Mr. Doethur, in Sherlock Holmes' adventures, at one point a man ejaculates out of a window.
Still, that's Victorian London for you.
There's loads of ejaculation in Holmes.
"Watson!" Holmes ejaculated.
Well, they did share a flat. And a room, in The Valley of Fear
Clearly there was a subliminal message in all this.
but never believe what is portrayed on tv or in film. if it isn't in the book its not correct. Far too often in Jeremy Brett's Holmes, words that are actually spoken by Holmes are attributed to Watson (possibly to make him less of an old buffer) and once even to Mrs Hudson FFS. Very irritating indeed if you know the stories well.
It actually uses the phrase 'at what cost to the sisterhood'!
Honestly, there seems ample evidence on the face if it that Rousseff has been involved in corrupt dealings, but personally I find that encouraging in a weird way - female political leaders are just as capable of being incompetent and corrupt as male political leaders. It shouldn't, I would hope, affect the chances of other women getting involved in politics and isn't an example of ingrained misogyny working against her given there seems substance to the accusations, so as you suggest what's the problem?
Though I see from the piece some commentators think she only got the job as she was handpicked by her Male boss, not on merit and so wasn't a good role model.
My feeling is the author wanted to write a standard piece about there not being enough women in politics, a not unworthy topic and quite a common one, and just used Rousseff as a launching off point without considering ' well if she is corrupt she should be impeached, shouldn't she?' As it is, it undermines the point about female representation by implying her going would automatically be bad, unintentionally suggesting a corrupt, if she is guilty, female politician going is bad because of the reduction in female representation.
I had low expectations but I think Sajid Javid has put up a decent performance on the Marr show. As ever, I'm frustrated that this isn't an Andrew Neil interview. Javid rebuked the accusation that Britain has been the ring leader for blocking tariffs increases in the EU but Marr seemed startled by this and doesn't know the details well enough to come back at him.
Governments seem desperate to give money away to charities
You mean lefty civil servants love giving our money away to their causes. Obviously it is the job of the politicians to know what our money is being spent on, but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't know.
Evidence that our civil service isn't apolitical?
Maybe you would prefer it if it only hired people with Tory (or UKIP) party cards?
Very well said. You only forgot to mention that Labour now seems to be the party of choice for anti-Semites, hardly surprising given that the leader calls so many his friends.
Labour's last leader was Jewish, of course. No doubt that is why he had to go.
It actually uses the phrase 'at what cost to the sisterhood'!
Honestly, there seems ample evidence on the face if it that Rousseff has been involved in corrupt dealings, but personally I find that encouraging in a weird way - female political leaders are just as capable of being incompetent and corrupt as male political leaders. It shouldn't, I would hope, affect the chances of other women getting involved in politics and isn't an example of ingrained misogyny working against her given there seems substance to the accusations, so as you suggest what's the problem?
Though I see from the piece some commentators think she only got the job as she was handpicked by her Male boss, not on merit and so wasn't a good role model.
My feeling is the author wanted to write a standard piece about there not being enough women in politics, a not unworthy topic and quite a common one, and just used Rousseff as a launching off point without considering ' well if she is corrupt she should be impeached, shouldn't she?' As it is, it undermines the point about female representation by implying her going would automatically be bad, unintentionally suggesting a corrupt, if she is guilty, female politician going is bad because of the reduction in female representation.
Rouseff's failures are nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her politics.
I remember Stephen King writing that if you are searching in your head for a word to replace the one you've written, nine times out of ten the one you've already written will be better.
People declaring, exclaiming, sputtering and so on just becomes a bit tedious.
Yes if you have to tell people how someone is feeling it means you can't write.
Show, don't tell, is one of the mantras for good writing.
True, though when several people are talking animatedly / shouting / arguing, you have to name more-or-less each one, which in turn requires some kind of verb for each interjection.
'Said' does the job just fine. If you're writing good dialogue and prose you don't need to tell readers the feelings that go with it. It's like the dreaded adverbs.
Thanks. Personally I don't see an issue with an amount of variations for assorted verbal expulsions, it can be a shorthand for general body language of the speaker for a start and sometimes the words spoken alone are not supposed on their win to make clear every aspect of the intent, the problem occurs when people overdo it since, as you say, said gets the job done most of the time.
Not had the time to be on for a while, so just catching up on previous thread.
Wokingham supposed to be near median on Remain/Leave. My doorknocking so far puts Remain well ahead, followed by Don't Know and Leave a long way behind. Sample several hundred now, just door to door, regardless of political affiliation.
DFID was required to reduce its headcount like all civil service departments, in one of the early coalition cuts. Similtaneously its budget went up to meet the 0.7% target. The way to square this circle was to devolve a lot of spending to NGO's.
NGO's can be a very effective way of delivering aid, but they do need supervision. Otherwise you get incidents like this.
Makes a degree of sense, although I was thinking of more general giving to charity not just the dfid budget.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
Tottenham is a good bet for next season too.
We heard the same before how Klopp or LVG or Peligrino were wonder managers and buying in expensive mercenaries was the way forward. How did that work out :-)
Consider that Leicester and Tottenham can retain and recruit in the summer by promising CL football, while Chelsea, Liverpool and ManU cannot. Possibly Man City too. In addition the new TV deal is much more generous so all PL teams can pay more. The times they are a changing.
Leicester has its own billionaire owner. Indeed it it his birthday today, so he has bought every ticketholder a beer and donut. Happy birthday Vichai!
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It actually uses the phrase 'at what cost to the sisterhood'!
Honestly, there seems ample evidence on the face if it that Rousseff has been involved in corrupt dealings, but personally I find that encouraging in a weird way - female political leaders are just as capable of being incompetent and corrupt as male political leaders. It shouldn't, I would hope, affect the chances of other women getting involved in politics and isn't an example of ingrained misogyny working against her given there seems substance to the accusations, so as you suggest what's the problem?
Though I see from the piece some commentators think she only got the job as she was handpicked by her Male boss, not on merit and so wasn't a good role model.
My feeling is the author wanted to write a standard piece about there not being enough women in politics, a not unworthy topic and quite a common one, and just used Rousseff as a launching off point without considering ' well if she is corrupt she should be impeached, shouldn't she?' As it is, it undermines the point about female representation by implying her going would automatically be bad, unintentionally suggesting a corrupt, if she is guilty, female politician going is bad because of the reduction in female representation.
Rouseff's failures are nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her politics.
You say in one sentence what took me several hundred words. I think this may illustrate why I have difficulty keeping my fiction writing to managable lengths. Maybe I could be the next will self. But first I am off to perform an exquisite perambulation.
@ThreeQuidder The Telegraph must think that this is the case for all female politicians!
@kle4 What I found odd about the article is that no one has ever (to my knowledge anyway) cited Rousseff's gender as reason for, or connected to her alleged corrupt dealings. It feels like the author has created a strawman argument in this case. I also agree that if we are going to have more female politicians, we have to accept that they won't all be 'good' figures. Power seems to corrupt most politicians to some degree or another, and it won't be any different with female politicians.
Not had the time to be on for a while, so just catching up on previous thread.
Wokingham supposed to be near median on Remain/Leave. My doorknocking so far puts Remain well ahead, followed by Don't Know and Leave a long way behind. Sample several hundred now, just door to door, regardless of political affiliation.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
Governments seem desperate to give money away to charities
You mean lefty civil servants love giving our money away to their causes. Obviously it is the job of the politicians to know what our money is being spent on, but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't know.
Or care. As long as they get to take the applause as they hand over the cheque in front of the cameras.
The government has ceased funding a British charity which sponsored events accused of promoting hatred and violence against Jews.
The Department for International Development (Dfid) said that it no longer supported War on Want, which helped pay for “Israeli Apartheid Week” in February this year.
War on Want, whose logo appears on publicity materials for Israeli Apartheid Week and the meeting, has received £260,000 in funding from Dfid over the last two years.
The government has ceased funding a British charity which sponsored events accused of promoting hatred and violence against Jews.
The Department for International Development (Dfid) said that it no longer supported War on Want, which helped pay for “Israeli Apartheid Week” in February this year.
