bands are coming out of retirement to play their own back catalogues.
Ironically, a common complaint now is that 60- and 70-year-old singers' voices have gone.
I await with bated breath what totally unsuitable people Corbyn puts in place in his new shadow cabinet. He already has a Maoist chancellor, a vegan farming minister and a communist city minister...A Jehovah's Witness in charge of the NHS? Gerry Adams to run the home office? An illegal immigrant to be immigration minister?
Don't joke Francis. Adams would almost certainly do a better job than Crashen'n'Burnham! At least he has practical experience of the justice system...
But then, no joke could possibly exceed Diane Abbott as SFS, John Mcdonnell as Chancellor and Jezbollah as leader. That would be a great joke - if only it were in any way funny.
I agree with that: Hillary is a bad candidate. Luckily for the Democrats Ted Cruz is a worse one.
I don't buy Trump running as an Independent. I do buy Michael Bloomberg potentially standing as Independent if it's Trump vs Clinton.
My bets are the following: Long Cruz for the nomination, Short him for the Presidency Short Rubio for the nomination, Long him for the Presidency
Who do you think Bloomberg would hurt more, if he ran? On the face of it, you would think it would be bad news for Hilary, but might he also split any anti-politics vote going?
It would also of course lead to the first US election in history where the average age of the candidates is over 70!
I don't know.
He's a socially liberal New York Jew.
But he's also genuinely competent, genuinely self made, and would collect from both.
He is also worth $40bn "for reals" (as my five year old son would put it). He could sell 10% of his Bloomberg (the company) stake for $4bn in about 20 minutes if he wanted to. Trump would be much more dependent on traditional Republican donors: many of whom abhor his anti-business rhetoric.
Bloomberg gives more of an impression of competence and experience than any other candidate.
If the two established parties choose divisive candidates, will the electoral college system allow a independent to actually come through the middle and win the Presidency? I'm sure Bloomberg could get a nationwide plurality of the vote, but not sure that there's enough EC votes in the swing states for him to actually win the race.
I think he'd win New York and California; maybe Florida too...
That's a pretty formidable EV headstart.
True, but I can't see which other states might also go for him.
There's so much up in the air with this election, and I'm not too sure a lot of it will be sorted out before polling day. The GOP still have a dozen candidates, Trump is still in it and might run on his own anyway. Bloomberg possibly running, Clinton and her emails, Bernie Sanders (the American Corbyn) and on and on. One of these nutters will be the leader of the free world a year from now!!
Bloomberg is 330 on Betfair, On for three quid to make a grand.
I agree with that: Hillary is a bad candidate. Luckily for the Democrats Ted Cruz is a worse one.
I don't buy Trump running as an Independent. I do buy Michael Bloomberg potentially standing as Independent if it's Trump vs Clinton.
My bets are the following: Long Cruz for the nomination, Short him for the Presidency Short Rubio for the nomination, Long him for the Presidency
Who do you think Bloomberg would hurt more, if he ran? On the face of it, you would think it would be bad news for Hilary, but might he also split any anti-politics vote going?
It would also of course lead to the first US election in history where the average age of the candidates is over 70!
I don't know.
He's a socially liberal New York Jew.
But he's also genuinely competent, genuinely self made, and would collect from both.
He is also worth $40bn "for reals" (as my five year old son would put it). He could sell 10% of his Bloomberg (the company) stake for $4bn in about 20 minutes if he wanted to. Trump would be much more dependent on traditional Republican donors: many of whom abhor his anti-business rhetoric.
Bloomberg gives more of an impression of competence and experience than any other candidate.
If the two established parties choose divisive candidates, will the electoral college system allow a independent to actually come through the middle and win the Presidency? I'm sure Bloomberg could get a nationwide plurality of the vote, but not sure that there's enough EC votes in the swing states for him to actually win the race.
No third party candidate will ever win the presidency while there are open nominations and primaries.
A candidate who cannot win either party's nomination cannot win the 40% or so of the national vote necessary to win the Electoral College. A candidate who can win a party nomination will undoubtedly do so in preference to going it alone.
It might be more than a century ago but 1912 remains the classic example of why the numbers almost inevitably don't stack up (and Bloomberg is no Roosevelt, and TR would have won the nomination under current rules anyway).
