If Theresa May does indeed become Tory Leader and Prime Minister as appears likely, do PBers agree with me that this is likely to improve the chances of a woman succeeding Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader? Just a few short days ago HenryG's pick, Lisa Nandy, was quoted at short single digit odds to win this prize, but has since drifted out to 30 with Betfair - is she perhaps worth another look?
1. Why are Mayites afraid of a run off against Leadsom?
2. What the feck is going on with the PLP? Surely they can make a deal with a Corbynite on the ballot and we can get on with the ballot.
I have a horrible feeling we might end up with tactical voting from May supporters to ensure Gove makes it through instead of Leadsom.
Surely Crabb is the safe choice for tactical voting, seeing as he will clearly fold to May ?
I meant in the final round if it's between May, Gove and Leadsom. May will probably have more than enough support to ensure an easy passage to the final two. It'll be between Gove and Leadsom, with May supporters believing they have a better chance of winning with the membership if they're against Gove. Therefore some of May's supporters vote for Gove in the final round to stop Leadsom.
Guido says 111 votes gets you straight to the final.
Can those 111 MPs keep voting for the rest of the contest? If its a secret ballot it should be possible.
111 doesn't actually get you to the final. 111 is the number you need voting for you it doesn't matter how the others vote - you'll always be in the top 2.
1. Why are Mayites afraid of a run off against Leadsom?
2. What the feck is going on with the PLP? Surely they can make a deal with a Corbynite on the ballot and we can get on with the ballot.
I have a horrible feeling we might end up with tactical voting from May supporters to ensure Gove makes it through instead of Leadsom.
Surely Crabb is the safe choice for tactical voting, seeing as he will clearly fold to May ?
I meant in the final round if it's between May, Gove and Leadsom. May will probably have more than enough support to ensure an easy passage to the final two. It'll be between Gove and Leadsom, with May supporters believing they have a better chance of winning with the membership if they're against Gove. Therefore some of May's supporters vote for Gove in the final round to stop Leadsom.
Guido says 111 votes gets you straight to the final.
Can those 111 MPs keep voting for the rest of the contest? If its a secret ballot it should be possible.
111 doesn't actually get you to the final. 111 is the number you need voting for you it doesn't matter how the others vote - you'll always be in the top 2.
The problem with the argument in the thread header is basically the fundamental problem that the Labour Party has. The "membership" cannot be given the option of rejecting Corbyn, without being forced to anoint somebody else in his place. Which, even if they decide to reject Corbyn, will result in Labour being led by a sub-optimum leader in his stead. Because, on the assumption that Labour isn't completely devoid of leadership talent, the best candidates will not put themselves forward because it is too great a risk to their future career. Even if they stand and win they will likely be hated by a significant proportion of the membership. They may think they are better off waiting until after the next election.
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
Referendum proposition:
The United Kingdom should use a points-based system for immigration from countries in the European Economic Area.
Do you really think that would get less than 40% support?
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
I have been the "educated" outsider brought in because the locals couldn't do the job. For me it was a very happy experience. Oh, to be sure I knew that some didn't welcome my presence and even within the organisation for which I worked some didn't want me (wrong religion, wrong culture).
However, part of my contract was to train up some people so that never again would that country have need to import someone with my skillset. That, for me, was the best bit of the entire contract. Not only was the teaching and training fun in and of itself, but when I left I knew I had made a difference.
Now had I stayed, which but for Herself's ginger hair I probably would have, then I would have felt under serious pressure to stop being an expat and become a native in terms of culture, if not religion.
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
Referendum proposition:
The United Kingdom should use a points-based system for immigration from countries in the European Economic Area.
Do you really think that would get less than 40% support?
Yes. Not with that stupid question, but yes. If it meant losing single marker access, which the EU would absolutely insist in given their hatred of referendums the EEA option would win.
I literally just fell out my chair. If only Poland hadn't conceded that cheap equalizer I'd be half way to £6k off a 50p Lucky 15, 50p Acca and 4 50p trebles.