War on Want, whose logo appears on publicity materials for Israeli Apartheid Week and the meeting, has received £260,000 in funding from Dfid over the last two years.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
Hope you're right about Spurs.
I also hope that Mourinho doesn't go to Utd, a club with a trtadition of open attacking football managed by the most negative, win at all costs manager since Don Revie. It ends in tears everywhere for Mourinho, I hope Utd see sense and look long term.
City will spend zillions, so will Chelsea, Arsenal will be there as usual, this season has been freakish in so many ways, very enjoyable.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
You talk of value, what price should Leicester be?
We heard the same before how Klopp or LVG or Peligrino were wonder managers and buying in expensive mercenaries was the way forward. How did that work out :-)
Consider that Leicester and Tottenham can retain and recruit in the summer by promising CL football, while Chelsea, Liverpool and ManU cannot. Possibly Man City too. In addition the new TV deal is much more generous so all PL teams can pay more. The times they are a changing.
Leicester has its own billionaire owner. Indeed it it his birthday today, so he has bought every ticketholder a beer and donut. Happy birthday Vichai!
Tbf, I don't recall much expectation that LVG would enable United to win the league. Most thought he'd be a transition manager - and until this year, it seemed that prediction was going to plan. Pellegrini, to be fair to him has won a league title with Manchester City (and I don't recall there being any extensive hype over him when he came to City either btw). While City's away form has been tragic, they've only begun to fall off a cliff after the Guardiola announcement. I think that, more than anything has sucked the wind from their season. Having CL football for one season doesn't mean that Leicester or Spurs will attract an array of stars in the summer. A few years back Liverpool finished ahead of United (2013 IIRC). While Liverpool had CL football, United infamously didn't. Yet it was United who, at that time could attract the likes of Angel Di Maria to the club while Liverpool spent the summer buying practically the whole of the Southampton squad.
Tottenham are also moving to a new stadium soon, which has the potential to limit the amount of cash they have to buy new stars as well. On Leicester, there already appears to be an expectation management that Mahrez and Kante are likely to leave in the summer. Vardy, I think has extended his contract, though. The TV deal will limit EPL clubs ability to buy, but only within the EPL. There should not be any issues regarding buying from clubs outside the EPL, particularly smaller clubs.
Liam Young overstates the case but Ydoethur understates it. I voted for Corbyn, not as a Trot or oppositionist as Innocent suggests, but to reset the question, "What is the Labour Party for?" other than the vacuous "To win elections". I think it's for social justice and international solidarity, and I trusted Jeremy to give those priority, without using the vicious personal attacks that some on the left (and indeed all sectors of politics) indulge in. I'm satisfied with how he's delivered on all of that, and really enthusiastic about how he's weathered all the abuse without retaliating or losing his temper. I like his style, and that's a more important factor for those of us relatively active in politics than many people think.
As a bonus, Labour has been quite effective on domestic issues, obviously helped by the Government's tiny majority, and the effective block on our getting involved in the Syrian mess has been maintained, Ydoethur's belief that the LibDems were responsible for Osborne backing off on tax credit cuts is not widely shared.
Downsides are that Jeremy isn't a great Parliamentary orator, not something I care about, we have the unresolved Trident stuff, and obviously we're not doing wonderfully in the polls. We tend to do better when the opposition in the PLP SsTFU, as (more or less) now, and I suspect that at some point his internal opposition will try to remove him, fail, and then shut up, push off or just bore everyone into indifference - there is a limit to how many "A former senior Cabinet Minister said privately..." stories the press can be bothered to run. At that point, we'll see. But for now, 4 out of 5.
My personal views are neither here nor there, but as most of the membership is to my left, I suggest it's evidence that any early challenge to Corbyn will indeed fail.
If Corbyn is replaced before the election it will likely be by a similar figure in the same ideological pool as Shadow Chancellor and rightwinger Michael Howard replaced IDS so leftwing Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell could be the one to watch
I had low expectations but I think Sajid Javid has put up a decent performance on the Marr show. As ever, I'm frustrated that this isn't an Andrew Neil interview. Javid rebuked the accusation that Britain has been the ring leader for blocking tariffs increases in the EU but Marr seemed startled by this and doesn't know the details well enough to come back at him.
I was surprised how well Sajid Javid did on Marr this morning and maybe he has been underestimated. If I was a steel worker in Port Talbot I would have been encouraged by his support and also his sensible rejection of nationalisation. He refered to co-operation in Europe and if Europe does play a big part in protecting the European and UK steel industry over the next three months, and is perceived to do so, it could have a positive influence on remain
Unless Cruz wins California and Kasich wins Pennsylvania even if there is a brokered convention Trump is still likely to be nominee as he will be so far ahead in delegates he only needs to win a handful of Kasich and Rubio delegates to back him rather than Cruz to be nominee
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
Best of luck to fearless Leicester. I hope that for once a Ranieri squad doesn't bottle it at the death.
The problem Leicester face is that they will undoubtedly sign 1 or 2 "names", this always upsets the equilibrium and cliques form. That, on top of expectancy levels raised and a comparatively small squad is why they'll struggle next season.
Regardless of what happens in the next 6 weeks they've done remarkably well and been a breath of fresh air.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
I don't deny that Leicester are good side. They will more than deserve their title win. However, that does not change the fact that the EPL is weak right now and the performances of EPL in European competitions illustrates this. Arsenal for six years plus now coming out of the round of 16. Chelsea two years in a row exiting the round of 16 to PSG. City also likely to exit at the quarters this year, and previously failed to get past the round of 16 and Group stage. Manchester United failing to get out of the Group stage this year, and in previous years did not get past the round of 16. Liverpool failing to get past the group stage a year ago now. West Ham and Southampton failing to qualify for the Europa League Group stage this year. And this Spurs side who are second in the league looking like boys against men versus Dortmund.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
Best of luck to fearless Leicester. I hope that for once a Ranieri squad doesn't bottle it at the death.
I feel like Tottenham, failure to beat Liverpool notwithstanding, are in a good position. They're scoring more, conceding less, they seem confident.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
You talk of value, what price should Leicester be?
I'm interested to see your prices for next season
Its up to people to decide themselves where value lies. I am a punter not a bookie.
I wouldn't bet on anyone at less than 10/1 for next season until August.
Leicester +45 was great value in the Betfair exchange handicap last year. It will be less this year but still likely to be worth a punt.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
I don't deny that Leicester are good side. They will more than deserve their title win. However, that does not change the fact that the EPL is weak right now and the performances of EPL in European competitions illustrates this. Arsenal for six years plus now coming out of the round of 16. Chelsea two years in a row exiting the round of 16 to PSG. City also likely to exit at the quarters this year, and previously failed to get past the round of 16 and Group stage. Manchester United failing to get out of the Group stage this year, and in previous years did not get past the round of 16. Liverpool failing to get past the group stage a year ago now. West Ham and Southampton failing to qualify for the Europa League Group stage this year. And Spurs side who are second in the league looking like boys against men versus Dortmund.
Dortmund would win our league at a canter, no other side has come close to outplaying Spurs this season.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
Best of luck to fearless Leicester. I hope that for once a Ranieri squad doesn't bottle it at the death.
I feel like Tottenham, failure to beat Liverpool notwithstanding, are in a good position. They're scoring more, conceding less, they seem confident.
But I do hope Leicester manage it.
I think Leicester will do it, Spurs have a pretty daunting fixture list until May, Leceister's is a bit easier. I think it'll be 1. Leicester 2. Spurs 3. Arsenal 4. Man City, personally.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
You talk of value, what price should Leicester be?
I'm interested to see your prices for next season
Its up to people to decide themselves where value lies. I am a punter not a bookie.
I wouldn't bet on anyone at less than 10/1 for next season until August.
Leicester +45 was great value in the Betfair exchange handicap last year. It will be less this year but still likely to be worth a punt.
You talk continually about value, just because something is a long price doesn't mean it is value.
Out of interest, how long have you been a regular watching Leicester? It seems your overall football knowledge is very limited.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
Best of luck to fearless Leicester. I hope that for once a Ranieri squad doesn't bottle it at the death.