He'd have won the nomination in 1912 as well if Taft hadn't broken (or at least, somewhat twisted) the rules to beat him, thereby guaranteeing only the second Democratic president (and third presidency) since 1860.
I await with bated breath what totally unsuitable people Corbyn puts in place in his new shadow cabinet. He already has a Maoist chancellor, a vegan farming minister and a communist city minister...A Jehovah's Witness in charge of the NHS? Gerry Adams to run the home office? An illegal immigrant to be immigration minister?
Don't joke Francis. Adams would almost certainly do a better job than Crashen'n'Burnham! At least he has practical experience of the justice system...
But then, no joke could possibly exceed Diane Abbott as SFS, John Mcdonnell as Chancellor and Jezbollah as leader. That would be a great joke - if only it were in any way funny.
Has the silly season come early this year or is everything true and this time next week I'll look very silly for doubting the headlines? Corbyn won't have a night of the long knives; Diane won't be Shadow FS; Lynton Crosby won't be knighted.
I await with bated breath what totally unsuitable people Corbyn puts in place in his new shadow cabinet. He already has a Maoist chancellor, a vegan farming minister and a communist city minister...A Jehovah's Witness in charge of the NHS? Gerry Adams to run the home office? An illegal immigrant to be immigration minister?
Don't joke Francis. Adams would almost certainly do a better job than Crashen'n'Burnham! At least he has practical experience of the justice system...
But then, no joke could possibly exceed Diane Abbott as SFS, John Mcdonnell as Chancellor and Jezbollah as leader. That would be a great joke - if only it were in any way funny.
Maybe not the Ace of Spades. Apparently, he was so bored of it that live he sang Eight of Spades. But nobody noticed....
I can imagine. What did they have 22 or 23 albums and still had to do Ace of Spades every bloody time.
I have absolutely no sympathy with artists that feel like that. They're entertainers. They're there to entertain. It may be the 10,000th time you've sung Angels or Ace of Spades or American Pie, but for many members of the audience it will be the first time they've heard you sing it live. You can show them the respect they deserve by putting your heart and soul into it.
That song you're so bored of is probably the one that means that you're not driving taxis or working in a supermarket.
Sure, but I think it is still a natural human response and especially if you have a vast catalogue of material. I can imagine there is also an element of "what's wrong with my other stuff, I think it is equally good". There are some lucky bands who have a range of really popular songs and so can mix it up from tour to tour.
Well indeed. What is wrong with your other stuff? It's not the audience's fault if it sucks.
"If the Liberal Democrats are to survive as a party then it must move its practices into a new age based on three key principles of polymathic, multipotentialist evolution rather than on linear process"
Fewer syllables than MPs would be a good start.
And if those syllables could be in plain English, that would be even better!
I await with bated breath what totally unsuitable people Corbyn puts in place in his new shadow cabinet. He already has a Maoist chancellor, a vegan farming minister and a communist city minister...A Jehovah's Witness in charge of the NHS? Gerry Adams to run the home office? An illegal immigrant to be immigration minister?
Don't joke Francis. Adams would almost certainly do a better job than Crashen'n'Burnham! At least he has practical experience of the justice system...
But then, no joke could possibly exceed Diane Abbott as SFS, John Mcdonnell as Chancellor and Jezbollah as leader. That would be a great joke - if only it were in any way funny.
Has the silly season come early this year or is everything true and this time next week I'll look very silly for doubting the headlines? Corbyn won't have a night of the long knives; Diane won't be Shadow FS; Lynton Crosby won't be knighted.
Well, John, all I can say is that I hope that something's gone wrong with my wood supply and my stove is kicking out cannabis fumes, because no political party in the UK has self destructed in such spectacular fashion since 1885, and I want to believe that it's not happening. Or that the fearsome strain of the last term has got to me and I have morphed into inhabiting some imaginary, bizarre fantasy world where peculiar things happen to amuse my overtired brain as a reaction to stress.
Sadly, however, I suspect you are being too generous. It looks like the knives are out for Benn and when you think about it, other than the losers, the weirdos, the failures and the genuinely stupid - who else will agree to serve such an unpleasant and divisive figure, especially on the terms Corbyn appears to want to set? As for Crosby, a knighthood is the traditional reward for services to the Party on such a scale - and the outrage of it could easily be eclipsed by the horror of what is happening to the Reds.
