This will sound awful, but I'm very good at it. Either cause or redundancy. Let couple of hundred plus go and not a single tribunal. Inc civil service.
Regularly asked to give references. It all boils down to honesty and respect.
Interesting article on the bewilderment of the GOP in NH:
They noted the Republicans who have won the New Hampshire primary in recent years: Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush. ... For Trump to really be on the verge of victory, wouldn't that mean the state of New Hampshire somehow had a total political personality transplant in the four years since Romney's victory? Is that really possible?
This will sound awful, but I'm very good at it. Either cause or redundancy. Let couple of hundred plus go and not a single tribunal. Inc civil service.
Regularly asked to give references. It all boils down to honesty and respect.
Beth Rigby #Guardian. 2012 @arusbridger announces he has to cut 70-100 jobs to stem losses. Three years to March 2016, Guardian hires 479 staff.
@MediaGuido: Guardian company meeting split into two parts - one at 11am, second at 2pm - because they have so many staff https://t.co/3IS4eLyXTA
That was my immediate assumption as well!
Fortunately I've never had to sack a lot of people. They are pretty horrible conversations to have
Firing someone for cause is easy, so long as you have your facts and documentation straight.
The worst thing of all is having to do layoffs. That is simply awful.
Firing someone in France is an adventure of exploration, frustration, danger and excitement
Only been on the receiving end of redundancy once, but it was handled very well and it was obvious to everyone affected that it was necessary as the recession changed the medium term plans of the company. I would go back and work for them tomorrow given the chance.
Andrew Neil Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.
Farmers?
They blockade roads and Autoroutes with farm machinery, straw bales, piles of tires. And stand around chatting with the Gendarmes who arrive on scene for show.
someone mentioned that there are 'moderates in both parties' - after 7 years of Obama the Democrats have moved so far left that moderates are hard to find. The fact that a self-confessed socialist is running under their banner, and the crowds and excitement he generates compared to Clinton's smaller crowds and distinct lack of excitement, tells you all you need to know. That would have been inconceivable in 2008 - one reason that Obama ran with hardly any policies at all other than 'hope and change'. If he'd said how he wanted to change the country he very possibly would not have won. Over 75% of the country thinks Obama is leading it in the wrong direction.
The Republicans have realized that they need to pivot to get more women, blacks and hispanics to vote for them. This year will tell us how far they have succeeded.
The whole 'Trump as right winger thing' puzzles me somewhat. He wants to build a wall - it's popular. He wants limit muslim immigration temporarily until the government figures out what the hell is going on. It's popular, but also unconstitutional. if he changed it to Syrians it'd be a home run.
Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
Trump went to the Wharton School at Penn. He is a very smart, very intelligent man. Do not underestimate him. He could easily monster Bloomberg on a debate stage. Bloomberg is a BIG nanny state fan, and Trump will have much material.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
Trump is the anti-establishment candidate, Cruz is the very right wing conservative choice. Jeb isn't even the establishment 1st choice any more. Poor Jeb.
Jeb is running anti-Rubio ads here.
Sanders said he would not run negative ads about Clinton - but is getting ever closer to the line.
NOBODY is running anti-Trump ads. Almost unprecedented for the front-runner to be not attacked.
And ludicrous. If you give the front runner a clear road while the rest attack each other, there'll only be one outcome.
Either I've been spending too much time on this site or you've spent too much time at pole dancing clubs
And knowing you to be a banker the suspect morality that I was talking about wasn't the behaviour of the bankers but the lauding of those who made a fortune betting against them.
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Interesting article on the bewilderment of the GOP in NH:
They noted the Republicans who have won the New Hampshire primary in recent years: Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush. ... For Trump to really be on the verge of victory, wouldn't that mean the state of New Hampshire somehow had a total political personality transplant in the four years since Romney's victory? Is that really possible?
Andrew Neil Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.
I think he could simply have stopped his tweet after the third word
Such a nice country too. Real shame the French live there.
