He speaks well enough but he sounds so old fashioned. All this 'fly the flag we were once great' doesn't appeal to me at all. I think something more concrete would be more effective but perhaps this spirit of the blitz mentality still has an audience.
British destroyer HMS Defender is arriving in the search zone for the missing plane. She has a submarine-hunting Sonar which shouldn't have too much trouble finding a black box or two.
I'm not sure the BBC news website is much of a threat to anyone at the moment. It's never been great, and recently it has just become appallingly bad. I'm not talking about bias, but basic quality - missing out important bits of the story, bad writing, and an irritating habit of breaking up the narrative with contrary views before you've had a chance to understand what the actual news story is supposed to be about.
A wonderful example this morning. Compare and contrast:
The Beeb manages an entire and quite long piece without actually telling you the most important thing you'd need to know if you were to implement the advice.
I almost always go the Guardian for basic news coverage now. Their opinion pieces might be a joke, but at least they report the news. (And I think it's improved a lot under the new editor).
I am not into betting at all , but if the current police investigations led to - say - 20 by-elections in Tory marginal seats - half of which were then lost - could the Bookies then claim that the 2015 election did NOT result in a Tory overall majority?
If that happened there would also be by-elections in lots of Labour and all the Lib Dem seats
Maybe so - but the net effect of such by elections might well lead to the Government losing its majority.
One thing no media outlet has cracked yet...a modern way to display news. All revamps of Guardian (Beta, that got dropped), BBC, Telegraph, Times, all really horrid.
So far nobody has managed to revolutionize the interface say like Netflix has done for movies or Spottily for music.
I am not into betting at all , but if the current police investigations led to - say - 20 by-elections in Tory marginal seats - half of which were then lost - could the Bookies then claim that the 2015 election did NOT result in a Tory overall majority?
IANAL but no because the small print would have defined how the bets were settled and that's already past. Future developments are neither here nor there.
Ohhhhhhhhhhh good review....that looked out, out, out, out, out, even when the overlay came and the freeze frame impact looked out, then ohhhh Hawkeye says missing.
I wonder what tonight's ComRes phone poll will show.
Is interesting this market doesn't respond to the bad for Remain online polls but does move to the good for Remain phone polls.
And real money being staked, nearly £13million so far
Yes, I think it's brave. What if the phone polls are wrong and the onlines right?
I don't go big on conspiracy theories but there's an awful lot of wealthy people who'd be severely inconvenienced by Leave. A substantial contribution towards the £13m is money well invested for them especially if they can create a sense of disarray and helplessness among Leavers.
I was out on the town on Saturday night with a director at Deutsche Bank who's put almost £10k on Remain.
I told him Leave had a chance, and had to warn him to cover himself. He hasn't done so, and has no plans to do so.
For evidence of why Rushbridger was away with the fairies when it came to business management. It still has not dawned on him that the BBC model will destroy the Guardian eventually.
"For most of its 195-year life, the Guardian has struggled to make money – just as the Observer has probably not turned a profit since its principled stand over Suez in 1956. Quite often (as today), the Guardian has lost more than it should, or could, in any given year. Clearly, the business model needs to change. But looking around the world, I don’t think that anyone can truthfully claim to have cracked it."
Erhhhh....The Daily Mail, Fox News, .....to name two, make good money.
I imagine The Times are profitable, or at least close to it. 400,000 subscribers, I would estimate an ASP of around £75 per year which is at least £30m plus advertising revenue and any additional money they make from the Times+ offers. If the website isn't profitable I would be very surprised.
I wonder what tonight's ComRes phone poll will show.
Is interesting this market doesn't respond to the bad for Remain online polls but does move to the good for Remain phone polls.
And real money being staked, nearly £13million so far
Yes, I think it's brave. What if the phone polls are wrong and the onlines right?
I don't go big on conspiracy theories but there's an awful lot of wealthy people who'd be severely inconvenienced by Leave. A substantial contribution towards the £13m is money well invested for them especially if they can create a sense of disarray and helplessness among Leavers.
I was out on the town on Saturday night with a director at Deutsche Bank who's put almost £10k on Remain.
I told him Leave had a chance, and had to warn him to cover himself. He hasn't done so, and has no plans to do so.
That's almost reason enough to vote Leave in itself.
Betfair's 6.8 (6.5 net) on 60% - 65% voting REMAIN looks like decent value (or at least reasonably priced insurance for those backing REMAIN to do less well).
I could be very wrong but I think people are overreacting to the Ipsos Mori poll.
I'd be astonished if Remain had a 26% lead amongst Conservative voters.
For evidence of why Rushbridger was away with the fairies when it came to business management. It still has not dawned on him that the BBC model will destroy the Guardian eventually.
"For most of its 195-year life, the Guardian has struggled to make money – just as the Observer has probably not turned a profit since its principled stand over Suez in 1956. Quite often (as today), the Guardian has lost more than it should, or could, in any given year. Clearly, the business model needs to change. But looking around the world, I don’t think that anyone can truthfully claim to have cracked it."