It's a tragedy for our democracy. But Labour's leadership don't appear to care about that - perpetual one party rule by their traditional enemies is worth the price of staying ideologically pure and therefore self-righteous.
EDIT - and of course, the Conservatives are enjoying themselves too much to be sensible or restrained. Must be fair.
There's so much up in the air with this election, and I'm not too sure a lot of it will be sorted out before polling day. The GOP still have a dozen candidates, Trump is still in it and might run on his own anyway. Bloomberg possibly running, Clinton and her emails, Bernie Sanders (the American Corbyn) and on and on. One of these nutters will be the leader of the free world a year from now!!
Bloomberg is 330 on Betfair, On for three quid to make a grand.
Bernie Sanders isn't the American Corbyn. Half the GOP field is the American Corbyn and there are a lot of Republicans who like it that way -- look at the GOP majority in Congress, many of whom are from what we might deride as the bonkers tendency but who see it as their role to fight and frustrate the White House. Clinton's email scandal might not stop her being elected but the 57 varieties of House investigation that will be launched the next day might turn her into the biggest lame duck president since Obama.
There's so much up in the air with this election, and I'm not too sure a lot of it will be sorted out before polling day. The GOP still have a dozen candidates, Trump is still in it and might run on his own anyway. Bloomberg possibly running, Clinton and her emails, Bernie Sanders (the American Corbyn) and on and on. One of these nutters will be the leader of the free world a year from now!!
Bloomberg is 330 on Betfair, On for three quid to make a grand.
Bernie Sanders isn't the American Corbyn. Half the GOP field is the American Corbyn and there are a lot of Republicans who like it that way -- look at the GOP majority in Congress, many of whom are from what we might deride as the bonkers tendency but who see it as their role to fight and frustrate the White House. Clinton's email scandal might not stop her being elected but the 57 varieties of House investigation that will be launched the next day might turn her into the biggest lame duck president since Obama.
I can really recommend the documentary series that Dair mentioned. It's full of fascianting stuff - including my facourite statistics that not only does Scotland have over 90% of all of the mainland UK's fresh water but Loch Ness alone holds more water than all of England and Wales combined.
Indeed, the particular documentary on Water has the absolutely stunning closing line "Scotland's Water, beautiful and dammed" which I still think is one of the best lines I've heard in a nature doc.
I'm sure Scotland's topography is helpful but the scale of water management appears massively larger than any that happens in England... blah blah blah....
Topography yes more than helpful, but who knows population density might have an effect. Scotland 68/sq km England 413/sq km
There's so much up in the air with this election, and I'm not too sure a lot of it will be sorted out before polling day. The GOP still have a dozen candidates, Trump is still in it and might run on his own anyway. Bloomberg possibly running, Clinton and her emails, Bernie Sanders (the American Corbyn) and on and on. One of these nutters will be the leader of the free world a year from now!!
Bloomberg is 330 on Betfair, On for three quid to make a grand.
Bernie Sanders isn't the American Corbyn. Half the GOP field is the American Corbyn and there are a lot of Republicans who like it that way -- look at the GOP majority in Congress, many of whom are from what we might deride as the bonkers tendency but who see it as their role to fight and frustrate the White House. Clinton's email scandal might not stop her being elected but the 57 varieties of House investigation that will be launched the next day might turn her into the biggest lame duck president since Obama.
She has a ready source of advice on how to run a viable administration while deluged with scandal.
I await with bated breath what totally unsuitable people Corbyn puts in place in his new shadow cabinet. He already has a Maoist chancellor, a vegan farming minister and a communist city minister...A Jehovah's Witness in charge of the NHS? Gerry Adams to run the home office? An illegal immigrant to be immigration minister?
Don't joke Francis. Adams would almost certainly do a better job than Crashen'n'Burnham! At least he has practical experience of the justice system...
But then, no joke could possibly exceed Diane Abbott as SFS, John Mcdonnell as Chancellor and Jezbollah as leader. That would be a great joke - if only it were in any way funny.
Has the silly season come early this year or is everything true and this time next week I'll look very silly for doubting the headlines? Corbyn won't have a night of the long knives; Diane won't be Shadow FS; Lynton Crosby won't be knighted.