Good afternoon all. For years I thought I didn't like the French. Having spent a good deal of time in the Ariege I realised I was wrong - I simply don't like Parisians.
Kevin Schofield Jeremy Corbyn won't be attending the weekly PLP meeting tonight, I'm told.
The idea that the weekly PLP meeting is a regular chance for MPs to fence with the leader is simply wrong: that isn't how the meeting works. It's normally a briefing by one shadow minister on their area, without other members of the Shadow Cabinet present. Otherwise, every discussion on every subject would get sidetracked into a general policy discussion. Tony and Gordon would normally come to a PLP meeting a few times a year to give an overall view.
Do you not think there's something of an elephant in the room here though? Once the story has become Corbyn not attending then the longer he goes on not attending the longer the story will run and the more that will be made of it. And Corbyn does seem to be deliberately isolating himself from the PLP - the specific plays into the narrative.
Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.
Voters, as they proved in the last couple of years, are not stupid. They have a pretty good sense of what’s what. When they tune in and work out that Jeremy Corbyn is actively anti-British, Labour will be extremely lucky to get 25% of the vote at the next general election.
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.
Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"
Good afternoon all. For years I thought I didn't like the French. Having spent a good deal of time in the Ariege I realised I was wrong - I simply don't like Parisians.
Kevin Schofield Jeremy Corbyn won't be attending the weekly PLP meeting tonight, I'm told.
The idea that the weekly PLP meeting is a regular chance for MPs to fence with the leader is simply wrong: that isn't how the meeting works. It's normally a briefing by one shadow minister on their area, without other members of the Shadow Cabinet present. Otherwise, every discussion on every subject would get sidetracked into a general policy discussion. Tony and Gordon would normally come to a PLP meeting a few times a year to give an overall view.
Do you not think there's something of an elephant in the room here though? Once the story has become Corbyn not attending then the longer he goes on not attending the longer the story will run and the more that will be made of it. And Corbyn does seem to be deliberately isolating himself from the PLP - the specific plays into the narrative.
Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"
Hillary Clinton is the ultimate Wall Street insider.
Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"
He loses that share of the population. But it seems to me that's fine: Trump and Sanders are going for the anti-elitist, anti-Wall Street vote. So long as 40% of the population trusts Wall Street he's going to do OK.
Both teams drifting in odds, as the draw comes in to 2.4. England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long. Next hour is crucial to the result.
"Today, gender-neutral pronouns like “they” and “xe” are gradually slipping into common use" Only in Guardianland. https://t.co/wHgCqGZCgm
Lol, I bet she doesn't realise that the origin of Xe and Xyr are a 4chan joke based on Final Fantasy. These people are delusional.
"stupid posh-kid uniforms"
Even if I were inclined to agree with her, which I'm not particularly, using phrases like that in an article demanding equality for all would put me off
Sounds like she's a victim of 'common people' syndrome... Private school educated desperate to be working class
Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Pandas used for populist propaganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by this
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.
Pandas used for populist propoganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by this
Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"
He loses that share of the population. But it seems to me that's fine: Trump and Sanders are going for the anti-elitist, anti-Wall Street vote. So long as 40% of the population trusts Wall Street he's going to do OK.
Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"
Hillary Clinton is the ultimate Wall Street insider.
She is the ultimate political insider. Bloomberg still trumps her on Wall St. That said, I deliberately left her out of those I had asking the question as she's too establishment in whatever form to be able to put it credibly.
Andrew Neil Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.
Farmers?
They blockade roads and Autoroutes with farm machinery, straw bales, piles of tires. And stand around chatting with the Gendarmes who arrive on scene for show.
They blocked the TdF one year and the cyclists all stopped and had a glass of wine with them.
England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long.
Not playing, but are you sure ?
332-4 is enourmous in 4th innings terms. With 4 bowlers they probably don't declare before tea.
England gladly take a draw here, which is the other problem.