I feel like Tottenham, failure to beat Liverpool notwithstanding, are in a good position. They're scoring more, conceding less, they seem confident.
But I do hope Leicester manage it.
I do worry that this season might be the mirror image of last season for the fearless Foxes. Hope not.
You would think Mrs Bucket would know how to use the google machine...As a lawyer you would have thought researching facts etc would be pretty normal thing for here. --------------
NickPalmer On the other hand, it ought to be possible to ask something you don't know in a private discussion without having it turn up in the Mail.
-------------
Don't know? What Utter Claptrap and drivel Nick.
This is the Shadow Defence Secretary we are talking about here not some spotty faced intern reading Defence for Dummies. Thornberry may wish to do away with nukes ( who doesn't ?) She should though at least approach the subject with detailed knowledge, even some basic knowledge would be better than nothing. This woman has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever except from her visits to the local Odeon widescreen where she appears to know more about the popcorn she was eating than defence.
This is the woman who wants to do away with our nuclear deterrent yet she doesn't even understand the most basic concepts of how modern warfare would be conducted or the related defence conditions. Yet.... Yet? ....She is to have the final and most important say on policy of your defence review (along with Red Ken) which if you ever returned to power you would presumably implement.
"Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secretary, is to have ultimate responsibility for Labour’s defence review looking at its policy on Trident - with more sway than Ken Livingstone, party sources have said."
The woman is dangerous as is your party. First duty of any government is the defence of the land and protection of the people I don't hold out any hopes on this from this ridiculous woman or Corbyn. The Defence of the country is of course secondary to Labour ideals and shows along with finance and many other major functions of state even defence is not safe with Labour. Never has been never ever will be.
The problem Leicester face is that they will undoubtedly sign 1 or 2 "names", this always upsets the equilibrium and cliques form. That, on top of expectancy levels raised and a comparatively small squad is why they'll struggle next season.
Regardless of what happens in the next 6 weeks they've done remarkably well and been a breath of fresh air.
Leicester's big challenge will be maintaining their goals to shots ratio. They have done brilliantly on that front this season.
Dortmund would win our league at a canter, no other side has come close to outplaying Spurs this season.
But the fact that a side which is second in supposedly the 'best league in the world' could not even challenge Dortmund during the tie says it all about the quality of the league. I agree that Dortmund would win our league at canter - they are pushing Bayern Munich, the second best club side in the world, very close in the Bundesliga. I think that alone tells us all we need to know about just how good Dortmund is. By contrast no one is this league can really say they are beating/challenging sides anywhere near close Bayern Munich.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
Best of luck to fearless Leicester. I hope that for once a Ranieri squad doesn't bottle it at the death.
I feel like Tottenham, failure to beat Liverpool notwithstanding, are in a good position. They're scoring more, conceding less, they seem confident.
But I do hope Leicester manage it.
I think Leicester will do it, Spurs have a pretty daunting fixture list until May, Leceister's is a bit easier. I think it'll be 1. Leicester 2. Spurs 3. Arsenal 4. Man City, personally.
Arsenal have the best run in. Leicester have some tough games, including Southampton today. Sunderland away next week will be no pushover either.
81 points wins it for us. 5 more wins out of 7 even if Spurs win every match.
Arsenal have the best run in. Leicester have some tough games, including Southampton today. Sunderland away next week will be no pushover either.
81 points wins it for us. 5 more wins out of 7 even if Spurs win every match.
Arsenal may have the best-run, but the question is always this: what Arsenal side will turn up for the game. Just as the Arsenal that have schooled Everton and Watford could show up next Saturday, the Arsenal which collapsed versus United and Swansea could also show up. That's why I'm not confident about Arsenal despite their fixture list. Leicester do have some tough games, but I think both Spurs and Arsenal will drop points to cancel out any trip-ups that Leicester may make.
I feel like Tottenham, failure to beat Liverpool notwithstanding, are in a good position. They're scoring more, conceding less, they seem confident.
But I do hope Leicester manage it.
I always think that goal difference is a pointer to how good a team really is. In 2004-05 Everton managed to finish fourth with a goal difference of -1. The following season Arsenal finished fourth with a goal difference of +37.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
The really big players go to Real, Bayern or Barcelona these days. All the PL clubs can now afford to shop at the level below. Scouts and managers, rather than CL riches, are increasingly going to be the differentiator. Spurs could not have a better one. Guardiola? He is due a failure and has not had to totally reconstruct a side before. It will interesting to see how he goes.
The problem Leicester face is that they will undoubtedly sign 1 or 2 "names", this always upsets the equilibrium and cliques form. That, on top of expectancy levels raised and a comparatively small squad is why they'll struggle next season.
Regardless of what happens in the next 6 weeks they've done remarkably well and been a breath of fresh air.
Hats off to Leicester. Just shows what a very underwhelming East Midlands side can do if you put in a top quality manager....
What has been most heartening has been the dismantling of the notion that only Arsenal+Chelsea+ManU+Man City could make up the top four, with a forlorn-looking Liverpool pressing their nose against the sweet shop window. Although at times this season, it has appeared that the League has been replaced by a random number generator....
Dortmund would win our league at a canter, no other side has come close to outplaying Spurs this season.
But the fact that a side which is second in supposedly the 'best league in the world' could not even challenge Dortmund during the tie says it all about the quality of the league. I agree that Dortmund would win our league at canter - they are pushing Bayern Munich, the second best club side in the world, very close in the Bundesliga. I think that alone tells us all we need to know about just how good Dortmund is. By contrast no one is this league can really say they are beating/challenging sides anywhere near close Bayern Munich.
Spurs never really gave it a go. Didn't play close to full strength in either game. The good thing is that we'll get better. Who knows Mr Levy may even buy some more strikers so it's not just Harry Kane in our first team squad.
I feel like Tottenham, failure to beat Liverpool notwithstanding, are in a good position. They're scoring more, conceding less, they seem confident.
But I do hope Leicester manage it.
I always think that goal difference is a pointer to how good a team really is. In 2004-05 Everton managed to finish fourth with a goal difference of -1. The following season Arsenal finished fourth with a goal difference of +37.
Yes, the rank order by goal difference is highly correlated with the final table, not surprisingly.
I would tip 1 nil to Leicester today. When we score first Ranieri parks the bus very effectively. If no goal by half time or if Saints score first then he will attack aggressively. He doesn't want a draw.
I remember Stephen King writing that if you are searching in your head for a word to replace the one you've written, nine times out of ten the one you've already written will be better.
Good advice that.
Too many notes, my dear Mozart. Just take out a few and the opera will be perfect!!
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
The really big players go to Real, Bayern or Barcelona these days. All the PL clubs can now afford to shop at the level below. Scouts and managers, rather than CL riches, are increasingly going to be the differentiator. Spurs could not have a better one. Guardiola? He is due a failure and has not had to totally reconstruct a side before. It will interesting to see how he goes.
I agree completely. I had the pleasure/misfortune to see the Bayern sides from 2012-13 and 2013-14 and I remember thinking that I'd have been annoyed if I was a Bayern fan. Pep took the European Champions and totally changed the way they played. That he was able to poach his side's nearest rivals best two players gave him space to change their style of play with no danger of them not winning the league. Rebuilding City - especially their defence - will be a big task.
Arsenal have the best run in. Leicester have some tough games, including Southampton today. Sunderland away next week will be no pushover either.
81 points wins it for us. 5 more wins out of 7 even if Spurs win every match.
Arsenal may have the best-run, but the question is always this: what Arsenal side will turn up for the game. Just as the Arsenal that have schooled Everton and Watford could show up next Saturday, the Arsenal which collapsed versus United and Swansea could also show up. That's why I'm not confident about Arsenal despite their fixture list. Leicester do have some tough games, but I think both Spurs and Arsenal will drop points to cancel out any trip-ups that Leicester may make.
With the run in they have, if Arsenal don't finish at least second Wenger should be sacked. If Spurs finish second with the run in we have,?I'd make them favourites for next season.