Erhhhh....The Daily Mail, Fox News, .....to name two, make good money.
I imagine The Times are profitable, or at least close to it. 400,000 subscribers, I would estimate an ASP of around £75 per year which is at least £30m plus advertising revenue and any additional money they make from the Times+ offers. If the website isn't profitable I would be very surprised.
Doesn't the MailOnline prop up the print version?
I think both are independently very profitable.
I'm pretty sure the print version props up the online.
I am not into betting at all , but if the current police investigations led to - say - 20 by-elections in Tory marginal seats - half of which were then lost - could the Bookies then claim that the 2015 election did NOT result in a Tory overall majority?
IANAL but no because the small print would have defined how the bets were settled and that's already past. Future developments are neither here nor there.
Fair enough! As I say this is not my field at all - but I am aware that if a winning horse is disqualified after doping tests etc there are implications for settling of bets.
I'm not sure the BBC news website is much of a threat to anyone at the moment. It's never been great, and recently it has just become appallingly bad. I'm not talking about bias, but basic quality - missing out important bits of the story, bad writing, and an irritating habit of breaking up the narrative with contrary views before you've had a chance to understand what the actual news story is supposed to be about.
A wonderful example this morning. Compare and contrast:
The Beeb manages an entire and quite long piece without actually telling you the most important thing you'd need to know if you were to implement the advice.
I almost always go the Guardian for basic news coverage now. Their opinion pieces might be a joke, but at least they report the news. (And I think it's improved a lot under the new editor).
Don't forget Seamus Milne has also been given a leave of absence.
For evidence of why Rushbridger was away with the fairies when it came to business management. It still has not dawned on him that the BBC model will destroy the Guardian eventually.
"For most of its 195-year life, the Guardian has struggled to make money – just as the Observer has probably not turned a profit since its principled stand over Suez in 1956. Quite often (as today), the Guardian has lost more than it should, or could, in any given year. Clearly, the business model needs to change. But looking around the world, I don’t think that anyone can truthfully claim to have cracked it."
Erhhhh....The Daily Mail, Fox News, .....to name two, make good money.
I imagine The Times are profitable, or at least close to it. 400,000 subscribers, I would estimate an ASP of around £75 per year which is at least £30m plus advertising revenue and any additional money they make from the Times+ offers. If the website isn't profitable I would be very surprised.
Doesn't the MailOnline prop up the print version?
I think both are independently very profitable.
I'm pretty sure the print version props up the online.
Definitely not. Online makes Mail good money. It is one of the most popular websites in the world.
I am not into betting at all , but if the current police investigations led to - say - 20 by-elections in Tory marginal seats - half of which were then lost - could the Bookies then claim that the 2015 election did NOT result in a Tory overall majority?
If that happened there would also be by-elections in lots of Labour and all the Lib Dem seats
Crick couldn't understand why there was no traction for his story about the Tory battle bus, the only person wanting to complain was Farage. The answer was obvious, as Guido's digging has proved over the past couple of weeks, that all the parties were running busses up and down the country in the same way.
Betfair's 6.8 (6.5 net) on 60% - 65% voting REMAIN looks like decent value (or at least reasonably priced insurance for those backing REMAIN to do less well).
I could be very wrong but I think people are overreacting to the Ipsos Mori poll.
I'd be astonished if Remain had a 26% lead amongst Conservative voters.
On the other side, I simply don't believe the alleged 2 to 1 majority for Leave amongst Over-65s, which YouGov have reported.
" ... within a couple of seasons morph into an intravenous diet of softcore and gratuitous violence. Rots the brain."
That's me explained then.
I like GoT because it's different. The goody-goodys get bumped off rapidly. In the first episode when Ned Stark got decapitated, I thought "At last, we've got rid of the Guardian reader." Realism.
And nothing wrong with a bit of soft-core porn. Not so keen on the gay sex, but then bump! There went the gay Renly Baratheon. My sort of show.
I am not into betting at all , but if the current police investigations led to - say - 20 by-elections in Tory marginal seats - half of which were then lost - could the Bookies then claim that the 2015 election did NOT result in a Tory overall majority?
If that happened there would also be by-elections in lots of Labour and all the Lib Dem seats
Crick couldn't understand why there was no traction for his story about the Tory battle bus, the only person wanting to complain was Farage. The answer was obvious, as Guido's digging has proved over the past couple of weeks, that all the parties were running busses up and down the country in the same way.
You would have thought as a good journalist that Crick might have thought I wonder if the other parties engage in a similar type of strategy...
Betfair's 6.8 (6.5 net) on 60% - 65% voting REMAIN looks like decent value (or at least reasonably priced insurance for those backing REMAIN to do less well).
I could be very wrong but I think people are overreacting to the Ipsos Mori poll.
I'd be astonished if Remain had a 26% lead amongst Conservative voters.
On the other side, I simply don't believe the alleged 2 to 1 majority for Leave amongst Over-65s, which YouGov have reported.
