On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
Our political system currently sees a general election trying to do three things:
(1) Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters without allowing parties to stitch up the result without reference to the voters (2) Elect a legislature that represents the political balance of the country (3) Elect a super social worker ("I must write to my MP about that") for every area of the country - party is irrelevant to this.
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
Not directly, no. But by intention? Certainly.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
American Presidents are not elected by FPTP.
Just ask President Gore.
US Presidents are, indeed, indirectly elected by FPTP in the UK in the same way as UK PMs are. The only structural difference is that their constituencies don't all have the same weight.
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate? Or some for John Major becoming PM being told to the electorate in 1987?
Again irrelevant to both the electoral system used and even whether directly elected or not. Mid term takeovers happen in all electoral types and both directly and indirectly elected elections.
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
American Presidents are not elected by FPTP.
Just ask President Gore.
Actually they are but a weird FPTP with state wide multi member constituencies. But Congress is elected by FPTP.
The fact we don't directly elect our PM has zero to do with the voting system, it would be the same under any system and is entirely due to our Parliamentary system. Scotland with PR doesn't directly elected it's First Minister either.
Sorry, it's not even close to FPTP.
Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush and lost.
Because he lost the Electoral College which is elected by FPTP in almost every state. Educate yourself.
An FPTP election is by definition a winner takes all plurality.
The electoral college is not a winner takes all plurality. It is a very unusual (perhaps unique?) system which actually uses different methods between electors in the same election. It is truly bizarre but definitely not FPTP.
Will not be long before Jessop is on whinging about Dair
Whereas you whinge on about everyone and everything. You really ought to get your drunken first-year undergraduates to reprogram you with a sunnier disposition, ELIZA.
Still, they've probably given up on your program as a bad lot and moved onto something more complex and useful, such as a dating program.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate? Or some for John Major becoming PM being told to the electorate in 1987?
Again irrelevant to both the electoral system used and even whether directly elected or not. Mid term takeovers happen in all electoral types and both directly and indirectly elected elections.
It's very relevant to Three Quidders nonsensical Three Tests for why FPTP is a "good idea". Two of those are that it elects a PM and elects a government but it actually does neither of those. Even on his third test - of electing a local "super social worker" this is true but of interest and relevance to virtually nobody.
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
American Presidents are not elected by FPTP.
Just ask President Gore.
Actually they are but a weird FPTP with state wide multi member constituencies. But Congress is elected by FPTP.
The fact we don't directly elect our PM has zero to do with the voting system, it would be the same under any system and is entirely due to our Parliamentary system. Scotland with PR doesn't directly elected it's First Minister either.
Sorry, it's not even close to FPTP.
Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush and lost.
Because he lost the Electoral College which is elected by FPTP in almost every state. Educate yourself.
An FPTP election is by definition a winner takes all plurality.
The electoral college is not a winner takes all plurality. It is a very unusual (perhaps unique?) system which actually uses different methods between electors in the same election. It is truly bizarre but definitely not FPTP.
Congress is fully FPTP.
So is the Electoral College. All States apart from Maine and Nebraska use a multimember state wide constituency that is elected FPTP. Maine and Nebraska use their congressional districts and elect them by FPTP.
It is a weird example if FPTP but it is fully FPTP. Just not a single national constituency but nothing about FPTP requires that.
On topic, electoral reform is not the same as political reform.
....
And of course, Mr Quid is quite wrong.
Point 1 should read: Elect a prime minister and a government by the voters, who can command a majority of votes in the House of Commons.
Point 2 is quite right.
Point 3 is a strategy to win votes, not an objective. (This point seems to come straight our of the Tory Party handbook.)
So I apologise to Mr Quid for having said that he was entirely wrong. His post was a bit of a curate`s egg.
If you don't allow the electorate to elect a majority of MPs from one party, you get the parties stitching up the PM/government without reference to the voters. As happened in 2010.
And the "super social worker" is unquestionably by consensus a big part of the job. If it weren't, you wouldn't hear about "good constituency MPs".
No voter in any election in the history of the United Kingdom has voted for a Prime Minister or Executive. That alone makes FPTP complete broken.
Not directly, no. But by intention? Certainly.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
American Presidents are not elected by FPTP.
Just ask President Gore.
Don't be stupid. America is a continental wide federal country with 50 states each with their own governments. The way their president is elected is based on winning a contest in each of those states - its a winner takes all contest, the first past the post in each state takes all. The federal and state congresses are elected by FPTP constituencies. Thereafter the President appoints his entire executive, some may come from Congress but most do not. Nearly all - like McNamara who pursued the Vietnam War - are appointed and not accountable to Congress. No post to pass at all in their cases.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate? Or some for John Major becoming PM being told to the electorate in 1987?
We are wandering off the point but "vote Blair: get Brown" started life as a Tory slogan but it turned out voters quite liked the idea, as by then Blair was tainted by Iraq.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate?