Arsenal have the best run in. Leicester have some tough games, including Southampton today. Sunderland away next week will be no pushover either.
81 points wins it for us. 5 more wins out of 7 even if Spurs win every match.
Arsenal may have the best-run, but the question is always this: what Arsenal side will turn up for the game. Just as the Arsenal that have schooled Everton and Watford could show up next Saturday, the Arsenal which collapsed versus United and Swansea could also show up. That's why I'm not confident about Arsenal despite their fixture list. Leicester do have some tough games, but I think both Spurs and Arsenal will drop points to cancel out any trip-ups that Leicester may make.
Actually I'd argue the question is "what opponent will show up". Arsenal continually fail against the same teams at the same stadiums. Arsenal have a decent record in all of the remaining fixtures. That said, they'll probably drop points somewhere along the road - possibly in the most unexpected place at home to West Brom.
Incidentally, the first half reads as a rather strong argument for Leave, perhaps without meaning to be.
A cogent analysis of Europe's problems with wishful thinking on solutions.
That's a damning critique of Angela Merkel.
Been in power too long?
Probably, or approaching that point at least - I think politicians get set in their ways and inflexible over time, so if their preferred methods aren't working, despite previously excellent results, they are unable to meet the challenge.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
The really big players go to Real, Bayern or Barcelona these days. All the PL clubs can now afford to shop at the level below. Scouts and managers, rather than CL riches, are increasingly going to be the differentiator. Spurs could not have a better one. Guardiola? He is due a failure and has not had to totally reconstruct a side before. It will interesting to see how he goes.
I agree that the big players go to Real/Bayern/Barcelona right now (and I don't see that changing anytime soon, either). The big clubs have the resources though to attain the best scouts and managers. While mid and bottom table clubs will have far more money than previously, it's unlikely they will be able to compete with the big clubs for the best scouts, managers, and players. As for Guardiola it could be said he is 'under-performing' with Bayern now. The expectations surrounding him in 2013 when he went to Munich was not simply just more Bundesliga titles, but winning Bayern another CL which he has yet to do. I agree that he's not yet really had to reconstruct a squad, and in a sense City should be his toughest job so far. But with the state the EPL is in, I do not think he'll have to do a ton to really take this City squad far.
You would think Mrs Bucket would know how to use the google machine...As a lawyer you would have thought researching facts etc would be pretty normal thing for here. --------------
NickPalmer On the other hand, it ought to be possible to ask something you don't know in a private discussion without having it turn up in the Mail.
-------------
Don't know? What Utter Claptrap and drivel Nick.
This is the Shadow Defence Secretary we are talking about here not some spotty faced intern reading Defence for Dummies. Thornberry may wish to do away with nukes ( who doesn't ?) She should though at least approach the subject with detailed knowledge, even some basic knowledge would be better than nothing. This woman has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever except from her visits to the local Odeon widescreen where she appears to know more about the popcorn she was eating than defence.
This is the woman who wants to do away with our nuclear deterrent yet she doesn't even understand the most basic concepts of how modern warfare would be conducted or the related defence conditions. Yet.... Yet? ....She is to have the final and most important say on policy of your defence review (along with Red Ken) which if you ever returned to power you would presumably implement.
"Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secretary, is to have ultimate responsibility for Labour’s defence review looking at its policy on Trident - with more sway than Ken Livingstone, party sources have said."
The woman is dangerous as is your party. First duty of any government is the defence of the land and protection of the people I don't hold out any hopes on this from this ridiculous woman or Corbyn. The Defence of the country is of course secondary to Labour ideals and shows along with finance and many other major functions of state even defence is not safe with Labour. Never has been never ever will be.
Defcon levels are surely American and have sod all to do with us? Even the Mail article refers to UK threat levels. One might wonder about the lack of intellectual curiosity that led the Shadow SoS to watch films whose characters refered to Defcon levels without wondering what they meant -- and even here, from the Mail's article, it is more likely she knew roughly what was meant but asked for their precise definitions. My conclusion from the Mail's article is the Mail's source was the ignorant one for not realising we do things differently here.
Liam Young overstates the case but Ydoethur understates it. I voted for Corbyn, not as a Trot or oppositionist as Innocent suggests, but to reset the question, "What is the Labour Party for?" other than the vacuous "To win elections". I think it's for social justice and international solidarity, and I trusted Jeremy to give those priority, without using the vicious personal attacks that some on the left (...indulge in.
As a bonus, Labour has been quite effective on domestic issues, ...the effective block on our getting involved in the Syrian mess has been maintained, Ydoethur's belief that the LibDems were responsible for Osborne backing off on tax credit cuts is not widely shared.
any early challenge to Corbyn will indeed fail.
If you believe that Corbyn is not indulging in vicious personal abuse, you really need to pay more attention. He's not doing it personally, he's getting others - Macdonnell, Abbott, Burgon - to do it for him.
I do so wish that your first sentence were correct as well. If anything I am being generous to Corbyn. I haven't even talked about the widespread racism he has reintroduced into Labour, or the fact he is operating a clique of wealthy and stupid Marxists in parallel to the official Labour movement, under the command of the truly vile Seamus Milne, a man whom I trust less far than I would David Irving, or his innumerable flipflops on economic policy. But they're all there, and all toxic.
Very well said. You only forgot to mention that Labour now seems to be the party of choice for anti-Semites, hardly surprising given that the leader calls so many his friends.
Jews have a post war tradition of being very much on the left when it comes to human rights and the rights of the oppressed. They were in the vanguard of the South African anti apartheid movement and other than blacks no group were more involved in the liberation movement.
For a race with such a recent history of persecution it's not surprising.The same applies to Israel. Many are disgusted by their settlement policy and their treatment of the Palestinians. I don't know which charity is behind the boycott Israel policy is but you can be sure it will have as much Jewish backing as Muslim.
The real shame is that Israel has been taken over as a right wing cause by some pretty unpleasant people and the banner of anti semitism is being used by these people for an agenda that would disgust many of the people in whose name they're acting
Call me demanding, but if you've a strong enough view on nuclear defence to want to abolish it, I'd expect that person to have at least a Wikipedia level of knowledge. Not like it's her day job or anything.
You would think Mrs Bucket would know how to use the google machine...As a lawyer you would have thought researching facts etc would be pretty normal thing for here. --------------
NickPalmer On the other hand, it ought to be possible to ask something you don't know in a private discussion without having it turn up in the Mail.
-------------
Don't know? What Utter Claptrap and drivel Nick.
This is the Shadow Defence Secretary we are talking about here not some spotty faced intern reading Defence for Dummies. Thornberry may wish to do away with nukes ( who doesn't ?) She should though at least approach the subject with detailed knowledge, even some basic knowledge would be better than nothing. This woman has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever except from her visits to the local Odeon widescreen where she appears to know more about the popcorn she was eating than defence.
This is the woman who wants to do away with our nuclear deterrent yet she doesn't even understand the most basic concepts of how modern warfare would be conducted or the related defence conditions. Yet.... Yet? ....She is to have the final and most important say on policy of your defence review (along with Red Ken) which if you ever returned to power you would presumably implement.
"Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secretary, is to have ultimate responsibility for Labour’s defence review looking at its policy on Trident - with more sway than Ken Livingstone, party sources have said."
The woman is dangerous as is your party. First duty of any government is the defence of the land and protection of the people I don't hold out any hopes on this from this ridiculous woman or Corbyn. The Defence of the country is of course secondary to Labour ideals and shows along with finance and many other major functions of state even defence is not safe with Labour. Never has been never ever will be.
Liam Young overstates the case but Ydoethur understates it. I voted for Corbyn, not as a Trot or oppositionist as Innocent suggests, but to reset the question, "What is the Labour Party for?" other than the vacuous "To win elections". I think it's for social justice and international solidarity, and I trusted Jeremy to give those priority, without using the vicious personal attacks that some on the left (...indulge in.
As a bonus, Labour has been quite effective on domestic issues, ...the effective block on our getting involved in the Syrian mess has been maintained, Ydoethur's belief that the LibDems were responsible for Osborne backing off on tax credit cuts is not widely shared.
any early challenge to Corbyn will indeed fail.