For evidence of why Rushbridger was away with the fairies when it came to business management. It still has not dawned on him that the BBC model will destroy the Guardian eventually.
"For most of its 195-year life, the Guardian has struggled to make money – just as the Observer has probably not turned a profit since its principled stand over Suez in 1956. Quite often (as today), the Guardian has lost more than it should, or could, in any given year. Clearly, the business model needs to change. But looking around the world, I don’t think that anyone can truthfully claim to have cracked it."
Erhhhh....The Daily Mail, Fox News, .....to name two, make good money.
I imagine The Times are profitable, or at least close to it. 400,000 subscribers, I would estimate an ASP of around £75 per year which is at least £30m plus advertising revenue and any additional money they make from the Times+ offers. If the website isn't profitable I would be very surprised.
Doesn't the MailOnline prop up the print version?
I think both are independently very profitable.
I'm pretty sure the print version props up the online.
Not for the Mail, it is the number on English language news website in the world. It is fabulously profitable.
For evidence of why Rushbridger was away with the fairies when it came to business management. It still has not dawned on him that the BBC model will destroy the Guardian eventually.
"For most of its 195-year life, the Guardian has struggled to make money – just as the Observer has probably not turned a profit since its principled stand over Suez in 1956. Quite often (as today), the Guardian has lost more than it should, or could, in any given year. Clearly, the business model needs to change. But looking around the world, I don’t think that anyone can truthfully claim to have cracked it."
Erhhhh....The Daily Mail, Fox News, .....to name two, make good money.
I imagine The Times are profitable, or at least close to it. 400,000 subscribers, I would estimate an ASP of around £75 per year which is at least £30m plus advertising revenue and any additional money they make from the Times+ offers. If the website isn't profitable I would be very surprised.
I'm not sure where you got an average subscription cost of £75 from .... the cheapest 7 day cost is more than FOUR times that, i.e. > £300 p.a. That said, the newspaper must be losing readers by the tens of thousands, unwilling to pay such a very high price.
I wonder what tonight's ComRes phone poll will show.
Is interesting this market doesn't respond to the bad for Remain online polls but does move to the good for Remain phone polls.
And real money being staked, nearly £13million so far
Yes, I think it's brave. What if the phone polls are wrong and the onlines right?
I don't go big on conspiracy theories but there's an awful lot of wealthy people who'd be severely inconvenienced by Leave. A substantial contribution towards the £13m is money well invested for them especially if they can create a sense of disarray and helplessness among Leavers.
If they are wealthy and they'd be seriously inconvenienced by Leave, you'd expect them to bet heavily on Leave as a hedge rather than try to game the market.
I'm not sure the BBC news website is much of a threat to anyone at the moment. It's never been great, and recently it has just become appallingly bad. I'm not talking about bias, but basic quality - missing out important bits of the story, bad writing, and an irritating habit of breaking up the narrative with contrary views before you've had a chance to understand what the actual news story is supposed to be about.
A wonderful example this morning. Compare and contrast:
The Beeb manages an entire and quite long piece without actually telling you the most important thing you'd need to know if you were to implement the advice.
I almost always go the Guardian for basic news coverage now. Their opinion pieces might be a joke, but at least they report the news. (And I think it's improved a lot under the new editor).
Don't forget Seamus Milne has also been given a leave of absence.
I don't understand why the Guardian don't force the issue and either force him to quit or not moonlight as Labour's comms director. The editor needs to have more balls, not take the path of the old one.
I'm not sure the BBC news website is much of a threat to anyone at the moment. It's never been great, and recently it has just become appallingly bad. I'm not talking about bias, but basic quality - missing out important bits of the story, bad writing, and an irritating habit of breaking up the narrative with contrary views before you've had a chance to understand what the actual news story is supposed to be about.
A wonderful example this morning. Compare and contrast:
The Beeb manages an entire and quite long piece without actually telling you the most important thing you'd need to know if you were to implement the advice.
I almost always go the Guardian for basic news coverage now. Their opinion pieces might be a joke, but at least they report the news. (And I think it's improved a lot under the new editor).
Don't forget Seamus Milne has also been given a leave of absence.
I don't understand why the Guardian don't force the issue and either force him to quit or not moonlight as Labour's comms director. The editor needs to have more balls, not take the path of the old one.
For evidence of why Rushbridger was away with the fairies when it came to business management. It still has not dawned on him that the BBC model will destroy the Guardian eventually.
"For most of its 195-year life, the Guardian has struggled to make money – just as the Observer has probably not turned a profit since its principled stand over Suez in 1956. Quite often (as today), the Guardian has lost more than it should, or could, in any given year. Clearly, the business model needs to change. But looking around the world, I don’t think that anyone can truthfully claim to have cracked it."
Erhhhh....The Daily Mail, Fox News, .....to name two, make good money.
I imagine The Times are profitable, or at least close to it. 400,000 subscribers, I would estimate an ASP of around £75 per year which is at least £30m plus advertising revenue and any additional money they make from the Times+ offers. If the website isn't profitable I would be very surprised.