My thinking is that against the four bowlers a few quick runs for England will see that price fall sharply.
I don't think we can win from here but nothing's impossible. With SA 200/4, 350 could be a possible chase if they declare too early. With each extra run and extra minute England's small chance gets smaller.
Andrew Neil Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.
Farmers?
They blockade roads and Autoroutes with farm machinery, straw bales, piles of tires. And stand around chatting with the Gendarmes who arrive on scene for show.
They blocked the TdF one year and the cyclists all stopped and had a glass of wine with them.
My £2 on Bloomberg for Prez at 514.8 is not looking like the worst bet in my portfolio!
The trick there is knowing when to cash out. Same if anyone backed Biden at the triple-digit odds that were available a while ago.
Based on my years of punting experience, before hitting "confirm" on the cashout, it's worth reframing the question in your mind.
Do I want to bet AGAINST Biden/Bloomberg/etc at these (new, reduced) odds?
Am I prepared to LOSE £x (potential winnings) if Biden/Bloomberg becomes POTUS?
And those are very good questions (or perhaps two good ways of putting the same question).
As I said in my column at the weekend, I think Sanders has taken the value out of Biden's odds. Biden started as first-reserve to Hillary were she to fall under a political bus (or any other, for that matter). However, if Sanders starts winning some states and picking up 30, 35, 40% in others then it becomes far harder for anyone else to be parachuted in, both on practical grounds - Sanders will be picking up delegates with those shares - and on grounds of legitimacy.
For Bloomberg, he's currently best at 40/1 with 10Bet (who they?) or 33/1 with established names. I just don't see the value there and as such should be a layer but a 3% return over 10 months with a 100% capital risk isn't attractive. Firstly, he has to decide to run, then he has to win. The first part is probably still odds-against but the second seems nigh-on impossible. No matter how much money he and others throw at a campaign, he surely just has too many red lights. On top of which - as rcs1000 says downthread - there's a good chance he could be heavily defeated in debates. And that's before all the logistical and political problems a genuine third-party candidate faces (even if he did win some states, the House would surely still back the Democrat or Republican?; he'd have to win the Electoral College outright).
England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long.
Not playing, but are you sure ?
332-4 is enourmous in 4th innings terms. With 4 bowlers they probably don't declare before tea.
England gladly take a draw here, which is the other problem.
My thinking is that against the four bowlers a few quick runs for England will see that price fall sharply.
I don't think we can win from here but nothing's impossible. With SA 200/4, 350 could be a possible chase if they declare too early. With each extra run and extra minute England's small chance gets smaller.
He loses that share of the population. But it seems to me that's fine: Trump and Sanders are going for the anti-elitist, anti-Wall Street vote. So long as 40% of the population trusts Wall Street he's going to do OK.
40 per cent trusting Wall Street might be a lot. At this distance, I get the impression Americans were more likely to blame bankers than the government (or ours) for the financial crisis.
Whether Americans, American businesses or Republicans find protectionism abhorrent is also open to doubt, given how often it is practised. Admittedly they usually have the decency to invent spurious reasons of national security (also a cunning guise for state subsidies).
In fact, it might be nice if our government of whatever stripe took a leaf out of the American book from time to time. Americans understand markets: we are too often simply in thrall to them.
England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long.
Not playing, but are you sure ?
332-4 is enourmous in 4th innings terms. With 4 bowlers they probably don't declare before tea.
England gladly take a draw here, which is the other problem.
My thinking is that against the four bowlers a few quick runs for England will see that price fall sharply.
I don't think we can win from here but nothing's impossible. With SA 200/4, 350 could be a possible chase if they declare too early. With each extra run and extra minute England's small chance gets smaller.
In the 10-day test match on the 1939 tour, South Africa were effectively 400/0 at one point yet England were set to win by the end, had it not been for the shipping schedule.