If you believe that Corbyn is not indulging in vicious personal abuse, you really need to pay more attention. He's not doing it personally, he's getting others - Macdonnell, Abbott, Burgon - to do it for him.
I do so wish that your first sentence were correct as well. If anything I am being generous to Corbyn. I haven't even talked about the widespread racism he has reintroduced into Labour, or the fact he is operating a clique of wealthy and stupid Marxists in parallel to the official Labour movement, under the command of the truly vile Seamus Milne, a man whom I trust less far than I would David Irving, or his innumerable flipflops on economic policy. But they're all there, and all toxic.
Very well said. You only forgot to mention that Labour now seems to be the party of choice for anti-Semites, hardly surprising given that the leader calls so many his friends.
Jews have a post war tradition of being very much on the left when it comes to human rights and the rights of the oppressed. They were in the vanguard of the South African anti apartheid movement and other than blacks no group were more involved in the liberation movement.
For a race with such a recent history of persecution it's not surprising.The same applies to Israel. Many are disgusted by their settlement policy and their treatment of the Palestinians. I don't know which which charity is behind the boycott Israel policy is but you can be sure it will have as much Jewish backing as Muslim.
The real shame is that Israel has been taken over as a right wing cause by some pretty unpleasant people and the banner of anti semitism is being used by these people for an agenda that would disgust many of the people in whose name they're acting
I agree with all of this. It is particularly obnoxious that any criticism of Israel for how they behave is immediately condemned by some people as anti-semitic. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Arsenal have the best run in. Leicester have some tough games, including Southampton today. Sunderland away next week will be no pushover either.
81 points wins it for us. 5 more wins out of 7 even if Spurs win every match.
Arsenal may have the best-run, but the question is always this: what Arsenal side will turn up for the game. Just as the Arsenal that have schooled Everton and Watford could show up next Saturday, the Arsenal which collapsed versus United and Swansea could also show up. That's why I'm not confident about Arsenal despite their fixture list. Leicester do have some tough games, but I think both Spurs and Arsenal will drop points to cancel out any trip-ups that Leicester may make.
With the run in they have, if Arsenal don't finish at least second Wenger should be sacked. If Spurs finish second with the run in we have,?I'd make them favourites for next season.
Spurs fan thinks Arsenal should sack their manager shocker ..
I know that Spurs didn't play a full-strength team, but even if they did - with the way they way beaten (5-1 on aggregate) it's likely that Dortmund still would have won even with the first 11 starting. It looks likely Berahino will be off to Spurs next year, although his attitude isn't the greatest maybe Pochettino will change that. On Arsenal, I think Wenger's time is coming to an end anyway. The real question for Arsenal is if Wenger goes, who comes in to replace him? Martinez has yet to discover the art of defending in regard to all of the teams he's coached so far. Koeman looks likely to be staying with Southampton. On Spurs finishing second, well that's not always a predictor for the next year. Liverpool finished second in 2013 and they were underwhelmingly the following season.
@tlg86 West Brom beat Arsenal earlier this year. They've also proved pretty tricky for United and Chelsea, so I wouldn't be surprised if that game was a loss for Arsenal. While Arsenal do tend to slip up against certain teams, it had looked like their record was improving in the last year or so: they beat Swansea away and United at home this season. They also beat United away in the FA Cup last season, too.
As I've been saying for weeks now, the only sure bet is Winning Party: Democrats.
The GOP is doomed no matter who they nominate.
I think you've basically nailed it there.
A brokered convention won't be pretty. Both Donald and Cruz will use every possible means, fair or foul, to get the nomination - whoever loses is almost certain to throw their nukes out of the pram.
There are going to be some very very angry republicans - and a sore loser who can't be bought off.
As I've been saying for weeks now, the only sure bet is Winning Party: Democrats.
The GOP is doomed no matter who they nominate.
I think you've basically nailed it there.
A brokered convention won't be pretty. Both Donald and Cruz will use every possible means, fair or foul, to get the nomination - whoever loses is almost certain to throw their nukes out of the pram.
There are going to be some very very angry republicans - and a sore loser who can't be bought off.
It's not impossible that there could be two sore losers. I really don't see the point of going to all the trouble of blocking Trump if the outcome is to nominate Cruz.
You would think Mrs Bucket would know how to use the google machine...As a lawyer you would have thought researching facts etc would be pretty normal thing for here. --------------
NickPalmer On the other hand, it ought to be possible to ask something you don't know in a private discussion without having it turn up in the Mail.
-------------
Don't know? What Utter Claptrap and drivel Nick.
This is the Shadow Defence Secretary we are talking about here not some spotty faced intern reading Defence for Dummies. Thornberry may wish to do away with nukes ( who doesn't ?) She should though at least approach the subject with detailed knowledge, even some basic knowledge would be better than nothing. This woman has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever except from her visits to the local Odeon widescreen where she appears to know more about the popcorn she was eating than defence.
This is the woman who wants to do away with our nuclear deterrent yet she doesn't even understand the most basic concepts of how modern warfare would be conducted or the related defence conditions. Yet.... Yet? ....She is to have the final and most important say on policy of your defence review (along with Red Ken) which if you ever returned to power you would presumably implement.
"Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secretary, is to have ultimate responsibility for Labour’s defence review looking at its policy on Trident - with more sway than Ken Livingstone, party sources have said."
The woman is dangerous as is your party. First duty of any government is the defence of the land and protection of the people I don't hold out any hopes on this from this ridiculous woman or Corbyn. The Defence of the country is of course secondary to Labour ideals and shows along with finance and many other major functions of state even defence is not safe with Labour. Never has been never ever will be.
Defcon levels are surely American and have sod all to do with us? Even the Mail article refers to UK threat levels. One might wonder about the lack of intellectual curiosity that led the Shadow SoS to watch films whose characters refered to Defcon levels without wondering what they meant -- and even here, from the Mail's article, it is more likely she knew roughly what was meant but asked for their precise definitions. My conclusion from the Mail's article is the Mail's source was the ignorant one for not realising we do things differently here.
Jesus wept This is a major ally, she is ShadDefSec ..also very vocal on nuke defence.
Yeah Ok .....it's Defence for Dummies time then after all.
As I've been saying for weeks now, the only sure bet is Winning Party: Democrats.
The GOP is doomed no matter who they nominate.
I think you've basically nailed it there.
A brokered convention won't be pretty. Both Donald and Cruz will use every possible means, fair or foul, to get the nomination - whoever loses is almost certain to throw their nukes out of the pram.
There are going to be some very very angry republicans - and a sore loser who can't be bought off.
How do you think the Sanders supporters are going to react when Queen Hilary in Clinton is coronated by the "Democrat" establishment?
Let's bear in mind that more people are aged 55+ than between 18 and 34, and then play with the Opinium poll figures.
The figures are as follows:
18-34s: 53% remain, 29% leave; 52% likely to vote; 35-54s: 38% remain, 42% leave; 66% likely to vote; 18-34s: 30% remain, 54% leave; 81% likely to vote.
Plug in the relative sizes of the age groups, which are
18-34s: 29%; 35-54s: 35%; 55+ : 36%
If we assume that 52% of 18-34s who say they'll vote actually will, and so on, we get:
remain: 25.2% leave: 29.7% turnout: 55%
or for actual votes:
remain 46.0% leave 54.0%
so an 8% victory for LEAVE.
Meanwhile, the pathetic David Cameron is telling the media "My fear is turnout".
You gotta wonder just how bright this cocaine-snorting, restaurant-smashing pig-botherer actually is. I know he got a first, but markers of university exams do tend to recognise the candidates' handwriting and writing style. When you were at university, was it the braying posh boys with a liking for bestiality, hard drugs and smashing stuff up who were the brightest of the bunch?
Of course it wasn't. Sure, they got highly-paid jobs (or "jobs"), but no-one would call them intelligent.
Cameron has got one word right: "fear".