I'm not sure where you got an average subscription cost of £75 from .... the cheapest 7 day cost is more than FOUR times that, i.e. > £300 p.a. That said, the newspaper must be losing readers by the tens of thousands, unwilling to pay such a very high price.
No, that's the number of online subscribers and the revenue I expect they derive from each online subscription (even when sold as part of the £300 annual delivery sub).
For evidence of why Rushbridger was away with the fairies when it came to business management. It still has not dawned on him that the BBC model will destroy the Guardian eventually.
"For most of its 195-year life, the Guardian has struggled to make money – just as the Observer has probably not turned a profit since its principled stand over Suez in 1956. Quite often (as today), the Guardian has lost more than it should, or could, in any given year. Clearly, the business model needs to change. But looking around the world, I don’t think that anyone can truthfully claim to have cracked it."
Erhhhh....The Daily Mail, Fox News, .....to name two, make good money.
I imagine The Times are profitable, or at least close to it. 400,000 subscribers, I would estimate an ASP of around £75 per year which is at least £30m plus advertising revenue and any additional money they make from the Times+ offers. If the website isn't profitable I would be very surprised.
I'm not sure where you got an average subscription cost of £75 from .... the cheapest 7 day cost is more than FOUR times that, i.e. > £300 p.a. That said, the newspaper must be losing readers by the tens of thousands, unwilling to pay such a very high price.
Another suggestion Egyptair was some kind of hijacking?
eksymons 2m2 minutes ago French police officer: strange if terrorist exploded bomb after 3 hours: typically done early in flight. #EgyptAir
I don't think that that is all that meaningful. For example the printer cartridge bombs that originated in Yemen — and they were only found due to the Saudi's getting a tip from an agent — were supposed to detonate shortly before landing.
I'm not sure the BBC news website is much of a threat to anyone at the moment. It's never been great, and recently it has just become appallingly bad. I'm not talking about bias, but basic quality - missing out important bits of the story, bad writing, and an irritating habit of breaking up the narrative with contrary views before you've had a chance to understand what the actual news story is supposed to be about.
A wonderful example this morning. Compare and contrast:
The Beeb manages an entire and quite long piece without actually telling you the most important thing you'd need to know if you were to implement the advice.
I almost always go the Guardian for basic news coverage now. Their opinion pieces might be a joke, but at least they report the news. (And I think it's improved a lot under the new editor).
Don't forget Seamus Milne has also been given a leave of absence.
I don't understand why the Guardian don't force the issue and either force him to quit or not moonlight as Labour's comms director. The editor needs to have more balls, not take the path of the old one.
I'm not sure the BBC news website is much of a threat to anyone at the moment. It's never been great, and recently it has just become appallingly bad. I'm not talking about bias, but basic quality - missing out important bits of the story, bad writing, and an irritating habit of breaking up the narrative with contrary views before you've had a chance to understand what the actual news story is supposed to be about.
A wonderful example this morning. Compare and contrast:
The Beeb manages an entire and quite long piece without actually telling you the most important thing you'd need to know if you were to implement the advice.
I almost always go the Guardian for basic news coverage now. Their opinion pieces might be a joke, but at least they report the news. (And I think it's improved a lot under the new editor).
Don't forget Seamus Milne has also been given a leave of absence.
I don't understand why the Guardian don't force the issue and either force him to quit or not moonlight as Labour's comms director. The editor needs to have more balls, not take the path of the old one.
F1: an aside, not a recommendation, but on Betfair Verstappen's shorter odds than Vettel to win in Monaco. Probably fair. If Renault's engine does narrow the power gap, Red Bull will be the second best car at street circuits.
I am not into betting at all , but if the current police investigations led to - say - 20 by-elections in Tory marginal seats - half of which were then lost - could the Bookies then claim that the 2015 election did NOT result in a Tory overall majority?
If that happened there would also be by-elections in lots of Labour and all the Lib Dem seats
Crick couldn't understand why there was no traction for his story about the Tory battle bus, the only person wanting to complain was Farage. The answer was obvious, as Guido's digging has proved over the past couple of weeks, that all the parties were running busses up and down the country in the same way.
You would have thought as a good journalist that Crick might have thought I wonder if the other parties engage in a similar type of strategy...
Can you think of any reason why he may have focused on one party?
I'm not sure the BBC news website is much of a threat to anyone at the moment. It's never been great, and recently it has just become appallingly bad. I'm not talking about bias, but basic quality - missing out important bits of the story, bad writing, and an irritating habit of breaking up the narrative with contrary views before you've had a chance to understand what the actual news story is supposed to be about.
A wonderful example this morning. Compare and contrast:
The Beeb manages an entire and quite long piece without actually telling you the most important thing you'd need to know if you were to implement the advice.
I almost always go the Guardian for basic news coverage now. Their opinion pieces might be a joke, but at least they report the news. (And I think it's improved a lot under the new editor).
Don't forget Seamus Milne has also been given a leave of absence.