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate? Or some for John Major becoming PM being told to the electorate in 1987?
Again irrelevant to both the electoral system used and even whether directly elected or not. Mid term takeovers happen in all electoral types and both directly and indirectly elected elections.
It's very relevant to Three Quidders nonsensical Three Tests for why FPTP is a "good idea". Two of those are that it elects a PM and elects a government but it actually does neither of those. Even on his third test - of electing a local "super social worker" this is true but of interest and relevance to virtually nobody.
FPTP doesn't do that alone, Westminster does. FPTP determines who we elect. Just as Holyrood chooses a First Minister (Who can change midterm) and would if it switched to FPTP.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate? Or some for John Major becoming PM being told to the electorate in 1987?
We are wandering off the point but "vote Blair: get Brown" started life as a Tory slogan but it turned out voters quite liked the idea, as by then Blair was tainted by Iraq.
On Roger's recommendation I went to see the Big Short yesterday with my daughter. There are aspects of it that are nearer documentary than drama and they struggled occasionally in describing the sheer madness of what had been going on.
But there were some great scenes. I particularly liked the one when what would loosely be called the hero was wanting to ask a lap dancer about her mortgages and asked her to stop moving about as it was too distracting.
My daughter, who knew less about it, left a bit shocked and frightened. I remembered my anger that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.
I can't really see it getting best picture but it is well worth a watch.
My original thought was that it wouldn't get 'best picture' because of the misogyny. All the women in it were either topless or poll dancers. Otherwise I thought it a very entertaining film which as you say tackled a potentially dry subject in an original way.
Nonetheless It's 12/1 odds were way too long. Yesterday it won the Producers Prize which has correctly predicted the Best Picture Oscar for the last 8 years. So on the basis that the misogyny wasn't an issue I'd make it second favourite. Unfortunately yesterday morning the bookmakers had the same idea and the odds dropped dramatically.
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
American Presidents are not elected by FPTP.
Just ask President Gore.
Actually they are but a weird FPTP with state wide multi member constituencies. But Congress is elected by FPTP.
The fact we don't directly elect our PM has zero to do with the voting system, it would be the same under any system and is entirely due to our Parliamentary system. Scotland with PR doesn't directly elected it's First Minister either.
Sorry, it's not even close to FPTP.
Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush and lost.
Because he lost the Electoral College which is elected by FPTP in almost every state. Educate yourself.
An FPTP election is by definition a winner takes all plurality.
The electoral college is not a winner takes all plurality. It is a very unusual (perhaps unique?) system which actually uses different methods between electors in the same election. It is truly bizarre but definitely not FPTP.
Congress is fully FPTP.
So is the Electoral College. All States apart from Maine and Nebraska use a multimember state wide constituency that is elected FPTP. Maine and Nebraska use their congressional districts and elect them by FPTP.
It is a weird example if FPTP but it is fully FPTP. Just not a single national constituency but nothing about FPTP requires that.
You don't quite get how the Electoral College works, do you.
Did you know that the delegates can, quite legally, vote for the other candidate than the one they were supposedly chosen to vote for?
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate?
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate? Or some for John Major becoming PM being told to the electorate in 1987?
We are wandering off the point but "vote Blair: get Brown" started life as a Tory slogan but it turned out voters quite liked the idea, as by then Blair was tainted by Iraq.
Besides it doesn't make FPTP broken it just means we don't have a directly elected PM.
America has FPTP and a directly elected President.
American Presidents are not elected by FPTP.
Just ask President Gore.
Actually they are but a weird FPTP with state wide multi member constituencies. But Congress is elected by FPTP.
The fact we don't directly elect our PM has zero to do with the voting system, it would be the same under any system and is entirely due to our Parliamentary system. Scotland with PR doesn't directly elected it's First Minister either.
Sorry, it's not even close to FPTP.
Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush and lost.
Because he lost the Electoral College which is elected by FPTP in almost every state. Educate yourself.
An FPTP election is by definition a winner takes all plurality.
The electoral college is not a winner takes all plurality. It is a very unusual (perhaps unique?) system which actually uses different methods between electors in the same election. It is truly bizarre but definitely not FPTP.
Congress is fully FPTP.
So is the Electoral College. All States apart from Maine and Nebraska use a multimember state wide constituency that is elected FPTP. Maine and Nebraska use their congressional districts and elect them by FPTP.
It is a weird example if FPTP but it is fully FPTP. Just not a single national constituency but nothing about FPTP requires that.
You don't quite get how the Electoral College works, do you.
Did you know that the delegates can, quite legally, vote for the other candidate than the one they were supposedly chosen to vote for?
Yes just as MPs can. How is that relevant to whether they were elected by FPTP or another system?