It's obvious he should play the fear card, because he's supposed to be encouraging people to vote for the status quo. So far, so normal. But he should still exude confidence that "common sense" (i.e. fear, but there's no need to headline "fear" all the time) will win out. To say that he personally has "fear" that he will lose is moronic. Doesn't he think before he says what he's told to say? He should say he's confident that he will win, that the British people will make the right choice, that they'll reject the idea of taking a scary step into the unknown, pushed by irresponsible types like Nigel Farage and George Galloway who have never held real responsibilities - all that kinda crap. He shouldn't say that he's scared he'll lose. What an idiot.
Whatever people may have told Opinium, turnout will probably be a lot higher than 55%. But I don't envisage a differential rush to the polls, near the end of flaming June, a few days before Wimbledon starts, by youngsters. I mean, seriously! They're going to be out in the sun!
Leave has got this in the bag. All shocks are likely to go their way. It's hard to imagine one that will shunt people into voting Remain. The directors and governors of the Bank of England announcing a week before the vote that they'll resign if Leave wins? That they despise the choices of the hoi polloi so much that they'll take their pensions early? Be serious. Say you're a trader. Will you buy Remain or Leave when you watch that news on your ticker feed?
What do the punters at Betfair, where Leave is still at 33%, know that I don't?
As I've been saying for weeks now, the only sure bet is Winning Party: Democrats.
The GOP is doomed no matter who they nominate.
I think you've basically nailed it there.
A brokered convention won't be pretty. Both Donald and Cruz will use every possible means, fair or foul, to get the nomination - whoever loses is almost certain to throw their nukes out of the pram.
There are going to be some very very angry republicans - and a sore loser who can't be bought off.
It's not impossible that there could be two sore losers. I really don't see the point of going to all the trouble of blocking Trump if the outcome is to nominate Cruz.
Whatever happens a significant portion of the GOP will break off, either the NeverTrumps temporarily, or the populists and the conservatives more permanently.
OT, I cannot believe betting has reached this kind of sad low.
Nah. The lowest it ever reached was when Paddy Power had a market which effectively was betting on would Barack Obama get assassinated.
You're kidding, right?
Surely no one actually placed money on that bet?
BOOKMAKER Paddy Power was last night slated over a bet on which it will pay out should president-elect Barack Obama be assassinated during his first term in office, write Patrick Griffin and Allison Bray.
A spokesman for the American Embassy described the bet as very offensive and in extremely bad taste.
The bookmaker is currently offering odds of 12-1, down from 16-1 yesterday morning, that Mr Obama will not finish his first term in office and confirmed it would pay out if he was killed by a sniper's bullet.
I had low expectations but I think Sajid Javid has put up a decent performance on the Marr show. As ever, I'm frustrated that this isn't an Andrew Neil interview. Javid rebuked the accusation that Britain has been the ring leader for blocking tariffs increases in the EU but Marr seemed startled by this and doesn't know the details well enough to come back at him.
I was surprised how well Sajid Javid did on Marr this morning and maybe he has been underestimated. If I was a steel worker in Port Talbot I would have been encouraged by his support and also his sensible rejection of nationalisation. He refered to co-operation in Europe and if Europe does play a big part in protecting the European and UK steel industry over the next three months, and is perceived to do so, it could have a positive influence on remain
LOL, easily taken in , will be hot air and the steel workers down the tubes. When does UK become a fully fledged Chinese province.
Let's bear in mind that more people are aged 55+ than between 18 and 34, and then play with the Opinium poll figures.
The figures are as follows:
18-34s: 53% remain, 29% leave; 52% likely to vote; 35-54s: 38% remain, 42% leave; 66% likely to vote; 18-34s: 30% remain, 54% leave; 81% likely to vote.
Plug in the relative sizes of the age groups, which are
18-34s: 29%; 35-54s: 35%; 55+ : 36%
If we assume that 52% of 18-34s who say they'll vote actually will, and so on, we get:
remain: 25.2% leave: 29.7% turnout: 55%
or for actual votes:
remain 46.0% leave 54.0%
so an 8% victory for LEAVE.
Meanwhile, the pathetic David Cameron is telling the media "My fear is turnout".
You gotta wonder just how bright this cocaine-snorting, restaurant-smashing pig-botherer actually is. I know he got a first, but markers of university exams do tend to recognise the candidates' handwriting and writing style. When you were at university, was it the braying posh boys with a liking for bestiality, hard drugs and smashing stuff up who were the brightest of the bunch?
Of course it wasn't. Sure, they got highly-paid jobs (or "jobs"), but no-one would call them intelligent.
Cameron has got one word right: "fear".
It's obvious he should play the fear card, because he's supposed to be encouraging people to vote for the status quo. So far, so normal. But he should still exude confidence that "common sense" (i.e. fear, but there's no need to headline "fear" all the time) will win out. To say that he personally has "fear" that he will lose is moronic. Doesn't he think before he says what he's told to say? He should say he's confident that he will win, that the British people will make the right choice - all that kinda crap. Not that he's scared he'll lose. What an idiot.
Whatever people may have told Opinium, turnout will probably be a lot higher than 55%. But I don't envisage a differential rush to the polls, near the end of flaming June, a few days before Wimbledon starts, by youngsters. I mean, seriously! They're going to be out in the sun!
Leave has got this in the bag. All shocks are likely to go their way. It's hard to imagine one that will shunt people into voting Remain. The directors and governors of the Bank of England announcing a week before the vote that they'll resign? That they despise the choices of the hoi polloi so much that they'll take their pensions early? Be serious. Say you're a trader. You'll buy Remain or buy Leave if you watch that news on your ticker feed?
What do the punters at Betfair, where Leave is still at 33%, know that I don't?
Punters know that phone polls are better for Remain and Matt Singh says the phone polls are more accurate.
@tlg86 West Brom beat Arsenal earlier this year. They've also proved pretty tricky for United and Chelsea, so I wouldn't be surprised if that game was a loss for Arsenal. While Arsenal do tend to slip up against certain teams, it had looked like their record was improving in the last year or so: they beat Swansea away and United at home this season. They also beat United away in the FA Cup last season, too.
Swansea at home causes us more problems than the away game. I'd argue we lost away to Tony Pulis rather than West Brom. His record at the Emirates is awful so hopefully that carries on. Winning at Old Trafford in the cup last year is possibly my favourite away trip of the last six years. Foolishly when I trekked up to Old Trafford this season I thought this time things would be different and we might win. What an idiot.
@foxinsoxuk RE you point regarding next year's EPL: Man City are getting Guardiola, Manchester United are getting Mourinho, and Conte looks to be going to Chelsea. It's also likely that those three teams will be very busy in the summer transfer window. I'd be incredibly shocked if none of those teams improved enough to challenge for the league given the extensive changes they are making.
You may be proved right with at least one of those, but you should not assume it will happen. This line gets trotted out every year by lazy journalists. Personally I think the team most likely to win next season's Premier League is Tottenham. Possibly the biggest threat to them is losing the manager but I don't think he's going anywhere.
I suppose the line gets trotted out because for the most part it's true. This year is pretty much an anomaly - in the history of EPL, it's rare that all big teams will simultaneously flop despite having active transfer windows and decent to good managers. I'd disagree re Spurs. If Spurs (and the same goes for Arsenal as well) cannot win the league when their competition is pretty much Leicester City, then they are unlikely to win it when the competition expands to Man City, United and so on. If anything given that this is the weakest that the EPL has been in a long-time I think it's highly unlikely that a world-class manager such as Guardiola will come in and significantly underperform.
It is attitudes like that that make the 33/1 value.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
I don't deny that Leicester are good side. They will more than deserve their title win. However, that does not change the fact that the EPL is weak right now and the performances of EPL in European competitions illustrates this. Arsenal for six years plus now coming out of the round of 16. Chelsea two years in a row exiting the round of 16 to PSG. City also likely to exit at the quarters this year, and previously failed to get past the round of 16 and Group stage. Manchester United failing to get out of the Group stage this year, and in previous years did not get past the round of 16. Liverpool failing to get past the group stage a year ago now. West Ham and Southampton failing to qualify for the Europa League Group stage this year. And this Spurs side who are second in the league looking like boys against men versus Dortmund.
