Seamus Milne must be in line for a performance bonus given how well he is handling the media over this reshuffle. Imagine 4-6 weeks of a GE campaign with him in charge....
He's certainly getting a lot of coverage for Labour.
At the least, it asks Cook how aggressive he wants to be. It also raises the possibility of bowling England out, should they try to score quick runs, or - more likely - generate a declaration some time before lunch tomorrow setting SA 300ish in something over two sessions on what's still a good pitch. The risk, of course, is that they then get bowled out but on the evidence so far, they really shouldn't.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
I'm as much a fan of the counter factual as others, but had we kept out of WW1 (which would have been a good idea), we'd still have had to take on Germany at some point if aiming to maintain the balance of power.
The great lesson to be learned from counter factuals is that the best examples often lead to very similar results - forces of history are generally greater than single events.
On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
I think the first few synthetic elements were a bit of a "wow" moment - it was the fulfillment of a good centuries work.
In terms of the newer ones - they're almost like stamp collecting. Although it is impressive that they can do enough chemistry on those odd atoms to confirm the discoveries. If a 'stable island' is found, then that would be spectacular news.
Yeah, 118 was supposed to be stabler wasn't it? Apparently (hat tip Wikipedia) it's ~ 1 millisecond half life is "longer than predicted" (!!)
Which brings me back to WHY...
You just answered your own question
It is surely important because they do exist even if only for an instant. They exist because the nature of the our very existence allows them to exist. The very nature of our existence is surely important issue to consider along with the nature of what we exist within. Always assuming we exist at all.
At the least, it asks Cook how aggressive he wants to be. It also raises the possibility of bowling England out, should they try to score quick runs, or - more likely - generate a declaration some time before lunch tomorrow setting SA 300ish in something over two sessions on what's still a good pitch. The risk, of course, is that they then get bowled out but on the evidence so far, they really shouldn't.
It's a good thought. I'd expect a conservative declaration from Cook though. He's up in the series and doesn't really need to give SA a sniff.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
Our not joining WW1 is the most seductive of all counterfactuals but it's so huge that it's idle to speculate as to how it would have turned out. German victory, almost certainly, but then....
I believe The Kaiser had plans to attack and recolonise the USA. I think he'd have struggled, but it would have been an interesting attempt.
Here's another interesting 'what if'. The US apparently really did have a plan for war with the UK in the late 1920s/ early 1930s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
@bbclaurak: Blimey.. a whisper that Benn might be sacked after all, source tells me they thought they'd avoided a shad cabinet walk out, might not be so
This "reshuffle" was trailed as seeking to have the Shadow Cabinet speaking with one voice on foreign policy and defence issues, the difference on which were apparently undermining the "unprecedented unity on domestic and economic policy". But seriously, beyond general sloganizing about "opposing cuts/austerity" and a half-baked policy on renationalisation of the railways, does anyone know what Labour "domestic and economic policies" are?
@bbclaurak: Blimey.. a whisper that Benn might be sacked after all, source tells me they thought they'd avoided a shad cabinet walk out, might not be so
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
Our not joining WW1 is the most seductive of all counterfactuals but it's so huge that it's idle to speculate as to how it would have turned out. German victory, almost certainly, but then....
I believe The Kaiser had plans to attack and recolonise the USA. I think he'd have struggled, but it would have been an interesting attempt.
Here's another interesting 'what if'. The US apparently really did have a plan for war with the UK in the late 1920s/ early 1930s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
At the least, it asks Cook how aggressive he wants to be. It also raises the possibility of bowling England out, should they try to score quick runs, or - more likely - generate a declaration some time before lunch tomorrow setting SA 300ish in something over two sessions on what's still a good pitch. The risk, of course, is that they then get bowled out but on the evidence so far, they really shouldn't.
It's a good thought. I'd expect a conservative declaration from Cook though. He's up in the series and doesn't really need to give SA a sniff.
I don't think South Africa's bowlers would appreciate their captain voluntarily giving them another 4 sessions in the field.
@bbclaurak: Blimey.. a whisper that Benn might be sacked after all, source tells me they thought they'd avoided a shad cabinet walk out, might not be so
You just can't make this s##t up.
He's going to be sacked because they reckon there won't be a walkout, or there's going to be a walkout anyway so they might as well sack him anyway?
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
Our not joining WW1 is the most seductive of all counterfactuals but it's so huge that it's idle to speculate as to how it would have turned out. German victory, almost certainly, but then....