I don't understand why the Guardian don't force the issue and either force him to quit or not moonlight as Labour's comms director. The editor needs to have more balls, not take the path of the old one.
This is the policy plank The Federalist is suggesting the GOP should rally around under a Trump campaign (essentially revamped Healthcare, immigration reform and enforcement, tax reform, reform of veterans' benefits, and federalization of gun laws around universal right to carry but better enforcement of checks):
Repeal Obamacare in its entirety. Enact legislation that creates a national health insurance market. Expand health savings accounts. Mandate price transparency in health care and medication. De-fund Planned Parenthood so long as it performs abortions. Prohibit federal funding for or review of state curriculum mandates and tests, which helped nationalize Common Core. Authorize funding for a border wall, including provisions for alternative funding, such as levies against remittances to Mexico. Triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Mandate nationwide E-verify. De-fund sanctuary cities. Raise the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs to make U.S. citizens competitive. Increase standards for admitting refugees and asylum-seekers, including stronger background checks. Pause in issuing green cards until U.S. citizen unemployment improves. End birthright citizenship, i.e. no more “anchor babies.” Allow veterans to use Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to purchase private health care from any doctor or care facility that accepts Medicare. Increase funding for VA treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Increase VA funding for job training and placement services for veterans Fund OB/GYN services at all VA hospitals. Simplify the tax code consistent with Trump’s proposals. Eliminate all income taxes on singles making $25,000 or less, and on all married couples making $50,000 or less. Enact legislation for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas, with repatriated funds to be taxed at 10 percent and no other penalty. Enact a 15 percent maximum business tax, for corporate tax as well as small businesses and freelancers. Eliminate the death tax. Enforce the Second Amendment by ending gun and magazine bans. Enforce the Second Amendment by requiring states to put criminal and mental health records onto background check system. Enforce the Second Amendment by enacting a national right-to-carry law, with permits to be valid in all 50 states. Authorize the Keystone Pipeline. Provide for an initial round of funding for new infrastructure construction and repair. Each of
I'm not sure the BBC news website is much of a threat to anyone at the moment. It's never been great, and recently it has just become appallingly bad. I'm not talking about bias, but basic quality - missing out important bits of the story, bad writing, and an irritating habit of breaking up the narrative with contrary views before you've had a chance to understand what the actual news story is supposed to be about.
A wonderful example this morning. Compare and contrast:
The Beeb manages an entire and quite long piece without actually telling you the most important thing you'd need to know if you were to implement the advice.
I almost always go the Guardian for basic news coverage now. Their opinion pieces might be a joke, but at least they report the news. (And I think it's improved a lot under the new editor).
Don't forget Seamus Milne has also been given a leave of absence.
I don't understand why the Guardian don't force the issue and either force him to quit or not moonlight as Labour's comms director. The editor needs to have more balls, not take the path of the old one.
This is the policy plank The Federalist is suggesting the GOP should rally around under a Trump campaign (essentially revamped Healthcare, immigration reform and enforcement, tax reform, reform of veterans' benefits, and federalization of gun laws around universal right to carry but better enforcement of checks):
Repeal Obamacare in its entirety. Enact legislation that creates a national health insurance market. Expand health savings accounts. Mandate price transparency in health care and medication. De-fund Planned Parenthood so long as it performs abortions. Prohibit federal funding for or review of state curriculum mandates and tests, which helped nationalize Common Core. Authorize funding for a border wall, including provisions for alternative funding, such as levies against remittances to Mexico. Triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Mandate nationwide E-verify. De-fund sanctuary cities. Raise the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs to make U.S. citizens competitive. Increase standards for admitting refugees and asylum-seekers, including stronger background checks. Pause in issuing green cards until U.S. citizen unemployment improves. End birthright citizenship, i.e. no more “anchor babies.” Allow veterans to use Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to purchase private health care from any doctor or care facility that accepts Medicare. Increase funding for VA treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Increase VA funding for job training and placement services for veterans Fund OB/GYN services at all VA hospitals. Simplify the tax code consistent with Trump’s proposals. Eliminate all income taxes on singles making $25,000 or less, and on all married couples making $50,000 or less. Enact legislation for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas, with repatriated funds to be taxed at 10 percent and no other penalty. Enact a 15 percent maximum business tax, for corporate tax as well as small businesses and freelancers. Eliminate the death tax. Enforce the Second Amendment by ending gun and magazine bans. Enforce the Second Amendment by requiring states to put criminal and mental health records onto background check system. Enforce the Second Amendment by enacting a national right-to-carry law, with permits to be valid in all 50 states. Authorize the Keystone Pipeline. Provide for an initial round of funding for new infrastructure construction and repair. Each of
Notable is that there is very little on the economy except two bullets on infrastructure.
I like the consistency of Rasmussen - they are systematically wrong.
I think it's fair to say Rasmussen's POTUS polling has been rather less than stellar in the past.
They were consistently biased towards the GOP when Scott Rasmussen was heading up the company, and have swung completely the other way since he was ousted.