Remember though Hillary was ahead in MY until Obama won Iowa his surge in the state just petered out that said I expect Sanders to win the state even if Clinton wins Iowa
Interesting article on the bewilderment of the GOP in NH:
They noted the Republicans who have won the New Hampshire primary in recent years: Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush. ... For Trump to really be on the verge of victory, wouldn't that mean the state of New Hampshire somehow had a total political personality transplant in the four years since Romney's victory? Is that really possible?
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Does that apply to foreigners too?
Whether it does or not, Trump can always look to introduce the legislation and kick the ball into Congress' court, or - if successful there - to the Supreme Court.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The key with US polls is read the demographic information.
I know I have banged on about it a lot but look at the demographic information of the CNN/ORC "Oabam lost the debate to Romney" poll. It is jaw dropping - they only polled rich, white, college educated southeners. No ethnic minorities, no poor people, no-one from any other part of the country. It was a laughably poor poll but it drove the media narrative for the week.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Does that apply to foreigners too?
Whether it does or not, Trump can always look to introduce the legislation and kick the ball into Congress' court, or - if successful there - to the Supreme Court.
All he needs to do is to change the immigration quotas to limit folks from Syria etc and he's legal and will have much the same effect.
Bloomberg has a net worth of $37 billion compared to Trump's $4. 5 billion, he could easily fund his own campaign. It looks like he will only run if Hillary loses to Sanders which would offer him the chance to hoover up the independent and moderate vote and I would expect both the Clintons and Bushes to vote for him, Hillary has said she will win the nomination to save him having to run. We shall see, Trump has said Bloomberg used to be a friend maybe not now and has attacked his position on guns and abortion, Sanders has said he can't wait to face 2 New York billionaires
As someone who would be more on the left than the majority on here, I find Donald Trump a puzzle. In some ways, it's the old adage of having a businessman running the Government. The problem is businessmen are used to coerce, cajole and command but in Government they have to argue, persuade and convince and many of them aren't very good at the latter.
Even if Trump wins, it's possible he will face a hostile Senate and/or Congress and if not in 2017 then in 2019. How would Trump manage this deadlock or would he be reaching for the veto stamp every day ?
I'm more concerned about that idiot Palin as a potential VP but not even Trump would be that stupid as to put her on the ticket. We've still to see anything approaching detail - the populist generalities are beyond credibility in my view but the punters lap it up. It's easy for a populist to say what his constituency wants to hear but to convince the less persuadable is harder.
It's interesting to see some of the Conservatives on here swinging behind Trump - is this more an anti-Clinton bias ? Needless to say, the Republicans are claiming without much solid evidence that the Democrats "have shifted to the left". HIllary has always seemed like the shrewder and smarter of Team Clinton but the residual anti-Clinton bias won't be shifted.
Interesting to see oil prices drifting back toward $30 following the Draghi Bounce last Thursday. A mild winter (despite the weekend blizzard) in much of the Northern Hemisphere has further dampened demand for oil but the gamblers know that as long as Draghi runs the house, they won't lose their shirts.
So, Corbyn, Calais and immigration - presumably those waiting at Calais who can prove a connection to Britain might be allowed in anyway but, as others have said, that isn't really the point. Merkel's economic-based policy has had disastrous social, political and cultural consequences and sometimes the benefit in one area masks the damage in others.I sense that after a long period where political policy was dominated by economic considerations in terms of improving the material wellbeing of the country, there is a shift toward a more cultural-based policy approach in which the preservation of society and community is deemed more important than material advancement.
Put simply, the cultural and social disbenefits of immigration are now seen as more important than the perceived economic benefits.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Please read my post before replying, as otherwise it wastes both our time. I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was unconstitutional.
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...
Beckett: The voters got it wrong Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
Afternoon all,
What a mess. Who on earth thought that a load of whitewash would work or that the real results wouldn't leak? This is the straight talking, new politics in action.
Seems the voters will have to try again to get their message across to Labour. No doubt they will do so in May.