Well, John, all I can say is that I hope that something's gone wrong with my wood supply and my stove is kicking out cannabis fumes, because no political party in the UK has self destructed in such spectacular fashion since 1885, and I want to believe that it's not happening. Or that the fearsome strain of the last term has got to me and I have morphed into inhabiting some imaginary, bizarre fantasy world where peculiar things happen to amuse my overtired brain as a reaction to stress.
Sadly, however, I suspect you are being too generous. It looks like the knives are out for Benn and when you think about it, other than the losers, the weirdos, the failures and the genuinely stupid - who else will agree to serve such an unpleasant and divisive figure, especially on the terms Corbyn appears to want to set? As for Crosby, a knighthood is the traditional reward for services to the Party on such a scale - and the outrage of it could easily be eclipsed by the horror of what is happening to the Reds.
It's a tragedy for our democracy. But Labour's leadership don't appear to care about that - perpetual one party rule by their traditional enemies is worth the price of staying ideologically pure and therefore self-righteous.
No political party has destroyed itself like this? Well, there's the LibDems in their big yellow taxi.
The reason I doubt Crosby's knighthood is that I don't think Crosby would want one: it would not play well in Australia.
Motorhead were supposed to be on the day after the terrorist attack at the Bataclan...Also, He might have only found out two days before, but he looks really ill in this video.
No political party has destroyed itself like this? Well, there's the LibDems in their big yellow taxi.
That was more or less forced on them by the election result in 2010, which Ashdown rightly described as 'an exquisite instrument of torture for the Liberal Democrats.' They couldn't not keep the Conservatives in power, and realistically with Hague and Cameron so willing to offer them lots of goodies they couldn't refuse a coalition either. They made only one really bad mistake - tuition fees. That's what destroyed them. What Labour are doing is systematic, widespread and completely unneeded. Corbyn has started even worse than feared (no mean feat in itself) and is tailing off rapidly, destroying what is left of the Labour party by his mad and naive politicking and posturing in the process. At least, in government, if you destroy yourself with unpopular calls you can console yourself with the thought you are achieving something while you do it.
The reason I doubt Crosby's knighthood is that I don't think Crosby would want one: it would not play well in Australia.
That's a more plausible argument - but does he intend to go back there, at any rate any time soon? He's a big international figure now, rather than just an Aussie, and they seem to like knighthoods when they can get them (cf all those bankers). Might look good in America, say, if the GOP wanted to hire him.
I can really recommend the documentary series that Dair mentioned. It's full of fascianting stuff - including my facourite statistics that not only does Scotland have over 90% of all of the mainland UK's fresh water but Loch Ness alone holds more water than all of England and Wales combined.
Indeed, the particular documentary on Water has the absolutely stunning closing line "Scotland's Water, beautiful and dammed" which I still think is one of the best lines I've heard in a nature doc.
I'm sure Scotland's topography is helpful but the scale of water management appears massively larger than any that happens in England... blah blah blah....
Topography yes more than helpful, but who knows population density might have an effect. Scotland 68/sq km England 413/sq km
Crisis, what crisis? Corbyn has been abroad on holiday and returned to a dry London. Is this why Labour has said nothing about the floods, or is it clever politics not to make capital from people's tragedies?
Crisis, what crisis? Corbyn has been abroad on holiday and returned to a dry London. Is this why Labour has said nothing about the floods, or is it clever politics not to make capital from people's tragedies?
In fairness to the Jezziah, before he went he did visit Cumbria and speak with some of the people affected. I seem to recall he even sang happy birthday to one of them, although since she had just been flooded out I think it was perhaps not the most appropriate thing to do. But 'best wishes in the circumstances birthday' doesn't fit the meter.
To the Roman General Julius Caesar, Britain was mysterious, dangerous and exotic. It had remained free despite colonialist attempts by imperialist Rome to invade and conquer. This changed however, when Claudius brought his war elephants and expansionist policies and the conquest of Britain was assured. By AD122 Emperor Hadrian, who was rarely at home in Rome because he was being racist everywhere else, built a huge wall in northern England. This symbol of Roman supremacy stands today and is visited by thousands of pro war, neocon, fascist (likely) imperialist England haters, also known as tourists. In the spirit of #RhodesmustFall we are starting this petition to get Hadrian's wall removed brick by colonialist brick. If you care about the rights of indigenous Britons please sign. If you don't sign you are actively contributing to the continued oppression of ancient Britons and you support the colonialist imperialist hegemony of Rome, you fascists. #HadriansWallMustFall Thank you.