I think it'll be an interesting tory conference this year if remain wins
I'm not sure what right-wingers will have to be excited about. The Queen's Speech is dull and procedural.
May as well ditch the immigration target.
No meaningful sovereignty or British Bill of Rights either. Hunting act repeal won't happen. Nothing socially conservative to promote the family. Probably will have more diversity / equality legislation instead.
What's left? A small lifting of the higher rate threshold?
But then, so does acting with arrogance and complacency when your majority's smaller than a wafer-thin mint. Cameron and Osborne share responsibility for the action.
I think it'll be an interesting tory conference this year if remain wins
I'm not sure what right-wingers will have to be excited about. The Queen's Speech is dull and procedural.
May as well ditch the immigration target.
No meaningful sovereignty or British Bill of Rights either. Hunting act repeal won't happen. Nothing socially conservative to promote the family. Probably will have more diversity / equality legislation instead.
What's left? A small lifting of the higher rate threshold?
I'm not sure I care.
I was thinking about how the grass roots would receive traitor Cameron
F1: an aside, not a recommendation, but on Betfair Verstappen's shorter odds than Vettel to win in Monaco. Probably fair. If Renault's engine does narrow the power gap, Red Bull will be the second best car at street circuits.
Monaco's an interesting place. Not checked the odds yet but McLarens to both make Q3 and score points will be a good bet.
I like the consistency of Rasmussen - they are systematically wrong.
I think it's fair to say Rasmussen's POTUS polling has been rather less than stellar in the past.
They were consistently biased towards the GOP when Scott Rasmussen was heading up the company, and have swung completely the other way since he was ousted.
All their recent polls have had the GOP higher than everyone else, no? Or did I read you wrong?
... Enact legislation for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas, with repatriated funds to be taxed at 10 percent and no other penalty....
That at least is a sensible idea. I cannot understand why this hasn't been done by the US already. There are humongous megabucks sitting out there doing nothing, and this is one of those very rare cases where the golden goose would actually like to be plucked, provided the rate is sensible.
For evidence of why Rushbridger was away with the fairies when it came to business management. It still has not dawned on him that the BBC model will destroy the Guardian eventually.
"For most of its 195-year life, the Guardian has struggled to make money – just as the Observer has probably not turned a profit since its principled stand over Suez in 1956. Quite often (as today), the Guardian has lost more than it should, or could, in any given year. Clearly, the business model needs to change. But looking around the world, I don’t think that anyone can truthfully claim to have cracked it."
Erhhhh....The Daily Mail, Fox News, .....to name two, make good money.
I imagine The Times are profitable, or at least close to it. 400,000 subscribers, I would estimate an ASP of around £75 per year which is at least £30m plus advertising revenue and any additional money they make from the Times+ offers. If the website isn't profitable I would be very surprised.
I'm not sure where you got an average subscription cost of £75 from .... the cheapest 7 day cost is more than FOUR times that, i.e. > £300 p.a. That said, the newspaper must be losing readers by the tens of thousands, unwilling to pay such a very high price.
Eh? I pay £8.67pcm for online access to Times/ST.
For tablet, smartphone and website access to Times/ST, I am offered 12 weeks for GBP12
@SkyNews: Tory Brexit rebels lining up to serve the Government the first defeat in a Queen's Speech vote in nearly 100 years https://t.co/s7kt8YG73Y
Quite right too. Juncker was prepared to give Britain 'associate member' status. Cameron turned him down in favour of Britain being 'docked permanently' to the EU. The EU is the EU - we know that it stands for ever closer union. Cameron is someone who claims to be acting in the national interest and does anything but.
@SkyNews: Tory Brexit rebels lining up to serve the Government the first defeat in a Queen's Speech vote in nearly 100 years https://t.co/s7kt8YG73Y
Quite right too. Juncker was prepared to give Britain 'associate member' status. Cameron turned him down in favour of Britain being 'docked permanently' to the EU. The EU is the EU - we know that it stands for ever closer union. Cameron is someone who claims to be acting in the national interest and does anything but.