If Theresa May does indeed become Tory Leader and Prime Minister as appears likely, do PBers agree with me that this is likely to improve the chances of a woman succeeding Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader? Just a few short days ago HenryG's pick, Lisa Nandy, was quoted at short single digit odds to win this prize, but has since drifted out to 30 with Betfair - is she perhaps worth another look at these odds?
At the moment I'm happily backing anyone and everyone as they drift out. It's been highly profitable so far....
In fact its getting to the point that I'll do better from the Labour Leadership than I did from the Referendum...
Edit to say -except for David Miliband who really needs to drift out so I can remove a large amount of locked in money
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
You're having a laugh. You're rejecting the will of the people just as much as David Lammy. You're picking and choosing what the leave campaigns said to suit your own narrow purposes.
Perhaps you should have put a little more thought into what the leave campaigns were saying and, consequently, your own vote.
But you and others cynically thought you could use the leave voters to pursue your own narrow ends. It's classic bait-and-switch.
"If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market."
I'd like to think you were right, but I fear you are being extremely naive.
Still, it's good for those of us on them at 74/1! Missing a couple of key players for the semi - on the other hand, Portugal have hardly been impressive.
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
Referendum proposition:
The United Kingdom should use a points-based system for immigration from countries in the European Economic Area.
Do you really think that would get less than 40% support?
Yes. Not with that stupid question, but yes. If it meant losing single marker access, which the EU would absolutely insist in given their hatred of referendums the EEA option would win.
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
You're having a laugh. You're rejecting the will of the people just as much as David Lammy. You're picking and choosing what the leave campaigns said to suit your own narrow purposes.
Perhaps you should have put a little more thought into what the leave campaigns were saying and, consequently, your own vote.
But you and others cynically thought you could use the leave voters to pursue your own narrow ends. It's classic bait-and-switch.
"If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market."
I'd like to think you were right, but I fear you are being extremely naive.
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
You're having a laugh. You're rejecting the will of the people just as much as David Lammy. You're picking and choosing what the leave campaigns said to suit your own narrow purposes.
Perhaps you should have put a little more thought into what the leave campaigns were saying and, consequently, your own vote.
But you and others cynically thought you could use the leave voters to pursue your own narrow ends. It's classic bait-and-switch.
"If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market."
I'd like to think you were right, but I fear you are being extremely naive.
Still, it's good for those of us on them at 74/1! Missing a couple of key players for the semi - on the other hand, Portugal have hardly been impressive.
I think it might be time to cash out on Wales without Aaron Ramsey. Although Portugal are really crap. Damn, hard call.
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
You're having a laugh. You're rejecting the will of the people just as much as David Lammy. You're picking and choosing what the leave campaigns said to suit your own narrow purposes.
Perhaps you should have put a little more thought into what the leave campaigns were saying and, consequently, your own vote.
But you and others cynically thought you could use the leave voters to pursue your own narrow ends. It's classic bait-and-switch.
"If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market."
I'd like to think you were right, but I fear you are being extremely naive.
Enough. Please.
You've been banging this drum for hours and you're not convincing anyone else now.
So, England couldn't beat Iceland who are the world's 175th most populated country. I put it to the board that we need to work backwards and only enter tournaments with even fewer people. Our permitted opponents in future are:
Barbados, Vanatu, Samoa, Sao Tome, St Lucia, Kirbati, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (an excellent name for a band, just saying), Grenada, Tonga, F.S. Micronesia, The Seychelles, Antigua and Barbuda, Andorra, Dominica, The Marshalls, St Kitts, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Cook Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, Nauru, Niue and Vatican City.
If we're feeling ballsy we could see if we can tackle The Maldives.
First 10 mins of the sec behalf were hilaruous, 10 mins of total Belgium domination, I took my eyes of the screen for 10 secs and Wales were 2-1 ahead.