To the Roman General Julius Caesar, Britain was mysterious, dangerous and exotic. It had remained free despite colonialist attempts by imperialist Rome to invade and conquer. This changed however, when Claudius brought his war elephants and expansionist policies and the conquest of Britain was assured. By AD122 Emperor Hadrian, who was rarely at home in Rome because he was being racist everywhere else, built a huge wall in northern England. This symbol of Roman supremacy stands today and is visited by thousands of pro war, neocon, fascist (likely) imperialist England haters, also known as tourists. In the spirit of #RhodesmustFall we are starting this petition to get Hadrian's wall removed brick by colonialist brick. If you care about the rights of indigenous Britons please sign. If you don't sign you are actively contributing to the continued oppression of ancient Britons and you support the colonialist imperialist hegemony of Rome, you fascists. #HadriansWallMustFall Thank you.
Or, to look at it another way, South Africa to attempt a more successful version of the blockathon they managed against Ashwin, Yadev and Jadeja in Delhi. They did however last 140 overs there - just not sure they can do it against Broad and Finn.
To the Roman General Julius Caesar, Britain was mysterious, dangerous and exotic. It had remained free despite colonialist attempts by imperialist Rome to invade and conquer. This changed however, when Claudius brought his war elephants and expansionist policies and the conquest of Britain was assured. By AD122 Emperor Hadrian, who was rarely at home in Rome because he was being racist everywhere else, built a huge wall in northern England. This symbol of Roman supremacy stands today and is visited by thousands of pro war, neocon, fascist (likely) imperialist England haters, also known as tourists. In the spirit of #RhodesmustFall we are starting this petition to get Hadrian's wall removed brick by colonialist brick. If you care about the rights of indigenous Britons please sign. If you don't sign you are actively contributing to the continued oppression of ancient Britons and you support the colonialist imperialist hegemony of Rome, you fascists. #HadriansWallMustFall Thank you.
Or, to look at it another way, South Africa to attempt a more successful version of the blockathon they managed against Ashwin, Yadev and Jadeja in Delhi. They did however last 140 overs there - just not sure they can do it against Broad and Finn.
I guess it won't take long to find out if they're going to attempt the score or are just content to try and stay in for a day and a half.
England backed into 1.33 now, 8.8 the hosts and 6.8 the draw. Those odds sounds about right. I've backed England and laid the draw.
For all the idiots wanting to pull down statues of Rhodes or Confederates or Buddhas, here is no less of a philosophical god than Lemmy, RIP, talking about his Nazi memorabilia:
“I like having all this stuff around because it’s a reminder of what happened,” he wrote. “… I don’t understand people who believe that if you ignore something, it’ll go away. That’s completely wrong — if it’s ignored it gathers strength.”
Comments
Does that suggest they don't really think they can get independence? If they did, surely they'd be working together?
Also, I would bear in mind that if we have regular TV debates then Prime Ministers will prioritise preparing for them and looking good in them. Is that what we want?
Worth remembering that the pro-independence parties went backward in the Spanish General a few weeks ago.
Makes independence seem a good deal less likely.
Edit: while we are on the subject of The Apprentice, iirc Lord Sugar suggested to Piers Morgan in an ITV documentary that there should be a separate "rich list" based on how big a cheque someone could write.
And who knows who would win in a proper referendum?
But the current strategy makes independence seems significantly less likely.
A fine day - despite having to be in the office -
I had a wonderful day at the garden centre yesterday, buying far too much and having a most enjoyable time putting it all in the garden. It simply is not winter and hooray for that! Being outdoors in fresh air surrounded by the beauty of nature is some of the most fun you can have with your clothes on. (Sorry TSE!)