If that is the case then Cameron has a lot to answer for
This is the policy plank The Federalist is suggesting the GOP should rally around under a Trump campaign (essentially revamped Healthcare, immigration reform and enforcement, tax reform, reform of veterans' benefits, and federalization of gun laws around universal right to carry but better enforcement of checks):
Repeal Obamacare in its entirety. Enact legislation that creates a national health insurance market. Expand health savings accounts. Mandate price transparency in health care and medication. De-fund Planned Parenthood so long as it performs abortions. Prohibit federal funding for or review of state curriculum mandates and tests, which helped nationalize Common Core. Authorize funding for a border wall, including provisions for alternative funding, such as levies against remittances to Mexico. Triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Mandate nationwide E-verify. De-fund sanctuary cities. Raise the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs to make U.S. citizens competitive. Increase standards for admitting refugees and asylum-seekers, including stronger background checks. Pause in issuing green cards until U.S. citizen unemployment improves. End birthright citizenship, i.e. no more “anchor babies.” Allow veterans to use Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to purchase private health care from any doctor or care facility that accepts Medicare. Increase funding for VA treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Increase VA funding for job training and placement services for veterans Fund OB/GYN services at all VA hospitals. Simplify the tax code consistent with Trump’s proposals. Eliminate all income taxes on singles making $25,000 or less, and on all married couples making $50,000 or less. Enact legislation for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas, with repatriated funds to be taxed at 10 percent and no other penalty. Enact a 15 percent maximum business tax, for corporate tax as well as small businesses and freelancers. Eliminate the death tax. Enforce the Second Amendment by ending gun and magazine bans. Enforce the Second Amendment by requiring states to put criminal and mental health records onto background check system. Enforce the Second Amendment by enacting a national right-to-carry law, with permits to be valid in all 50 states. Authorize the Keystone Pipeline. Provide for an initial round of funding for new infrastructure construction and repair. Each of
I like the consistency of Rasmussen - they are systematically wrong.
I think it's fair to say Rasmussen's POTUS polling has been rather less than stellar in the past.
They were consistently biased towards the GOP when Scott Rasmussen was heading up the company, and have swung completely the other way since he was ousted.
All their recent polls have had the GOP higher than everyone else, no? Or did I read you wrong?
You may be right. I have simply stopped following them as they are useless. But immediately after Scott left, their Obama approvals were consistently +5% above the rest of the pack. It may well have swung the other way again.
I think they apply their Likely Voter filter much earlier in the cycle than other pollsters, who either stick with AV or RV until closer to the election. But again, best to check that out for yourself as it's a long time since I have bothered with Rasmussen.
I like the consistency of Rasmussen - they are systematically wrong.
I think it's fair to say Rasmussen's POTUS polling has been rather less than stellar in the past.
They were consistently biased towards the GOP when Scott Rasmussen was heading up the company, and have swung completely the other way since he was ousted.
Hardly "swinging completely the other way". Rasmussen still rate a GOP bias of 2.3 and only a "C" rating from 538.
... Enact legislation for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas, with repatriated funds to be taxed at 10 percent and no other penalty....
That at least is a sensible idea. I cannot understand why this hasn't been done by the US already. There are humongous megabucks sitting out there doing nothing, and this is one of those very rare cases where the golden goose would actually like to be plucked, provided the rate is sensible.
His proposal on anchor babies is also sensible. The UK did that in 1982, IIRC.
This is the policy plank The Federalist is suggesting the GOP should rally around under a Trump campaign (essentially revamped Healthcare, immigration reform and enforcement, tax reform, reform of veterans' benefits, and federalization of gun laws around universal right to carry but better enforcement of checks):
Repeal Obamacare in its entirety. Enact legislation that creates a national health insurance market. Expand health savings accounts. Mandate price transparency in health care and medication. De-fund Planned Parenthood so long as it performs abortions. Prohibit federal funding for or review of state curriculum mandates and tests, which helped nationalize Common Core. Authorize funding for a border wall, including provisions for alternative funding, such as levies against remittances to Mexico. Triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Mandate nationwide E-verify. De-fund sanctuary cities. Raise the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs to make U.S. citizens competitive. Increase standards for admitting refugees and asylum-seekers, including stronger background checks. Pause in issuing green cards until U.S. citizen unemployment improves. End birthright citizenship, i.e. no more “anchor babies.” Allow veterans to use Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to purchase private health care from any doctor or care facility that accepts Medicare. Increase funding for VA treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Increase VA funding for job training and placement services for veterans Fund OB/GYN services at all VA hospitals. Simplify the tax code consistent with Trump’s proposals. Eliminate all income taxes on singles making $25,000 or less, and on all married couples making $50,000 or less. Enact legislation for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas, with repatriated funds to be taxed at 10 percent and no other penalty. Enact a 15 percent maximum business tax, for corporate tax as well as small businesses and freelancers. Eliminate the death tax. Enforce the Second Amendment by ending gun and magazine bans. Enforce the Second Amendment by requiring states to put criminal and mental health records onto background check system. Enforce the Second Amendment by enacting a national right-to-carry law, with permits to be valid in all 50 states. Authorize the Keystone Pipeline. Provide for an initial round of funding for new infrastructure construction and repair. Each of
Cities like San Francisco who refuse to take any action against illegal aliens, including cooperating with Federal authorities seeking to expel them under federal legislation and court proceedings. I.e. cities which actively hide illegals to shield them from Federal law.
The worst recent case was a murderer freed from jail in SF who went on to murder again.
I like the consistency of Rasmussen - they are systematically wrong.
I think it's fair to say Rasmussen's POTUS polling has been rather less than stellar in the past.
They were consistently biased towards the GOP when Scott Rasmussen was heading up the company, and have swung completely the other way since he was ousted.
Hardly "swinging completely the other way". Rasmussen still rate a GOP bias of 2.3 and only a "C" rating from 538.