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Yep if it wasn't for the Daily Mail no one would for a moment think that IS was targeting the UK.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
George Osborne announces a three billion pound partnership with Bill Gates to eliminate malaria by the end of the decade, the money coming from the foreign aid budget. Would imagine it will be well received by many
I think this story may be a hoax. If it was true it would be important and great news but just watched the BBC news and it was not mentioned at all!
The BBC says in its round-up of the papers: The Times leads on a funding pledge by the UK and Microsoft founder Bill Gates to help eradicate malaria. It says the chancellor is to commit £2.5bn to research in the next five years from the international development budget, with £700m coming from Mr Gates's foundation. But the Times notes that UK spending on malaria will not be rising.
So tbh I'm baffled. Are we or are we not committing any more funds?
Politics-wise, once more it shows the heir-to-Brown Chancellor sidelining his Cabinet colleagues.
Thanks.So it looks like the Times front page lead is basically a reannouncement from last November, and possibly the previous parliament. So at least I've saved a few quid by not subscribing to the "newspaper of record" (and playback, it would appear).
To be fair If you want to criticise renouncements then Brown and the last Labour governments perfected the art by announcing the same policy and more often than not expenditure, over and over again albeit with a different twist or spin.
Labour paid £2.4million for leaflet delivery services from Whistl, a controversial Dutch logistics group which has been slammed for employing its staff on zero hours contracts.
You don't quite get how the Electoral College works, do you.
Did you know that the delegates can, quite legally, vote for the other candidate than the one they were supposedly chosen to vote for?
Yes just as MPs can. How is that relevant to whether they were elected by FPTP or another system?
You claimed, wrongly, that American presidents are elected by FPTP.
They are not.
Each state elects delegates, some on a Winner Takes All state wide multimember basis, some on a single member geographic basis who then elect a president but do not have to follow the voters choice in the election they were sent as delegates from.
If you're going to continue to, wrongly, insist this is a FPTP election for the American president, then good luck to you.
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Yep if it wasn't for the Daily Mail no one would for a moment think that IS was targeting the UK.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
MG No nerve touched .. just a realisation that you really are an obnoxious little man..sad really..no idea why you think it is odd that someone has a GP in London when they spend a great deal of the time there...
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate? Or some for John Major becoming PM being told to the electorate in 1987?
Again irrelevant to both the electoral system used and even whether directly elected or not. Mid term takeovers happen in all electoral types and both directly and indirectly elected elections.
It's very relevant to Three Quidders nonsensical Three Tests for why FPTP is a "good idea". Two of those are that it elects a PM and elects a government but it actually does neither of those. Even on his third test - of electing a local "super social worker" this is true but of interest and relevance to virtually nobody.
You appear to have totally misunderstood my post.
I am not proposing tests for FPTP, I am explaining how our electoral system is used in reality rather than in theory as an explanation why just changing the voting system won't solve all our political problems.
I have to work now so won't be able to reply much. HAGD.
You don't quite get how the Electoral College works, do you.
Did you know that the delegates can, quite legally, vote for the other candidate than the one they were supposedly chosen to vote for?
Yes just as MPs can. How is that relevant to whether they were elected by FPTP or another system?
You claimed, wrongly, that American presidents are elected by FPTP.
They are not.
Each state elects delegates, some on a Winner Takes All state wide multimember basis, some on a single member geographic basis who then elect a president but do not have to follow the voters choice in the election they were sent as delegates from.
If you're going to continue to, wrongly, insist this is a FPTP election for the American president, then good luck to you.
You are only fooling yourself.
They are elected by FPTP. It's a College elected to do one job only (choose the President and Veep) entirely elected by FPTP primarily under multimember FPTP constituencies.
The fact that once the election is over those elected are not obliged to honour the platform they stood on has nothing to do with the electoral method used. Just as David Cameron's predecessor in Witney was elected on a platform for voting Conservatives under FPTP but then switched to Labour.
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Yep if it wasn't for the Daily Mail no one would for a moment think that IS was targeting the UK.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
One for you, Sam
scythingly amusing youtube clip posted by TOPPING clipped
Ooh clever clever
I bet you are a bag of nerves when you go to Chinatown for Dim Sum.
Not even by intention. You cannot vote for a PM or Executive under FPTP electing local representatives because the outcome for a PM or Executive is outwith your hands.
Tell that to all the people voting for a PM.
So, I should tell it to no-one then.
Who voted for PM Gordon Brown, out of interest?
Several million, since it was known at the 2005 election that he'd be taking over from Blair during that parliament. "Vote Blair, Get Brown".
And then several million again in 2010 - though of course many more voted for Cameron as PM.
You have some evidence of this proposed takeover by Brown being told to the electorate?
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Yep if it wasn't for the Daily Mail no one would for a moment think that IS was targeting the UK.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
One for you, Sam
scythingly amusing youtube clip posted by TOPPING clipped
Ooh clever clever
I bet you are a bag of nerves when you go to Chinatown for Dim Sum.