Anyway, OT: there is a marvellous documentary by Dan Cruickshank on Warsaw - about its reconstruction and about his time there in the 1950's when he was a boy (his father was a journalist with the Daily Worker and posted there as their correspondent) - on BBC iPlayer. Well worth catching if you can.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06r12fd/dan-cruickshank-resurrecting-history-warsaw
Now, imagine that interest costs were to rise by 1% - suddenly you're not earning much of a spread... your cash flow has just got $200m worse per year.
Or imagine that the value of your assets falls by just 10%... suddenly, your net worth would have dropped to just $1.5bn.
A good point about whether our leaders should be preparing for debates rather than running the country, but it happens anyway if he is to stay on top of his brief. ISTR that Brown as PM used to spend all day Tuesday and rise early on Wednesday to prepare for PMQs. Cameron makes it look quite easy now, but that takes a lot of practice and he's not getting a particularly hard time from Corbyn as LotO.
Rubio can afford to lose NH to a ''reality TV star'' just so long as he comes in second place !
The reason I think they might do such a thing is that, let's face it, we all know that unless she's actually arrested for something in the next seven weeks, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. However, unlike in Britain, effectively we will have two candidates competing from a standing start in November. And while you would have thought Clinton was likely to beat Trump, she is by no means a certainty to do so. Not only does she polarize opinion in a way entirely reminiscent of Trump, but she carries even more baggage than he does and is the ultimate Washington insider at a time people appear to be sick of them. One scandal in October could well propel the GOP nominee - as long as whoever it is has vague plausibility as a candidate, which you have have to say Trump probably does to those who don't know much about his backstory (successful businessman, patriotic American - simple and attractive, never mind it's wrong) - to the White House.
Therefore, any sensible Democratic voter may feel that actually there is mileage in voting for a different candidate - possibly Cruz - who has a lower profile and would damage Trump without building up a massive head of steam that could carry them to the White House. Like a sane Labour voter in a safe Labour seat switching their vote to the Liberal Democrats to hurt Corbyn's vote share without increasing the government majority.
However, I doubt if many Democrats will see it that way. They appear to be so starry-eyed about Hilary that it hasn't occurred to them that she is actually a rather weak and inept candidate who isn't a certainty. So it's unlikely.
Latest Betfair back prices Eng 1.48 SA 9.6 Draw 4.4
A cancer that kills within 48 hours of diagnosis isn't "extremely aggressive", it is positively psychopathic.
We've lost a rare guy. Witty, warty and known by a single name. Not many of those come around in a lifetime.
I don't buy Trump running as an Independent. I do buy Michael Bloomberg potentially standing as Independent if it's Trump vs Clinton.
My bets are the following:
Long Cruz for the nomination, Short him for the Presidency
Short Rubio for the nomination, Long him for the Presidency
We've lost a rare guy. Witty, warty and known by a single name. Not many of those come around in a lifetime.
Like a lot of people who were diagnosed late, it's also possible that he didn't go doctor when the symptoms first appeared.
If this GOP race is ran 50 times then each and every time Rubio will remain as the last man standing ...the race may vary each time insomuch who wins the early states but the end result will always be the same RUBIO WINS ...look upon it as a form of political evolution in process !
The race may look like a maze of twists and turns but in retrospect it will become clear that Rubio was always going to win , as inevitable as water finding its own way down a hill , because Rubio just ticks sooo many boxes and is by far the best candidate and the ONLY one who is polling better than Hilary
Nate Silver is exactly correct insomuch the Blue States primaries are weighted in favour of a ''moderate conservative ''and Ted Cruz is a redneck zealot ...the further away the race moves from the evangelical states of the South and Bible Belt , then the worse he will do
The lasting impact of both Cruz and Trump will be to have made a conservative candidate look moderate as he wins the White House !
We've lost a rare guy. Witty, warty and known by a single name. Not many of those come around in a lifetime.
I suppose he was diagnosed at quite a late stage, hence how rapid it appears. I don't think it is the case that the cancer only started on Boxing day. Still, RIP.
Rather than commit to the debate and dialogue Corbyn so desperately wanted, several briefed against him and made public their disagreements with the leader who had empowered them. Like naughty children at home or in the classroom, they were given extra responsibilities and they abused them.
This was particularly apparent during the Syria vote a few weeks ago, where Corbyn demonstrated his fairness once again in offering Labour MPs a free vote. In voting with the Tories and rallying around an entirely contradictory argument - as presented in a speech by the Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn – certain members of Corbyn’s cabinet made it painfully clear how they were going to repay their leader’s faith in them.