I still think that the Scottish Tories should be given independence from the UK party and rebrand. It might make little difference in the short term but may increase the number of voters prepared to give them a hearing as time goes on.
The Scottish Conservatives were offered that choice at the last leadership election but went with the safe, comfortable option instead.
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...
Beckett: The voters got it wrong Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
It's a very interesting report. Labour's negativity worked against them too, endless whining about a declining nation and economy conflicting with the reality of what the electorate were experiencing.
You look at the conclusions and realise Labour are completely screwed. The suggestions of what to change to win, are utterly at odds with Ken Corbyn's, or is it Jeremy Livingstone's beliefs.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Wasn't that tested in the courts and found it could apply to nationalities - in that case Iranians - but not religions - so Christian Iranians were banned too?
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...
Beckett: The voters got it wrong Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
Afternoon all,
What a mess. Who on earth thought that a load of whitewash would work or that the real results wouldn't leak? This is the straight talking, new politics in action.
Seems the voters will have to try again to get their message across to Labour. No doubt they will do so in May.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.
Bloomberg has a net worth of $37 billion compared to Trump's $4. 5 billion, he could easily fund his own campaign. It looks like he will only run if Hillary loses to Sanders which would offer him the chance to hoover up the independent and moderate vote and I would expect both the Clintons and Bushes to vote for him, Hillary has said she will win the nomination to save him having to run. We shall see, Trump has said Bloomberg used to be a friend maybe not now and has attacked his position on guns and abortion, Sanders has said he can't wait to face 2 New York billionaires
Interesting, but surely Biden will jump in if Hillary is seen to be falling, or more likely the FBI have indicted for something or other? Will Bloomberg still run against Biden?
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...
Beckett: The voters got it wrong Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
Afternoon all,
What a mess. Who on earth thought that a load of whitewash would work or that the real results wouldn't leak? This is the straight talking, new politics in action.
Seems the voters will have to try again to get their message across to Labour. No doubt they will do so in May.
One can only think it is the old story of Labour sentimentality. They didn't want to upset Ed M for example.
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
He parked his private jet around the back
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.
But not on grounds of religion. Thanks to Obama, executive power is a dicey subject thanks to over reach.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...
Beckett: The voters got it wrong Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
It's a very interesting report. Labour's negativity worked against them too, endless whining about a declining nation and economy conflicting with the reality of what the electorate were experiencing.
You look at the conclusions and realise Labour are completely screwed. The suggestions of what to change to win, are utterly at odds with Ken Corbyn's, or is it Jeremy Livingstone's beliefs.
Bloomberg has a net worth of $37 billion compared to Trump's $4. 5 billion, he could easily fund his own campaign. It looks like he will only run if Hillary loses to Sanders which would offer him the chance to hoover up the independent and moderate vote and I would expect both the Clintons and Bushes to vote for him, Hillary has said she will win the nomination to save him having to run. We shall see, Trump has said Bloomberg used to be a friend maybe not now and has attacked his position on guns and abortion, Sanders has said he can't wait to face 2 New York billionaires
Interesting, but surely Biden will jump in if Hillary is seen to be falling, or more likely the FBI have indicted for something or other? Will Bloomberg still run against Biden?
Bloomberg will only run if Sanders is the nominee in all likelihood not against Clinton or Biden as he would have less of a chance but if Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is nominee, regardless of what Biden does
I totally agree. I saw a report at the weekend, where tourists in Central London wondered where the Brits were. Can honestly say I can't recall being served in a bar, restaurant or hotel by someone British in years.
Labour voters are similarly sceptical, with 61 per cent of those who backed Mr Corbyn's party in 2015 feeling that Britain shouldn't welcome any of the migrants camping near Calais.
The motivation these migrants have for coming to Britain is viewed with suspicion. Most of the Britons polled (76 per cent) say that asylum seekers want to come to Britain as they believe it has "more generous welfare benefits". That means the Labour leader is casting himself as an ally of people few think deserve to come to the country.