A bag of mixed hors d'ouerves!
Yes let's not mention the fact that the people who commited the biggest Terrorist act in recent times have made a video threatening to do the same here, then they might not do it, bound to work, great idea
I mentioned it 17,741 times but I think I got away with it
Labour paid £2.4million for leaflet delivery services from Whistl, a controversial Dutch logistics group which has been slammed for employing its staff on zero hours contracts.
Whatever next, we find that Labour bought all their staffers their outfits from Sports Direct?
This is the same Labour party that campaigns for a living way and then offers unpaid intern positions, the same Labour that campaigns against ZHCs then finds that there are more Labour MPs with ZHC employees than any other party?
I think we should move away from reporting Labour's hypocrisy and instead report when they do something with integrity, there would be very few news reports about them.
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Yep if it wasn't for the Daily Mail no one would for a moment think that IS was targeting the UK.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
One for you, Sam
scythingly amusing youtube clip posted by TOPPING clipped
Ooh clever clever
I bet you are a bag of nerves when you go to Chinatown for Dim Sum.
A bag of mixed hors d'ouerves!
Yes let's not mention the fact that the people who commited the biggest Terrorist act in recent times have made a video threatening to do the same here, then they might not do it, bound to work, great idea
I mentioned it 17,741 times but I think I got away with it
You're afraid, so whatever they're doing, it's clearly working.
The American Navy did grab Enigma machines. The U505 for instance. Its on display in Chicago. The American film you refer to was a work of fiction. A drama. A film. The Enigma was what Hitchcock called 'the mcguffin', the plot device to kick the whole thing off. It was about a conflict between its protagonists, not a historical drama. it may have been a good or bad film but that's a matter of opinion.
Stuart Rose on Today this am for BSE producing irritable blustering of Lord Coe-like proportions. I really don't see what he brings to the table for Remain.
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Yep if it wasn't for the Daily Mail no one would for a moment think that IS was targeting the UK.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
One for you, Sam
scythingly amusing youtube clip posted by TOPPING clipped
Ooh clever clever
I bet you are a bag of nerves when you go to Chinatown for Dim Sum.
A bag of mixed hors d'ouerves!
Yes let's not mention the fact that the people who commited the biggest Terrorist act in recent times have made a video threatening to do the same here, then they might not do it, bound to work, great idea
I mentioned it 17,741 times but I think I got away with it
You're afraid, so whatever they're doing, it's clearly working.
How interesting, if someone is perceived to be afraid of terrorism it is a fault
We should always be on the watch out for enemies watchers watching us
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Yep if it wasn't for the Daily Mail no one would for a moment think that IS was targeting the UK.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
One for you, Sam
scythingly amusing youtube clip posted by TOPPING clipped
Ooh clever clever
I bet you are a bag of nerves when you go to Chinatown for Dim Sum.
A bag of mixed hors d'ouerves!
Yes let's not mention the fact that the people who commited the biggest Terrorist act in recent times have made a video threatening to do the same here, then they might not do it, bound to work, great idea
I mentioned it 17,741 times but I think I got away with it
Or how about we simply don't sensationalise and spread their propaganda?
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Yep if it wasn't for the Daily Mail no one would for a moment think that IS was targeting the UK.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
One for you, Sam
scythingly amusing youtube clip posted by TOPPING clipped
Ooh clever clever
I bet you are a bag of nerves when you go to Chinatown for Dim Sum.
A bag of mixed hors d'ouerves!
Yes let's not mention the fact that the people who commited the biggest Terrorist act in recent times have made a video threatening to do the same here, then they might not do it, bound to work, great idea
I mentioned it 17,741 times but I think I got away with it
Or how about we simply don't sensationalise and spread their propaganda?
Yes I'm sure they would give up on the whole idea if we did that
O/T Britain's adopted new tennis star Johanna Konta has just secured her place in the quarter finals of the Oz Womens Singles and my recent suggestion of backing her to win SPOTY 2016 at 200/1 (now 100/1) with SkyBet looks ever more achievable, but DYOR.
Do you think an article in the Daily Mail which is widely retweeted is or isn't what IS is aiming for?
Or is the news that they want to attack the UK so newsworthy?
"Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
Your man Enoch again? Or is it Trump?
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
Shhhhh if we don't talk about it they might leave us alone
Yep if it wasn't for the Daily Mail no one would for a moment think that IS was targeting the UK.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
One for you, Sam
scythingly amusing youtube clip posted by TOPPING clipped
Ooh clever clever
I bet you are a bag of nerves when you go to Chinatown for Dim Sum.
A bag of mixed hors d'ouerves!
Yes let's not mention the fact that the people who commited the biggest Terrorist act in recent times have made a video threatening to do the same here, then they might not do it, bound to work, great idea
I mentioned it 17,741 times but I think I got away with it
Or how about we simply don't sensationalise and spread their propaganda?