England are going to finish as the third strongest country in UEFA competitions again this year.
Defcon levels are surely American and have sod all to do with us? Even the Mail article refers to UK threat levels. One might wonder about the lack of intellectual curiosity that led the Shadow SoS to watch films whose characters refered to Defcon levels without wondering what they meant -- and even here, from the Mail's article, it is more likely she knew roughly what was meant but asked for their precise definitions. My conclusion from the Mail's article is the Mail's source was the ignorant one for not realising we do things differently here.
Jesus wept This is a major ally, she is ShadDefSec ..also very vocal on nuke defence.
Yeah Ok .....it's Defence for Dummies time then after all.
Defcongate is a storm in a teacup started by someone who has seen too many Hollywood blockbusters and does not realise America is a foreign country.
@ThreeQuidder The Telegraph must think that [gender being their USP] is the case for all female politicians!
It shouldn't be. But can you think of a significant current (or even recent) female politician for whom it isn't?
Sturgeon. No doubt you'd dispute her significance, but one could hardly be described as 'the most dangerous woman in Britain' (even if by the more goonish section of the media) without some claim to that quality.
Defcon levels are surely American and have sod all to do with us? Even the Mail article refers to UK threat levels. One might wonder about the lack of intellectual curiosity that led the Shadow SoS to watch films whose characters refered to Defcon levels without wondering what they meant -- and even here, from the Mail's article, it is more likely she knew roughly what was meant but asked for their precise definitions. My conclusion from the Mail's article is the Mail's source was the ignorant one for not realising we do things differently here.
Jesus wept This is a major ally, she is ShadDefSec ..also very vocal on nuke defence.
Yeah Ok .....it's Defence for Dummies time then after all.
Defcongate is a storm in a teacup started by someone who has seen too many Hollywood blockbusters and does not realise America is a foreign country.
That's a bit of a harsh way to describe Mrs Bucket...
"I agree with all of this. It is particularly obnoxious that any criticism of Israel for how they behave is immediately condemned by some people as anti-semitic. Nothing could be further from the truth. "
Richard , I totaly agree with both you and Rogers comments. I always read your comments even though, I am more to the left than yourself. As you are not partisan, as so many are on here.
Let's bear in mind that more people are aged 55+ than between 18 and 34, and then play with the Opinium poll figures.
The figures are as follows:
18-34s: 53% remain, 29% leave; 52% likely to vote; 35-54s: 38% remain, 42% leave; 66% likely to vote; 18-34s: 30% remain, 54% leave; 81% likely to vote.
Plug in the relative sizes of the age groups, which are
18-34s: 28%; 35-54s: 35%; 55+ : 36%
If we assume that 52% of 18-34s who say they'll vote actually will, and so on, we get:
remain: 25.2% leave: 29.7% turnout: 55%
or for actual votes:
remain 46.0% leave 54.0%
so an 8% victory for LEAVE.
What do the punters at Betfair, where Leave is still at 33%, know that I don't?
Well it takes time to adjust opinions to reality, as an example Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush were the favourites for the GOP nomination even though it was obvious voters didn't like them at all, it took months for the betting to catch up to reality (and a lot of people would have made a lot of money following my advice).
In this case polling says its 50-50 now with a long term trend towards Leave, but again it takes a long time for the betting to shift, it will probably start to reflect the polls after the local elections.
I believe the EPL description comes from foreign markets. As long as I can remember when I have been abroad and the games come on the tv, they have always described it as EPL.
Comments
Honestly, there seems ample evidence on the face if it that Rousseff has been involved in corrupt dealings, but personally I find that encouraging in a weird way - female political leaders are just as capable of being incompetent and corrupt as male political leaders. It shouldn't, I would hope, affect the chances of other women getting involved in politics and isn't an example of ingrained misogyny working against her given there seems substance to the accusations, so as you suggest what's the problem?
Though I see from the piece some commentators think she only got the job as she was handpicked by her Male boss, not on merit and so wasn't a good role model.
My feeling is the author wanted to write a standard piece about there not being enough women in politics, a not unworthy topic and quite a common one, and just used Rousseff as a launching off point without considering ' well if she is corrupt she should be impeached, shouldn't she?' As it is, it undermines the point about female representation by implying her going would automatically be bad, unintentionally suggesting a corrupt, if she is guilty, female politician going is bad because of the reduction in female representation.
To quote the Wife of Bath on Solomon, 'would that 'twere given unto me to be refreshed half so oft as he!'
Have a good morning.
http://qi.com/infocloud/sherlock-holmes
Maybe you would prefer it if it only hired people with Tory (or UKIP) party cards?
Incidentally [I do apologise for banging on about this], there is quite a lot of innuendo in The Adventures of Sir Edric:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adventures-Edric-Hero-Hornska-Book-ebook/dp/B01DOSP9ZK
No ejaculating, but I do manage to work in a literally Shakespearean euphemism at one point. Was quite pleased with that.
I remember Stephen King writing that if you are searching in your head for a word to replace the one you've written, nine times out of ten the one you've already written will be better.
Good advice that.
Wokingham supposed to be near median on Remain/Leave. My doorknocking so far puts Remain well ahead, followed by Don't Know and Leave a long way behind. Sample several hundred now, just door to door, regardless of political affiliation.
We heard the same before how Klopp or LVG or Peligrino were wonder managers and buying in expensive mercenaries was the way forward. How did that work out :-)
Consider that Leicester and Tottenham can retain and recruit in the summer by promising CL football, while Chelsea, Liverpool and ManU cannot. Possibly Man City too. In addition the new TV deal is much more generous so all PL teams can pay more. The times they are a changing.
Leicester has its own billionaire owner. Indeed it it his birthday today, so he has bought every ticketholder a beer and donut. Happy birthday Vichai!
http://mobile.lcfc.com/news/article/lcfc-chairman-to-mark-birthday-with-free-beer-and-doughnuts-3035066.aspx
Anyway, I must away to contemplate a knotty plot point. Forget ye not my pre-race piece, replete with a super-abundance* of tips:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/bahrain-pre-race.html
*There are two.
@ThreeQuidder The Telegraph must think that this is the case for all female politicians!
@kle4 What I found odd about the article is that no one has ever (to my knowledge anyway) cited Rousseff's gender as reason for, or connected to her alleged corrupt dealings. It feels like the author has created a strawman argument in this case. I also agree that if we are going to have more female politicians, we have to accept that they won't all be 'good' figures. Power seems to corrupt most politicians to some degree or another, and it won't be any different with female politicians.
Just as when Leicester were top in December that 20/1 on winning the title was great value and evens on a top 4 place nailed on. (Both tipped here by yours truly.)
The simple truth is that Leicester are a very good side.
There's none so blind...
TBH it was in the 50’s and 60’s that I had much to do with it.
I also hope that Mourinho doesn't go to Utd, a club with a trtadition of open attacking football managed by the most negative, win at all costs manager since Don Revie. It ends in tears everywhere for Mourinho, I hope Utd see sense and look long term.
City will spend zillions, so will Chelsea, Arsenal will be there as usual, this season has been freakish in so many ways, very enjoyable.
I'm interested to see your prices for next season
Tottenham are also moving to a new stadium soon, which has the potential to limit the amount of cash they have to buy new stars as well. On Leicester, there already appears to be an expectation management that Mahrez and Kante are likely to leave in the summer. Vardy, I think has extended his contract, though. The TV deal will limit EPL clubs ability to buy, but only within the EPL. There should not be any issues regarding buying from clubs outside the EPL, particularly smaller clubs.
Regardless of what happens in the next 6 weeks they've done remarkably well and been a breath of fresh air.
But I do hope Leicester manage it.
I wouldn't bet on anyone at less than 10/1 for next season until August.
Leicester +45 was great value in the Betfair exchange handicap last year. It will be less this year but still likely to be worth a punt.
Out of interest, how long have you been a regular watching Leicester? It seems your overall football knowledge is very limited.
FrancisUrquhart said:
You would think Mrs Bucket would know how to use the google machine...As a lawyer you would have thought researching facts etc would be pretty normal thing for here.