I believe The Kaiser had plans to attack and recolonise the USA. I think he'd have struggled, but it would have been an interesting attempt.
from the various tweets/reaction, etc it's almost as though all the others (or "cowards" as we call them) are waiting for/willing Dugher to up and form a breakaway Lab group.
from the various tweets/reaction, etc it's almost as though all the others (or "cowards" as we call them) are waiting for/willing Dugher to up and form a breakaway Lab group.
At the least, it asks Cook how aggressive he wants to be. It also raises the possibility of bowling England out, should they try to score quick runs, or - more likely - generate a declaration some time before lunch tomorrow setting SA 300ish in something over two sessions on what's still a good pitch. The risk, of course, is that they then get bowled out but on the evidence so far, they really shouldn't.
It's a good thought. I'd expect a conservative declaration from Cook though. He's up in the series and doesn't really need to give SA a sniff.
I don't think South Africa's bowlers would appreciate their captain voluntarily giving them another 4 sessions in the field.
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
Our not joining WW1 is the most seductive of all counterfactuals but it's so huge that it's idle to speculate as to how it would have turned out. German victory, almost certainly, but then....
I believe The Kaiser had plans to attack and recolonise the USA. I think he'd have struggled, but it would have been an interesting attempt.
I'm a regular on Alternate History forums and I've never seen reference to that - although if someone did try to put it forward, it'd immediately be filed under ASB.
I don't think even Hitler had a plan to occupy the US: that's why he was trying to build ICBMs.
from the various tweets/reaction, etc it's almost as though all the others (or "cowards" as we call them) are waiting for/willing Dugher to up and form a breakaway Lab group.
One shadow cabinet source also argues that ‘we do not look particularly strong at the moment, but Corbyn doesn’t look strong either, given it doesn’t look like he’s going as far as he threatened’. They know that they are basically trapped: they want to serve their party and keep it in reasonable shape for the post-Corbyn era, whenever that comes, and they fear that their mass resignations would not usher in that post-Corbyn era any quicker. But they also don’t want to appear to be prolonging the Corbyn era any longer than necessary. And so it looks as though most frontbenchers will just plod along after this reshuffle in much the same miserable way as they did before.
One shadow cabinet source also argues that ‘we do not look particularly strong at the moment, but Corbyn doesn’t look strong either, given it doesn’t look like he’s going as far as he threatened’. They know that they are basically trapped: they want to serve their party and keep it in reasonable shape for the post-Corbyn era, whenever that comes, and they fear that their mass resignations would not usher in that post-Corbyn era any quicker. But they also don’t want to appear to be prolonging the Corbyn era any longer than necessary. And so it looks as though most frontbenchers will just plod along after this reshuffle in much the same miserable way as they did before.
The stand in shadsy had remain at evens on his board on #bbcdp - and I was like so going to tell you about it (think it might have been an in-joke for those with calculators)
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity. 2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast. Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.
Our not joining WW1 is the most seductive of all counterfactuals but it's so huge that it's idle to speculate as to how it would have turned out. German victory, almost certainly, but then....
I believe The Kaiser had plans to attack and recolonise the USA. I think he'd have struggled, but it would have been an interesting attempt.
Here's another interesting 'what if'. The US apparently really did have a plan for war with the UK in the late 1920s/ early 1930s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
A plan 'to initiate war' no less. Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The US has always been against Britain. That's the bottom line; the rest is just window dressing.
@bbclaurak: Blimey.. a whisper that Benn might be sacked after all, source tells me they thought they'd avoided a shad cabinet walk out, might not be so
That's the first good news I have heard today. If some in the shadow cabinet walks out, the answer should be : "Good riddance". There are 220 MPs willing to fill their places.
Somehow, given their ambitions, there will hardly be any resignations.
Who do these guys think they are ? Run a parallel policy to that of the leader.
@bbclaurak: Blimey.. a whisper that Benn might be sacked after all, source tells me they thought they'd avoided a shad cabinet walk out, might not be so
That's the first good news I have heard today. If some in the shadow cabinet walks out, the answer should be : "Good riddance". There are 220 MPs willing to fill their places.
...
No there aren't. If there were, half the current SC wouldn't be there.
@bbclaurak: Blimey.. a whisper that Benn might be sacked after all, source tells me they thought they'd avoided a shad cabinet walk out, might not be so
That's the first good news I have heard today. If some in the shadow cabinet walks out, the answer should be : "Good riddance". There are 220 MPs willing to fill their places.