Yes I'm sure they would give up on the whole idea if we did that
No the only way to get them to give up is to spread their propaganda.
Labour paid £2.4million for leaflet delivery services from Whistl, a controversial Dutch logistics group which has been slammed for employing its staff on zero hours contracts.
Whatever next, we find that Labour bought all their staffers their outfits from Sports Direct?
This is the same Labour party that campaigns for a living way and then offers unpaid intern positions, the same Labour that campaigns against ZHCs then finds that there are more Labour MPs with ZHC employees than any other party?
I think we should move away from reporting Labour's hypocrisy and instead report when they do something with integrity, there would be very few news reports about them.
It's the hypocrisy and the cover ups that make the offence worse.
Do all the Labour MPs that advertise for unpaid interns not realise that the likes of Guido have people reading all the Parliamentary job adverts?
Putting it thrugh my google translator it says "Van Gaal Out!"
Thats far too funny for your normal output. Where did you steal it from?
Continuing the sporting these I see that some where suggesting Jimmy Anderson was past it. He has taken the first 3 second innings wickets, 2 in 3 balls.
Stuart Rose on Today this am for BSE producing irritable blustering of Lord Coe-like proportions. I really don't see what he brings to the table for Remain.
The damage done by Mr Corbyn's friends in the IRA went well beyond the dead. For many years the largest element in the economy in NI was the security industry and it was inevitable that the economy would suffer greatly as that was wound down. Even now, as Alastair says, the level of public sector employment is uncomfortably high.
While the pIRA may well be a despicable bunch of child murderers, they are not the cause of any of the problems in Ireland. The idiotic, moronic and fundamentally broken decision to partition the nation is the root of every problem that exists in NI today.
You make it sound as though it was possible to have a different decision given the facts on the ground. "Carson said "What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into Power" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Carson
Carson was an idiot. The UK government were idiots. The Partition of Ireland is probably ahead of the partition of India and the Lines In The Sand as the most moronic and long lasting problem of the British Imperial legacy.
The worst part is that not only would it have prevented the significant problems that the UK has faced over the last 45 years but a substantial Protestant influence on an Irish state might well have mitigated all of its horrific problems with (effective) government by priests.
Carson was not an idiot. He trusted Craig. That was a rookie error - the old rule is 'never turn your back on an Ulster Unionist'
O/T Britain's adopted new tennis star Johanna Konta has just secured her place in the quarter finals of the Oz Womens Singles and my recent suggestion of backing her to win SPOTY 2016 at 200/1 (now 100/1) with SkyBet looks ever more achievable, but DYOR.
A good spot as ever Mr Putney. Not sure the SPOTY crowd would see as as particularly British but if she makes the top 10 her price will come in somewhat. Will she be entering the Olympics, the winner usually comes from the Games when they are on.
The government says Sexual Risk Orders are given in cases where a person has ‘done an act of a sexual nature’ which has given officials ‘reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for an order to be made’, even if the person ‘has never been convicted’. So these individuals aren’t criminals; they’ve just had sex in a way the authorities don’t like.
The authorities have gone from punishing sex crimes to punishing sex, slapping orders on people for behaving in a way that was presumably a little strange, possibly perverted, but not criminal. Through these orders, our rulers have invited themselves into the realm of sex, into what happens between non-criminal, consenting adults. Even the most intimate act that two (or more) grown-ups can engage in is now not free from the prying eyes of officialdom.
Stuart Rose on Today this am for BSE producing irritable blustering of Lord Coe-like proportions. I really don't see what he brings to the table for Remain.
Nor do I. He's a good example of the problems of getting non-politicians to do a political job.
Stuart Rose on Today this am for BSE producing irritable blustering of Lord Coe-like proportions. I really don't see what he brings to the table for Remain.
He was chairman/CEO of M&S once I guess? Maybe BSE are trying to appeal to the middle classes with him, I don't know.
O/T Britain's adopted new tennis star Johanna Konta has just secured her place in the quarter finals of the Oz Womens Singles and my recent suggestion of backing her to win SPOTY 2016 at 200/1 (now 100/1) with SkyBet looks ever more achievable, but DYOR.
It's an Olympic Year and that makes it very hard for Konta. She could win a major but without an Olympic Gold to go with it, she won't win SPOTY.
I actually think Laura Trott might be good value this year. If she has four Golds at the age of 24, that would be completely unprecedented. It still might not be enough as she doesn't have a winnable, known event outside the Olympics. Murray Olympic/Wimbledon double would be a shoe in but Trott's better value (and much more likely - to be honest I don't think its possible for Trott not to get two more Golds).
Out of interest, will Rory McIlroy be eligible if he competes for the Republic at the Olympics? He'll still, technically, be British, so I'd imagine he will.