Jack - as I said in response to WhiteRabbit, my point is probably out of date as I don't follow Rasmussen any more.
@SkyNews: Tory Brexit rebels lining up to serve the Government the first defeat in a Queen's Speech vote in nearly 100 years https://t.co/s7kt8YG73Y
Cameron hates the Tory Party more than the EU.
Isn't failure to pass a Queen's speech a confidence matter? One of the requirements for telling the Queen you can form a government is that you can command the House to pass such a speech.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3598013/They-MP-expenses-soar-40-just-five-years-politicians-claiming-25-000-year-hotel-bills.html
I bet hotel chains think the expenses scandal was one of the best thing to happen...
A wonderful example this morning. Compare and contrast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36320833
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/19/taking-aspirin-quickly-after-minor-stoke-can-cut-risk-of-recurrence
The Beeb manages an entire and quite long piece without actually telling you the most important thing you'd need to know if you were to implement the advice.
I almost always go the Guardian for basic news coverage now. Their opinion pieces might be a joke, but at least they report the news. (And I think it's improved a lot under the new editor).
So far nobody has managed to revolutionize the interface say like Netflix has done for movies or Spottily for music.
I told him Leave had a chance, and had to warn him to cover himself. He hasn't done so, and has no plans to do so.
I'd be astonished if Remain had a 26% lead amongst Conservative voters.
" ... within a couple of seasons morph into an intravenous diet of softcore and gratuitous violence. Rots the brain."
That's me explained then.
I like GoT because it's different. The goody-goodys get bumped off rapidly. In the first episode when Ned Stark got decapitated, I thought "At last, we've got rid of the Guardian reader." Realism.
And nothing wrong with a bit of soft-core porn. Not so keen on the gay sex, but then bump! There went the gay Renly Baratheon. My sort of show.
163/5
Clinton 37 .. Trump 42
Note - First Weekly Rasmussen Poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
http://order-order.com/2015/11/11/seumas-milnes-closeness-to-guardian-editor/
Repeal Obamacare in its entirety.
Enact legislation that creates a national health insurance market.
Expand health savings accounts.
Mandate price transparency in health care and medication.
De-fund Planned Parenthood so long as it performs abortions.
Prohibit federal funding for or review of state curriculum mandates and tests, which helped nationalize Common Core.
Authorize funding for a border wall, including provisions for alternative funding, such as levies against remittances to Mexico.
Triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
Mandate nationwide E-verify.
De-fund sanctuary cities.
Raise the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs to make U.S. citizens competitive.
Increase standards for admitting refugees and asylum-seekers, including stronger background checks.
Pause in issuing green cards until U.S. citizen unemployment improves.
End birthright citizenship, i.e. no more “anchor babies.”
Allow veterans to use Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits to purchase private health care from any doctor or care facility that accepts Medicare.
Increase funding for VA treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Increase VA funding for job training and placement services for veterans
Fund OB/GYN services at all VA hospitals.
Simplify the tax code consistent with Trump’s proposals.
Eliminate all income taxes on singles making $25,000 or less, and on all married couples making $50,000 or less.
Enact legislation for a one-time repatriation of corporate cash held overseas, with repatriated funds to be taxed at 10 percent and no other penalty.
Enact a 15 percent maximum business tax, for corporate tax as well as small businesses and freelancers.
Eliminate the death tax.
Enforce the Second Amendment by ending gun and magazine bans.
Enforce the Second Amendment by requiring states to put criminal and mental health records onto background check system.
Enforce the Second Amendment by enacting a national right-to-carry law, with permits to be valid in all 50 states.
Authorize the Keystone Pipeline.
Provide for an initial round of funding for new infrastructure construction and repair.
Each of
@SkyNews: Tory Brexit rebels lining up to serve the Government the first defeat in a Queen's Speech vote in nearly 100 years https://t.co/s7kt8YG73Y
They were consistently biased towards the GOP when Scott Rasmussen was heading up the company, and have swung completely the other way since he was ousted.
May as well ditch the immigration target.
No meaningful sovereignty or British Bill of Rights either. Hunting act repeal won't happen. Nothing socially conservative to promote the family. Probably will have more diversity / equality legislation instead.
What's left? A small lifting of the higher rate threshold?
I'm not sure I care.
But then, so does acting with arrogance and complacency when your majority's smaller than a wafer-thin mint. Cameron and Osborne share responsibility for the action.
ANOTHER NEW THREAD?
All through 2012 September. Every single poll had Obama ahead apart from one.
By Rasmussen.
Of the final 17 Novemeber polls all bar 3 had Obama ahead.
Two by Rasmussen. The other by Gallup who consistently had Romeny in the lead.
I think they apply their Likely Voter filter much earlier in the cycle than other pollsters, who either stick with AV or RV until closer to the election. But again, best to check that out for yourself as it's a long time since I have bothered with Rasmussen.
His proposal on anchor babies is also sensible. The UK did that in 1982, IIRC.
The worst recent case was a murderer freed from jail in SF who went on to murder again.