Somehow, given their ambitions, there will hardly be any resignations.
Who do these guys think they are ? Run a parallel policy to that of the leader.
220 MPs willing to fill their places? – What nonsense is this, Corbyn struggled to fill the shadow cabinet just three months ago and is even less popular now than he was then.
The first four lines of Pascal's triangle. But it runs out there. I'm not aware of any practical use for this, mind.
That is, or rather was, glorious thing about Number Theory, beyond party tricks and helping accountants it had no value in the real world whatsoever. One did it for the fun of thing it, nothing else - not like calculus, complex numbers and all that grubby stuff beloved by engineers. As Hardy, who spent his whole adult life engaged in Number Theory (when he wasn't watching or playing cricket), said in his lovely book, A Mathematician's Apology (still in print and well worth a read):
"I have never done anything 'useful'. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world."
Then someone went and invented the internet and suddenly all that stuff that Hardy (and many others) had discovered suddenly became useful, even essential, for modern day commerce. I rather think that the old boy is spinning in his grave
The first four lines of Pascal's triangle. But it runs out there. I'm not aware of any practical use for this, mind.
That is, or rather was, glorious thing about Number Theory, beyond party tricks and helping accountants it had no value in the real world whatsoever. One did it for the fun of thing it, nothing else - not like calculus, complex numbers and all that grubby stuff beloved by engineers. As Hardy, who spent his whole adult life engaged in Number Theory (when he wasn't watching or playing cricket), said in his lovely book, A Mathematician's Apology (still in print and well worth a read):
"I have never done anything 'useful'. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world."
Then someone went and invented the internet and suddenly all that stuff that Hardy (and many others) had discovered suddenly became useful, even essential, for modern day commerce. I rather think that the old boy is spinning in his grave
Wasn't it all rather useful in cryptography sometime before Al Gore invented the interthingysomething?
@bbclaurak: Blimey.. a whisper that Benn might be sacked after all, source tells me they thought they'd avoided a shad cabinet walk out, might not be so
That's the first good news I have heard today. If some in the shadow cabinet walks out, the answer should be : "Good riddance". There are 220 MPs willing to fill their places.
Somehow, given their ambitions, there will hardly be any resignations.
Who do these guys think they are ? Run a parallel policy to that of the leader.
Comments
@GraemeDemianyk: Since some in the Shadow Cabinet have had no contact with the leader, much less a chat, could we get a day three? Tantric #reshuffle
At the least, it asks Cook how aggressive he wants to be. It also raises the possibility of bowling England out, should they try to score quick runs, or - more likely - generate a declaration some time before lunch tomorrow setting SA 300ish in something over two sessions on what's still a good pitch. The risk, of course, is that they then get bowled out but on the evidence so far, they really shouldn't.
The great lesson to be learned from counter factuals is that the best examples often lead to very similar results - forces of history are generally greater than single events.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/05/bbc-newsreader-mispronounces-jeremy-hunts-name-during-radio-broadcast_n_8915962.html?1452000051
Always assuming we exist at all.
"No! Ha! We'll show the MSM who's boss. In our own time!"
Ok. Who's taking the statements?
"The what?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/labour-comrades-rally-around-their-fallen-attack-dog/
http://familygeeks.com/2012/04/beauty-in-numbers/
http://order-order.com/2016/01/05/last-orders-at-labours-local/
Bloody Tory cuts or something like that...
I don't think even Hitler had a plan to occupy the US: that's why he was trying to build ICBMs.
CIneworld cinemas aren't showing The Hateful Eight.
Incredibly stupid.
i.e. We are going to do f##k all and pray that Corbyn eventually goes, because that tactic worked so well with Brown and Miliband.
Well I still maintain his crappest work is still more entertaining the best of most other directors
His movies, yes. His TV persona....not so much.
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/british/eu-referendum/uk-european-referendum/220800266/
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/684370614874943489
I'm SO looking forward to the diaries for this period of Labour's history.
Somehow, given their ambitions, there will hardly be any resignations.
Who do these guys think they are ? Run a parallel policy to that of the leader.
"I have never done anything 'useful'. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world."
Then someone went and invented the internet and suddenly all that stuff that Hardy (and many others) had discovered suddenly became useful, even essential, for modern day commerce. I rather think that the old boy is spinning in his grave