So Corbyn wants "debate and dialogue", but only with those who agree with him? He was fair in offering MPs a free vote but it was unfair of MPs to utilise that freedom to vote and speak against Corbyn's view?
And of course, that's before we get into the history of loyalty towards the leadership given by those now making these arguments.
I seem to recall Alec Guinness died within 48 hours of being diagnosed with prostate cancer - not because he had an especially aggressive cancer, but because he put the symptoms down to old age when they first appeared and didn't get them treated for months.
We've lost a rare guy. Witty, warty and known by a single name. Not many of those come around in a lifetime.
He was certainly a big personality, I don't know why but I thought for some reason he had left us a while ago. I imagine that the funeral and wake will be somewhat more lively than these things usually are - always wanted to hear Ace of Spades at a funeral! Rest in Peace you mad man!
Trump has no chance of winning the nomination , so as long as RUBIO comes in second it is a defacto victory !
It would also of course lead to the first US election in history where the average age of the candidates is over 70!
The original Hawkwind version of Motorhead is just so different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6OuyJKnIyU He was certainly a big personality, I don't know why but I thought for some reason he had left us a while ago. I imagine that the funeral and wake will be somewhat more lively than these things usually are - always wanted to hear Ace of Spades at a funeral! Rest in Peace you mad man!
What happens if he wins New Hampshire too? It's by no means impossible - he's only a couple of percent behind Rubio, and I could see Trump, Rubio and Cruz all in the low 20s.
Cruz has now won New Hampshire and Iowa.
Where's the first state Rubio will definitely win? Not his home state of Florida, where Trump leads by a mile. And Rubio is polling behind Cruz.
If he's not careful, Rubio's campaign is over before he has time to become the inevitable nominee.
He's a socially liberal New York Jew.
But he's also genuinely competent, genuinely self made, and would collect from both.
He is also worth $40bn "for reals" (as my five year old son would put it). He could sell 10% of his Bloomberg (the company) stake for $4bn in about 20 minutes if he wanted to. Trump would be much more dependent on traditional Republican donors: many of whom abhor his anti-business rhetoric.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/brave-new-world-how-the-liberal-democrats-must-use-multipotentialism-to-survive-48766.html
The best quote:
"If the Liberal Democrats are to survive as a party then it must move its practices into a new age based on three key principles of polymathic, multipotentialist evolution rather than on linear process"
He ticks so many boxes for the Republican big business establishment, true. Many republican voters hate that establishment more than they hate the democrats. They have seen that establishment play ball with a president they cannot abide.
https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/681779616634302464
He will run and he stands a good chance of winning: better, at the moment, than anyone else.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377144/Two-ISIS-militants-arrested-plot-launch-terror-attacks-Brussels-New-Year-s-Eve-police-jihadi-material-military-clothing-house-searches.html
Maybe not the Ace of Spades. Apparently, he was so bored of it that live he sang Eight of Spades. But nobody noticed....
There is a wonderful documentary on Hawkwind. Watch from 22 minutes in for how Lemmy joined. And how they used sonic weapons. On their audience. Classic....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzAldD6t-ps
If the two established parties choose divisive candidates, will the electoral college system allow a independent to actually come through the middle and win the Presidency? I'm sure Bloomberg could get a nationwide plurality of the vote, but not sure that there's enough EC votes in the swing states for him to actually win the race.
Rubio will win Florida and if he failed it really would be all over for him ..Rubio will indeed win Florida !...Trump could be out of the race by Florida and even if he has managed to hang on he will be defeated in Florida
Polling for Primaries must be ''read between the lines '' as they have little predictive value until about 3 days before the vote
Rubio will definitely win Nevada and it could be the first state he actually wins !
Bill Clinton lost the first 5 states and only won one state out of the first eleven and that's why he was called the ''comeback kid ''
Cruz is a very poor candidate who only has a narrow provincial , regional appeal !
Hilary is praying that Cruz is the nominee because she knows , intuitively , that she will be defeated by Rubio !
The final insult.
That song you're so bored of is probably the one that means that you're not driving taxis or working in a supermarket.
People vote for parties. Every metric possible supports this.