--------------
NickPalmer
On the other hand, it ought to be possible to ask something you don't know in a private discussion without having it turn up in the Mail.
-------------
Don't know? What Utter Claptrap and drivel Nick.
This is the Shadow Defence Secretary we are talking about here not some spotty faced intern reading Defence for Dummies. Thornberry may wish to do away with nukes ( who doesn't ?) She should though at least approach the subject with detailed knowledge, even some basic knowledge would be better than nothing. This woman has absolutely no knowledge whatsoever except from her visits to the local Odeon widescreen where she appears to know more about the popcorn she was eating than defence.
This is the woman who wants to do away with our nuclear deterrent yet she doesn't even understand the most basic concepts of how modern warfare would be conducted or the related defence conditions. Yet.... Yet? ....She is to have the final and most important say on policy of your defence review (along with Red Ken) which if you ever returned to power you would presumably implement.
"Emily Thornberry, the shadow defence secretary, is to have ultimate responsibility for Labour’s defence review looking at its policy on Trident - with more sway than Ken Livingstone, party sources have said."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/14/emily-thornberry-final-say-labour-trident-review-nuclear-ken-livingstone
The woman is dangerous as is your party. First duty of any government is the defence of the land and protection of the people I don't hold out any hopes on this from this ridiculous woman or Corbyn. The Defence of the country is of course secondary to Labour ideals and shows along with finance and many other major functions of state even defence is not safe with Labour. Never has been never ever will be.
81 points wins it for us. 5 more wins out of 7 even if Spurs win every match.
Any cricket tips for today? West Indies seem narrow favourites.
What has been most heartening has been the dismantling of the notion that only Arsenal+Chelsea+ManU+Man City could make up the top four, with a forlorn-looking Liverpool pressing their nose against the sweet shop window. Although at times this season, it has appeared that the League has been replaced by a random number generator....
I would tip 1 nil to Leicester today. When we score first Ranieri parks the bus very effectively. If no goal by half time or if Saints score first then he will attack aggressively. He doesn't want a draw.
Attrib. Emperor Joseph II
The GOP is doomed no matter who they nominate.
For a race with such a recent history of persecution it's not surprising.The same applies to Israel. Many are disgusted by their settlement policy and their treatment of the Palestinians. I don't know which charity is behind the boycott Israel policy is but you can be sure it will have as much Jewish backing as Muslim.
The real shame is that Israel has been taken over as a right wing cause by some pretty unpleasant people and the banner of anti semitism is being used by these people for an agenda that would disgust many of the people in whose name they're acting
Call me demanding, but if you've a strong enough view on nuclear defence to want to abolish it, I'd expect that person to have at least a Wikipedia level of knowledge. Not like it's her day job or anything.
Trump has a 40% chance of getting to 1237 and an extra 10% if he doesn't, for a 46% for the nomination. Betfair has him on 51%.
Cruz has a 0% chance of getting to 1237 and a 66% chance if Trump doesn't get to 1237, for a total of 26%. Betfair has him on 27%.
Kasich has a 0% chance of getting to 1237 and a 10% chance if Trump doesn't get to 1237, for a total of 6%. Betfair has him on 11%.
Person X has a 22% chance, but no one knows who will that be.
I know that Spurs didn't play a full-strength team, but even if they did - with the way they way beaten (5-1 on aggregate) it's likely that Dortmund still would have won even with the first 11 starting. It looks likely Berahino will be off to Spurs next year, although his attitude isn't the greatest maybe Pochettino will change that. On Arsenal, I think Wenger's time is coming to an end anyway. The real question for Arsenal is if Wenger goes, who comes in to replace him? Martinez has yet to discover the art of defending in regard to all of the teams he's coached so far. Koeman looks likely to be staying with Southampton. On Spurs finishing second, well that's not always a predictor for the next year. Liverpool finished second in 2013 and they were underwhelmingly the following season.
@tlg86 West Brom beat Arsenal earlier this year. They've also proved pretty tricky for United and Chelsea, so I wouldn't be surprised if that game was a loss for Arsenal. While Arsenal do tend to slip up against certain teams, it had looked like their record was improving in the last year or so: they beat Swansea away and United at home this season. They also beat United away in the FA Cup last season, too.
A brokered convention won't be pretty. Both Donald and Cruz will use every possible means, fair or foul, to get the nomination - whoever loses is almost certain to throw their nukes out of the pram.
There are going to be some very very angry republicans - and a sore loser who can't be bought off.
This is a major ally, she is ShadDefSec ..also very vocal on nuke defence.
Yeah Ok .....it's Defence for Dummies time then after all.
Surely no one actually placed money on that bet?
It was around way before the IPL, and we're in England.
We don't call the championship the EC.
Or the Grand National the EGN.
The figures are as follows:
18-34s: 53% remain, 29% leave; 52% likely to vote;
35-54s: 38% remain, 42% leave; 66% likely to vote;
18-34s: 30% remain, 54% leave; 81% likely to vote.
Plug in the relative sizes of the age groups, which are
18-34s: 29%;
35-54s: 35%;
55+ : 36%
If we assume that 52% of 18-34s who say they'll vote actually will, and so on, we get:
remain: 25.2%
leave: 29.7%
turnout: 55%
or for actual votes:
remain 46.0%
leave 54.0%
so an 8% victory for LEAVE.
Meanwhile, the pathetic David Cameron is telling the media "My fear is turnout".
You gotta wonder just how bright this cocaine-snorting, restaurant-smashing pig-botherer actually is. I know he got a first, but markers of university exams do tend to recognise the candidates' handwriting and writing style. When you were at university, was it the braying posh boys with a liking for bestiality, hard drugs and smashing stuff up who were the brightest of the bunch?
Of course it wasn't. Sure, they got highly-paid jobs (or "jobs"), but no-one would call them intelligent.
Cameron has got one word right: "fear".
It's obvious he should play the fear card, because he's supposed to be encouraging people to vote for the status quo. So far, so normal. But he should still exude confidence that "common sense" (i.e. fear, but there's no need to headline "fear" all the time) will win out. To say that he personally has "fear" that he will lose is moronic. Doesn't he think before he says what he's told to say? He should say he's confident that he will win, that the British people will make the right choice, that they'll reject the idea of taking a scary step into the unknown, pushed by irresponsible types like Nigel Farage and George Galloway who have never held real responsibilities - all that kinda crap. He shouldn't say that he's scared he'll lose. What an idiot.
Whatever people may have told Opinium, turnout will probably be a lot higher than 55%. But I don't envisage a differential rush to the polls, near the end of flaming June, a few days before Wimbledon starts, by youngsters. I mean, seriously! They're going to be out in the sun!
Leave has got this in the bag. All shocks are likely to go their way. It's hard to imagine one that will shunt people into voting Remain. The directors and governors of the Bank of England announcing a week before the vote that they'll resign if Leave wins? That they despise the choices of the hoi polloi so much that they'll take their pensions early? Be serious. Say you're a trader. Will you buy Remain or Leave when you watch that news on your ticker feed?
What do the punters at Betfair, where Leave is still at 33%, know that I don't?
A spokesman for the American Embassy described the bet as very offensive and in extremely bad taste.
The bookmaker is currently offering odds of 12-1, down from 16-1 yesterday morning, that Mr Obama will not finish his first term in office and confirmed it would pay out if he was killed by a sniper's bullet.
http://m.independent.ie/world-news/americas/us-elections/bookie-in-firing-line-over-its-sniper-bet-26490327.html
No doubt you'd dispute her significance, but one could hardly be described as 'the most dangerous woman in Britain' (even if by the more goonish section of the media) without some claim to that quality.
But since when was it that.
It has been the Premier League since '92, and we're in England. The E is unnecessary.
Richard , I totaly agree with both you and Rogers comments.
I always read your comments even though, I am more to the left than yourself.
As you are not partisan, as so many are on here.
In this case polling says its 50-50 now with a long term trend towards Leave, but again it takes a long time for the betting to shift, it will probably start to reflect the polls after the local elections.