The damage done by Mr Corbyn's friends in the IRA went well beyond the dead. For many years the largest element in the economy in NI was the security industry and it was inevitable that the economy would suffer greatly as that was wound down. Even now, as Alastair says, the level of public sector employment is uncomfortably high.
While the pIRA may well be a despicable bunch of child murderers, they are not the cause of any of the problems in Ireland. The idiotic, moronic and fundamentally broken decision to partition the nation is the root of every problem that exists in NI today.
And why do you think partition happened?
BTW before I get accused of being some sort of Unionist shill, my family are Irish Republicans to their core and I have no love for Northern Irish Unionism, to put it mildly.
But the issue of how you manage a polity when there are two communities living side by side with fundamentally different conceptions of what that polity should be does not lend itself to easy answers.
On Roger's recommendation I went to see the Big Short yesterday with my daughter. There are aspects of it that are nearer documentary than drama and they struggled occasionally in describing the sheer madness of what had been going on.
But there were some great scenes. I particularly liked the one when what would loosely be called the hero was wanting to ask a lap dancer about her mortgages and asked her to stop moving about as it was too distracting.
My daughter, who knew less about it, left a bit shocked and frightened. I remembered my anger that the people responsible for the largest frauds in history not only got off scot free but even got astonishing piles of taxpayers money to keep them in the standard to which they had become accustomed.
I can't really see it getting best picture but it is well worth a watch.
All the women in it were either topless or poll dancers. Otherwise I thought it a very entertaining film
Stuart Rose on Today this am for BSE producing irritable blustering of Lord Coe-like proportions. I really don't see what he brings to the table for Remain.
He was chairman/CEO of M&S once I guess? Maybe BSE are trying to appeal to the middle classes with him, I don't know.
I suppose, though he could probably do that as a figurehead emanating the occasional manicured soundbite. Absolutely no talent for persuading the punter (& their proxy, the interviewer) to his way of thinking.
I like the Robbie Savage question: “So, what made you leave Parliament?”
I think that's bad news for Labour. Whatever one thinks of Balls, there is no doubt that he was a big beast for them and his exit from politics will make the party worse off. I imagine he sees what is happening to his party right now and counts his blessings that he is not in the same position as Andy Burnham having to go against his every instinct in order to stay loyal to the party.
You don't quite get how the Electoral College works, do you.
Did you know that the delegates can, quite legally, vote for the other candidate than the one they were supposedly chosen to vote for?
Yes just as MPs can. How is that relevant to whether they were elected by FPTP or another system?
You claimed, wrongly, that American presidents are elected by FPTP.
They are not.
Each state elects delegates, some on a Winner Takes All state wide multimember basis, some on a single member geographic basis who then elect a president but do not have to follow the voters choice in the election they were sent as delegates from.
If you're going to continue to, wrongly, insist this is a FPTP election for the American president, then good luck to you.
You are only fooling yourself.
Well the electoral college votes on an FPTP basis.
And the college members are elected on an FPTP basis.
I could not believe R5 report this morning that the BBC are considering appointing ‘luvvies’ including Helen Mirren, Terry Wogan et al to appeal to pensioners to volunteer to pay the licence fee where they are exempt on reaching the age of 75. They are so out of touch and are not fit to run a public body. It appears they can only scheme to close their deficit by pleading poverty to old age pensioners, while paying obscene salaries to useless management and over hyped stars. It is time for the licence fee (poll tax) to be scraped and let the BBC compete with other broadcasters for revenue streams. I would declare an interest as my wife is over 75 and we could pay but would not on the principle of this non starter of an idea
Stuart Rose on Today this am for BSE producing irritable blustering of Lord Coe-like proportions. I really don't see what he brings to the table for Remain.
He was chairman/CEO of M&S once I guess? Maybe BSE are trying to appeal to the middle classes with him, I don't know.
I suppose, though he could probably do that as a figurehead emanating the occasional manicured soundbite. Absolutely no talent for persuading the punter (& their proxy, the interviewer) to his way of thinking.
Most business leaders are really bad at political interviews - they are just not used to having their views robustly challenged, come across as saying that we should remain in the EU because they say so.
Stuart Rose on Today this am for BSE producing irritable blustering of Lord Coe-like proportions. I really don't see what he brings to the table for Remain.
He was chairman/CEO of M&S once I guess? Maybe BSE are trying to appeal to the middle classes with him, I don't know.
I suppose, though he could probably do that as a figurehead emanating the occasional manicured soundbite. Absolutely no talent for persuading the punter (& their proxy, the interviewer) to his way of thinking.
Agree with that. He seems like a poor choice of spokesperson for BSE. I'm surprised they didn't try and get Justin King. If I were either BSE or one of the leave campaigns I would be calling him everyday to try and get his services. A truly successful business person who does have an ability to persuade the masses.