There is also another good piece from Nicholas Soames and Frank Field in today's Telegraph.
Cameron's complete and abject failure to get a grip on immigration, despite his promises, is damaging to the fabric of the nation, even if, through the absence of any real alternatives, it is not hurting the Conservative Party's re-election chances.
When people from apparent opposite sides of the political spectrum such as Soames and Field are in accord then there really is a problem that needs to be addressed with actions and not just words.
Nah, I get served by English bar staff all the time in Camden. I don't think the situation in the service/hospitality industry is as lamentable as people make out.
I was, literally, just being served in a West End pub by an Englishman as I read Plato's post.
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
He parked his private jet around the back
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.
I expect he had his butler on tap in the next room
Leaving the personal abuse to one side, I see no great difference between the reports saying that voters thought EM did not look PM material like DC; that English voters were worried by SNP influence; that voters blamed Labour for the crash.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
Just as a matter of interest how many muslims immigrate to the US each year? And how many muslim tourists are there? We've heard what, half a dozen complaints from UK citizens
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.
But not on grounds of religion. Thanks to Obama, executive power is a dicey subject thanks to over reach.
The constitution makes no mention on the grounds to which the POTUS can ban entry of people and the first amendment only applies to US citizens and residents. It doesn't give rights to people outside of the US. I'm no expert and I'm sure the ACLU will be the first to take any executive order to the SCOTUS for a hearing, but my simplistic view is that he could ban immigration and entry of non-American Muslims on the basis that Islamic terrorism is a threat to the state. A rather broad brush and unworthy of a the office of the President, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional, if it is applied to non-Americans only.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
One can only think it is the old story of Labour sentimentality. They didn't want to upset Ed M for example.
It was reported that EdM edited Beckett's report before it was published
For an honest report that would help Labour face reality, Ed was the last person that should have been involved in its publication imho. - Not that the ‘weak and bumbling leader’ had much of reputation to uphold, but still...
I still think that the Scottish Tories should be given independence from the UK party and rebrand. It might make little difference in the short term but may increase the number of voters prepared to give them a hearing as time goes on.
The Scottish Conservatives were offered that choice at the last leadership election but went with the safe, comfortable option instead.
Yes. They ought to think again in the light of new opportunities. The last time they were given the option was before the 2014-5 earthquake (though it was after the 2011 one).
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
Also: Donald Trump knows that prohibiting Muslims from even entering the US would damage US interests in the Middle East. The US has a naval base in Bahrain, for instance. We can reasonably assume that as President he would ban people from certain countries, and that would likely be it.
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
He parked his private jet around the back
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.
I expect he had his butler on tap in the next room
He doesn't have a butler - he has a flight attendant who is a very nice lady.
Snide comments don't become you. You should cease.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
Also: Donald Trump knows that prohibiting Muslims from even entering the US would damage US interests in the Middle East. The US has a naval base in Bahrain, for instance. We can reasonably assume that as President he would ban people from certain countries, and that would likely be it.
King Abdullah of Jordan was actually in the US when Trump originally proposed this!
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
Also: Donald Trump knows that prohibiting Muslims from even entering the US would damage US interests in the Middle East. The US has a naval base in Bahrain, for instance. We can reasonably assume that as President he would ban people from certain countries, and that would likely be it.
Legal, constitutional, damaging, not able to be done in practice is my reading.
Just because something is not unconstitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea.
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...
Beckett: The voters got it wrong Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
Somewhere in a dusty basement is a report by the Betamax marketing team, that looks very much like Labour's secret report.
"We know our Betamax product is brilliant and will be the benchmark against which all other systems are judged.
Unfortunately, people aren't buying our product because - mistakenly - they believe there is a better product on the market..."
Betamax (well Betacam, it's professional sibling) was the most profitable tape recording system ever released! Much more successful than VHS.