That's a pretty formidable EV headstart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz2KnXcwPN0
He is wrong in other ways, the tory party for one is not a locomotive 'confined to the tracks they roll upon.' It has evolved beyond the old industrial age the writer goes on about and wants the LDs to mimic. Perversely as he looks to the future he is living in the past.
I'm sure Scotland's topography is helpful but the scale of water management appears massively larger than any that happens in England. The Forth Valley, especially around Stirling should flood every single year (and much of it is so low lying that any attempts at flood defence would be near impossible requiring Levies over 5 meters at least over huge distances). It doesn't because the water is moved from that watershed to the sea lochs and Clyde watersheds.
The key is that once the water is in the river, it is too late to effectively prevent or reduce flooding. From the TV coverage, it seems shoring up the rivers is the focus of the Westminster government policy instead of them telling the water companies that management of water between watersheds is their responsibility.
The idea of Privatised Water seems ridiculous to me, and clearly it does not work. It is strange that re-nationalising Water seems to be so low on the agenda, well behind much less critical choices like Mail, Railways and even Electricity.
First, it used to be that loss-making tours subsidised record sales but now tours are where the money is made.
Second, bands have become their own tribute bands. In the old days, bands on tour did the new album (to promote sales) and one or two standards to keep fans from rioting. Then came tribute bands who performed the greatest hits, and played them just like on the records with no fancy new harmonisation or other nonsense you'd get from the real band. But now touring is so profitable, all the real bands are coming out of retirement to play their own back catalogues.
Ironically, a common complaint now is that 60- and 70-year-old singers' voices have gone.
A candidate who cannot win either party's nomination cannot win the 40% or so of the national vote necessary to win the Electoral College. A candidate who can win a party nomination will undoubtedly do so in preference to going it alone.
It might be more than a century ago but 1912 remains the classic example of why the numbers almost inevitably don't stack up (and Bloomberg is no Roosevelt, and TR would have won the nomination under current rules anyway).
And doubly so when the band has decided to have a change of direction and you get an hour of WTFIsThis? with a couple of the ones you actually liked tacked on.
Worst one I experienced was Rush on Signals. Just terrible. That the cover art was a dog peeing on a hydrant summed it up.
But then, no joke could possibly exceed Diane Abbott as SFS, John Mcdonnell as Chancellor and Jezbollah as leader. That would be a great joke - if only it were in any way funny.
There's so much up in the air with this election, and I'm not too sure a lot of it will be sorted out before polling day. The GOP still have a dozen candidates, Trump is still in it and might run on his own anyway. Bloomberg possibly running, Clinton and her emails, Bernie Sanders (the American Corbyn) and on and on. One of these nutters will be the leader of the free world a year from now!!
Bloomberg is 330 on Betfair, On for three quid to make a grand.
Sadly, however, I suspect you are being too generous. It looks like the knives are out for Benn and when you think about it, other than the losers, the weirdos, the failures and the genuinely stupid - who else will agree to serve such an unpleasant and divisive figure, especially on the terms Corbyn appears to want to set? As for Crosby, a knighthood is the traditional reward for services to the Party on such a scale - and the outrage of it could easily be eclipsed by the horror of what is happening to the Reds.
It's a tragedy for our democracy. But Labour's leadership don't appear to care about that - perpetual one party rule by their traditional enemies is worth the price of staying ideologically pure and therefore self-righteous.
EDIT - and of course, the Conservatives are enjoying themselves too much to be sensible or restrained. Must be fair.
Scotland 68/sq km
England 413/sq km
The reason I doubt Crosby's knighthood is that I don't think Crosby would want one: it would not play well in Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eluYcLz4s54
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Cumbria
Tsk. It's built of stone. Will these professional victims never get their damn facts right?
Signed, Disgusted of Cannock Chase.
Lest we forget Basil
Signed, Disgusted of Cannock Chase.
Clearly Morris Dancer is involved with this protest.
England backed into 1.33 now, 8.8 the hosts and 6.8 the draw. Those odds sounds about right. I've backed England and laid the draw.
“I like having all this stuff around because it’s a reminder of what happened,” he wrote. “… I don’t understand people who believe that if you ignore something, it’ll go away. That’s completely wrong — if it’s ignored it gathers strength.”