I could not believe R5 report this morning that the BBC are considering appointing ‘luvvies’ including Helen Mirren, Terry Wogan et al to appeal to pensioners to volunteer to pay the licence fee where they are exempt on reaching the age of 75. They are so out of touch and are not fit to run a public body. It appears they can only scheme to close their deficit by pleading poverty to old age pensioners, while paying obscene salaries to useless management and over hyped stars. It is time for the licence fee (poll tax) to be scraped and let the BBC compete with other broadcasters for revenue streams. I would declare an interest as my wife is over 75 and we could pay but would not on the principle of this non starter of an idea
The damage done by Mr Corbyn's friends in the IRA went well beyond the dead. For many years the largest element in the economy in NI was the security industry and it was inevitable that the economy would suffer greatly as that was wound down. Even now, as Alastair says, the level of public sector employment is uncomfortably high.
While the pIRA may well be a despicable bunch of child murderers, they are not the cause of any of the problems in Ireland. The idiotic, moronic and fundamentally broken decision to partition the nation is the root of every problem that exists in NI today.
And why do you think partition happened?
BTW before I get accused of being some sort of Unionist shill, my family are Irish Republicans to their core and I have no love for Northern Irish Unionism, to put it mildly.
But the issue of how you manage a polity when there are two communities living side by side with fundamentally different conceptions of what that polity should be does not lend itself to easy answers.
Another thing to add to the list for conversation.
[but basically it's all that scumbag James Craig's fault]
Stuart Rose on Today this am for BSE producing irritable blustering of Lord Coe-like proportions. I really don't see what he brings to the table for Remain.
Nor do I. He's a good example of the problems of getting non-politicians to do a political job.
He sounded like he was suffering from BSE. Quite lazy for him to quote the £3,000 per person benefit and then say it was the CBIs figures and then have no answer to the C4 Fact chek analysis. A paper figurehead. No wonder M&S has fundamental problems today.
'Most business leaders are really bad at political interviews - they are just not used to having their views robustly challenged, come across as saying that we should remain in the EU because they say so'
I think that is spot on - they are used to being dictators, not persuaders.
You may recall how poor Archie Norman proved to be as an MP.
I like the Robbie Savage question: “So, what made you leave Parliament?”
I think that's bad news for Labour. Whatever one thinks of Balls, there is no doubt that he was a big beast for them and his exit from politics will make the party worse off. I imagine he sees what is happening to his party right now and counts his blessings that he is not in the same position as Andy Burnham having to go against his every instinct in order to stay loyal to the party.
Having thought about it and even though I think she is useless, I think the PLP should unite around Cooper and challenge Corbyn. By that I mean she should get the entire non Corbyn PLP to nominate her and she and they should dare the membership to vote her down. If they do then they should all pack their bags and leave. I know it won't happen but how else is this chasm between the PLP and the membership resolved?
I like the Robbie Savage question: “So, what made you leave Parliament?”
I think that's bad news for Labour. Whatever one thinks of Balls, there is no doubt that he was a big beast for them and his exit from politics will make the party worse off. I imagine he sees what is happening to his party right now and counts his blessings that he is not in the same position as Andy Burnham having to go against his every instinct in order to stay loyal to the party.
It's bad news for everyone really. I didn't agree with him very often but he's an intelligent, serious politician. There aren't so many of his calibre on either side.
Comments
I was just wondering which part of Britain the Muslims who will make the attack were going to be from
The electoral college is not a winner takes all plurality. It is a very unusual (perhaps unique?) system which actually uses different methods between electors in the same election. It is truly bizarre but definitely not FPTP.
Still, they've probably given up on your program as a bad lot and moved onto something more complex and useful, such as a dating program.
Perhaps take a sandwich board down the latter part of the embankment telling them about this because I'm sure they have no idea down there.
So is the Electoral College. All States apart from Maine and Nebraska use a multimember state wide constituency that is elected FPTP. Maine and Nebraska use their congressional districts and elect them by FPTP.
It is a weird example if FPTP but it is fully FPTP. Just not a single national constituency but nothing about FPTP requires that.
Thereafter the President appoints his entire executive, some may come from Congress but most do not. Nearly all - like McNamara who pursued the Vietnam War - are appointed and not accountable to Congress. No post to pass at all in their cases.
Nonetheless It's 12/1 odds were way too long. Yesterday it won the Producers Prize which has correctly predicted the Best Picture Oscar for the last 8 years. So on the basis that the misogyny wasn't an issue I'd make it second favourite. Unfortunately yesterday morning the bookmakers had the same idea and the odds dropped dramatically.
Did you know that the delegates can, quite legally, vote for the other candidate than the one they were supposedly chosen to vote for?
And in Liverpool too
http://app.ft.com/cms/s/c2700244-c0f2-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_uk_politics/feed//product
It does beg the question how the Labour right wing intend to fight back.
There is a difference between not talking about something, and sensationalising it, aiming to spread, you know, terror, and thus doing part of the terrorist's job for them.