Sony were laughing all the way to the bank when JVC destroyed the margins in consumer video recording giving them a virtual monopoly in the broadcast and professional video recording market.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Does that apply to foreigners too?
Whether it does or not, Trump can always look to introduce the legislation and kick the ball into Congress' court, or - if successful there - to the Supreme Court.
All he needs to do is to change the immigration quotas to limit folks from Syria etc and he's legal and will have much the same effect.
Which on a practical level my be what he does do but it doesn't answer the question. I don't see why the constitutional rights (e.g. equal protection of the law) should apply to non-citizens living in another country, even if they want to come to the US.
Comments
Regularly asked to give references. It all boils down to honesty and respect.
'bae' is the one I've seen slipping in to common usage ...
{Before Anyone Else}
They noted the Republicans who have won the New Hampshire primary in recent years: Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush. ... For Trump to really be on the verge of victory, wouldn't that mean the state of New Hampshire somehow had a total political personality transplant in the four years since Romney's victory? Is that really possible?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-gop-fear-and-loathing-in-new-hampshire/article/2581329
{Before Anyone Else}
My daughter uses that. I look determinedly puzzled every time.
Stephen Bush
Reminded of @debmattinson's excellent book again today. https://t.co/dJA4pRh6RK
'Poll dancers' = Angela Eagle and Diane Abbott
do you mean pole dancers? "
Either I've been spending too much time on this site or you've spent too much time at pole dancing clubs
And knowing you to be a banker the suspect morality that I was talking about wasn't the behaviour of the bankers but the lauding of those who made a fortune betting against them.
Quelle surprise, as the French farmers would say.
- or would they say 'Zut Alors mon brave!'?
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.
Do I want to bet AGAINST Biden/Bloomberg/etc at these (new, reduced) odds?
Am I prepared to LOSE £x (potential winnings) if Biden/Bloomberg becomes POTUS?
England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long. Next hour is crucial to the result.
"stupid posh-kid uniforms"
Even if I were inclined to agree with her, which I'm not particularly, using phrases like that in an article demanding equality for all would put me off
Sounds like she's a victim of 'common people' syndrome... Private school educated desperate to be working class
Mr J
More than 100 petrol bombs thrown at police last night in Lurgan also number of shots fired at them - @PSNICraigavon how many AEP'S FIRED ?
And I'd high hopes for him.
332-4 is enourmous in 4th innings terms. With 4 bowlers they probably don't declare before tea.
England gladly take a draw here, which is the other problem.
I don't think we can win from here but nothing's impossible. With SA 200/4, 350 could be a possible chase if they declare too early. With each extra run and extra minute England's small chance gets smaller.
As I said in my column at the weekend, I think Sanders has taken the value out of Biden's odds. Biden started as first-reserve to Hillary were she to fall under a political bus (or any other, for that matter). However, if Sanders starts winning some states and picking up 30, 35, 40% in others then it becomes far harder for anyone else to be parachuted in, both on practical grounds - Sanders will be picking up delegates with those shares - and on grounds of legitimacy.
For Bloomberg, he's currently best at 40/1 with 10Bet (who they?) or 33/1 with established names. I just don't see the value there and as such should be a layer but a 3% return over 10 months with a 100% capital risk isn't attractive. Firstly, he has to decide to run, then he has to win. The first part is probably still odds-against but the second seems nigh-on impossible. No matter how much money he and others throw at a campaign, he surely just has too many red lights. On top of which - as rcs1000 says downthread - there's a good chance he could be heavily defeated in debates. And that's before all the logistical and political problems a genuine third-party candidate faces (even if he did win some states, the House would surely still back the Democrat or Republican?; he'd have to win the Electoral College outright).
You must be hoping AB does the http://preview.tinyurl.com/declarationteatime right thing.
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Whether Americans, American businesses or Republicans find protectionism abhorrent is also open to doubt, given how often it is practised. Admittedly they usually have the decency to invent spurious reasons of national security (also a cunning guise for state subsidies).