One for you, Sam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7RIgs3eygo
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/suncolumnists/guidofawkes/6882211/Guido-Fawkes-No-poultry-sum-spent-heckling-Dave.html
Whatever next, we find that Labour bought all their staffers their outfits from Sports Direct?
They are not.
Each state elects delegates, some on a Winner Takes All state wide multimember basis, some on a single member geographic basis who then elect a president but do not have to follow the voters choice in the election they were sent as delegates from.
If you're going to continue to, wrongly, insist this is a FPTP election for the American president, then good luck to you.
You are only fooling yourself.
From HMG last year:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-george-osborne-and-bill-gates-to-join-forces-to-end-malaria
That said, it is good (even if not news).
From memory I believe this has happened for Party Nomination colleges but don't think it has happened for President.
I feel partly responsible for the impending attacks on London
http://youtu.be/LyKZt0Vs-Gs
I am not proposing tests for FPTP, I am explaining how our electoral system is used in reality rather than in theory as an explanation why just changing the voting system won't solve all our political problems.
I have to work now so won't be able to reply much. HAGD.
The fact that once the election is over those elected are not obliged to honour the platform they stood on has nothing to do with the electoral method used. Just as David Cameron's predecessor in Witney was elected on a platform for voting Conservatives under FPTP but then switched to Labour.
Sacked Labour frontbencher could launch 'suicide bomb mission' to oust Jeremy Corbyn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12119309/Sacked-Labour-frontbencher-could-launch-suicide-bomb-mission-to-oust-Jeremy-Corbyn.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Yes let's not mention the fact that the people who commited the biggest Terrorist act in recent times have made a video threatening to do the same here, then they might not do it, bound to work, great idea
I mentioned it 17,741 times but I think I got away with it
I think we should move away from reporting Labour's hypocrisy and instead report when they do something with integrity, there would be very few news reports about them.
The American Navy did grab Enigma machines. The U505 for instance. Its on display in Chicago.
The American film you refer to was a work of fiction. A drama. A film. The Enigma was what Hitchcock called 'the mcguffin', the plot device to kick the whole thing off. It was about a conflict between its protagonists, not a historical drama. it may have been a good or bad film but that's a matter of opinion.
We should always be on the watch out for enemies watchers watching us
Britain's adopted new tennis star Johanna Konta has just secured her place in the quarter finals of the Oz Womens Singles and my recent suggestion of backing her to win SPOTY 2016 at 200/1 (now 100/1) with SkyBet looks ever more achievable, but DYOR.
Averages:
Remain 41.50%
Leave 41.25%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2016
Do all the Labour MPs that advertise for unpaid interns not realise that the likes of Guido have people reading all the Parliamentary job adverts?
Continuing the sporting these I see that some where suggesting Jimmy Anderson was past it. He has taken the first 3 second innings wickets, 2 in 3 balls.
That seems a little misguided. Kipperish even.
A Fox News poll out today gives Trump an 11 point lead there over Cruz, up from a 4 point deficit 2 weeks ago.
Reports persist that former NYC Mayor Doomberg is considering a third party run if Trump gets the nomination, thereby handing the election to Hillary.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/691348582671224836
Sexual Risk Orders are ripping apart liberty and due process, writes Brendan O'Neill. https://t.co/AfIejhUnqH https://t.co/2UMF6WaYCu
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/01/the-duel-faceoff-ryan-lizza
I actually think Laura Trott might be good value this year. If she has four Golds at the age of 24, that would be completely unprecedented. It still might not be enough as she doesn't have a winnable, known event outside the Olympics. Murray Olympic/Wimbledon double would be a shoe in but Trott's better value (and much more likely - to be honest I don't think its possible for Trott not to get two more Golds).
Out of interest, will Rory McIlroy be eligible if he competes for the Republic at the Olympics? He'll still, technically, be British, so I'd imagine he will.
http://order-order.com/2016/01/25/balls-swaps-marr-brillo-for-fletch-sav/
I like the Robbie Savage question: “So, what made you leave Parliament?”
BTW before I get accused of being some sort of Unionist shill, my family are Irish Republicans to their core and I have no love for Northern Irish Unionism, to put it mildly.
But the issue of how you manage a polity when there are two communities living side by side with fundamentally different conceptions of what that polity should be does not lend itself to
easy answers.
do you mean pole dancers?
And the college members are elected on an FPTP basis.
So perhaps it is FPTP^2 TM @RodCrosby
What a shock!!
https://twitter.com/telepolitics/status/691561177831223296
[but basically it's all that scumbag James Craig's fault]
Henry Worsley has died.
Sanders 36/51
Clinton 54/43
O'Malley 4/4
I think that is spot on - they are used to being dictators, not persuaders.
You may recall how poor Archie Norman proved to be as an MP.
If they do then they should all pack their bags and leave.
I know it won't happen but how else is this chasm between the PLP and the membership resolved?