In fact, it might be nice if our government of whatever stripe took a leaf out of the American book from time to time. Americans understand markets: we are too often simply in thrall to them.
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Whether it does or not, Trump can always look to introduce the legislation and kick the ball into Congress' court, or - if successful there - to the Supreme Court.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
I know I have banged on about it a lot but look at the demographic information of the CNN/ORC "Oabam lost the debate to Romney" poll. It is jaw dropping - they only polled rich, white, college educated southeners. No ethnic minorities, no poor people, no-one from any other part of the country. It was a laughably poor poll but it drove the media narrative for the week.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
As someone who would be more on the left than the majority on here, I find Donald Trump a puzzle. In some ways, it's the old adage of having a businessman running the Government. The problem is businessmen are used to coerce, cajole and command but in Government they have to argue, persuade and convince and many of them aren't very good at the latter.
Even if Trump wins, it's possible he will face a hostile Senate and/or Congress and if not in 2017 then in 2019. How would Trump manage this deadlock or would he be reaching for the veto stamp every day ?
I'm more concerned about that idiot Palin as a potential VP but not even Trump would be that stupid as to put her on the ticket. We've still to see anything approaching detail - the populist generalities are beyond credibility in my view but the punters lap it up. It's easy for a populist to say what his constituency wants to hear but to convince the less persuadable is harder.
It's interesting to see some of the Conservatives on here swinging behind Trump - is this more an anti-Clinton bias ? Needless to say, the Republicans are claiming without much solid evidence that the Democrats "have shifted to the left". HIllary has always seemed like the shrewder and smarter of Team Clinton but the residual anti-Clinton bias won't be shifted.
Interesting to see oil prices drifting back toward $30 following the Draghi Bounce last Thursday. A mild winter (despite the weekend blizzard) in much of the Northern Hemisphere has further dampened demand for oil but the gamblers know that as long as Draghi runs the house, they won't lose their shirts.
So, Corbyn, Calais and immigration - presumably those waiting at Calais who can prove a connection to Britain might be allowed in anyway but, as others have said, that isn't really the point. Merkel's economic-based policy has had disastrous social, political and cultural consequences and sometimes the benefit in one area masks the damage in others.I sense that after a long period where political policy was dominated by economic considerations in terms of improving the material wellbeing of the country, there is a shift toward a more cultural-based policy approach in which the preservation of society and community is deemed more important than material advancement.
Put simply, the cultural and social disbenefits of immigration are now seen as more important than the perceived economic benefits.
What a mess. Who on earth thought that a load of whitewash would work or that the real results wouldn't leak? This is the straight talking, new politics in action.
Seems the voters will have to try again to get their message across to Labour. No doubt they will do so in May.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqGl-pDnYMQ
The pollsters didn't have the time to poll after this Oscar worthy performance.
You look at the conclusions and realise Labour are completely screwed. The suggestions of what to change to win, are utterly at odds with Ken Corbyn's, or is it Jeremy Livingstone's beliefs.
Do you really think we're that stupid on here to swallow this nonsense?
"We know our Betamax product is brilliant and will be the benchmark against which all other systems are judged.
Unfortunately, people aren't buying our product because - mistakenly - they believe there is a better product on the market..."
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
It made me vote Labour in 1997 and twice again. Moaning and knocking isn't appealing.
Corbyn moans mostly for people who don't even live here. His agenda is STW.
I was, literally, just being served in a West End pub by an Englishman as I read Plato's post.
We've heard what, half a dozen complaints from UK citizens
Mattison Labour need to change
Which one has a greater chance of success?
Snide comments don't become you. You should cease.
Just because something is not unconstitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Am with @MaxpB on this one.
Sony were laughing all the way to the bank when JVC destroyed the margins in consumer video recording giving them a virtual monopoly in the broadcast and professional video recording market.