Amazingly I think Wales get through to the final, they play Portugal next who have looked poor all tournament.
Ronaldo against Bale - and Ronaldo has been stressed all tournament. Bale really couldn't care less as you can tell by the smile on all the Welsh players throughout the match...
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
You're having a laugh. You're rejecting the will of the people just as much as David Lammy. You're picking and choosing what the leave campaigns said to suit your own narrow purposes.
Perhaps you should have put a little more thought into what the leave campaigns were saying and, consequently, your own vote.
But you and others cynically thought you could use the leave voters to pursue your own narrow ends. It's classic bait-and-switch.
"If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market."
I'd like to think you were right, but I fear you are being extremely naive.
Enough. Please.
You've been banging this drum for hours and you're not convincing anyone else now.
Still, it's good for those of us on them at 74/1! Missing a couple of key players for the semi - on the other hand, Portugal have hardly been impressive.
I think it might be time to cash out on Wales without Aaron Ramsey. Although Portugal are really crap. Damn, hard call.
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
You're having a laugh. You're rejecting the will of the people just as much as David Lammy. You're picking and choosing what the leave campaigns said to suit your own narrow purposes.
Perhaps you should have put a little more thought into what the leave campaigns were saying and, consequently, your own vote.
But you and others cynically thought you could use the leave voters to pursue your own narrow ends. It's classic bait-and-switch.
"If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market."
I'd like to think you were right, but I fear you are being extremely naive.
The polls show you are talking rubbish
You trust polls? Really? After what just happened? Methinks that's a classic example of hope over experience.
Mind you, at least you were honest about what you wanted.
So, England couldn't beat Iceland who are the world's 175th most populated country. I put it to the board that we need to work backwards and only enter tournaments with even fewer people. Our permitted opponents in future are:
Barbados, Vanatu, Samoa, Sao Tome, St Lucia, Kirbati, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (an excellent name for a band, just saying), Grenada, Tonga, F.S. Micronesia, The Seychelles, Antigua and Barbuda, Andorra, Dominica, The Marshalls, St Kitts, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Cook Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, Nauru, Niue and Vatican City.
If we're feeling ballsy we could see if we can tackle The Maldives.
So, England couldn't beat Iceland who are the world's 175th most populated country. I put it to the board that we need to work backwards and only enter tournaments with even fewer people. Our permitted opponents in future are:
Barbados, Vanatu, Samoa, Sao Tome, St Lucia, Kirbati, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (an excellent name for a band, just saying), Grenada, Tonga, F.S. Micronesia, The Seychelles, Antigua and Barbuda, Andorra, Dominica, The Marshalls, St Kitts, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Cook Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, Nauru, Niue and Vatican City.
If we're feeling ballsy we could see if we can tackle The Maldives.
Don't be ridiculous. They just need to persuade more people to play them at cricket or rugby instead.
Still, it's good for those of us on them at 74/1! Missing a couple of key players for the semi - on the other hand, Portugal have hardly been impressive.
I think it might be time to cash out on Wales without Aaron Ramsey. Although Portugal are really crap. Damn, hard call.
Cash out half maybe?
Andy King is the King of Football :-)
(Also LCFC's representation at the Euro's now)
Gladd I topped up on Wales at 55 earlier...
Wales are basically Allen, Ramsey and Bale.
Can Williams keep playing three tiers above his ability? He should have conceded a penalty tonight. Can Robson-Kanu do another Cruyff? Without Ramsey, Wales are going to hurt. Of course, Portugal are really, really crap and should not be in the semis.
I'd say if you've got a decent bet on Wales for the outright, cash half of it in. If you've got a small bet like me, maybe let it ride.
So, England couldn't beat Iceland who are the world's 175th most populated country. I put it to the board that we need to work backwards and only enter tournaments with even fewer people. Our permitted opponents in future are:
Barbados, Vanatu, Samoa, Sao Tome, St Lucia, Kirbati, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (an excellent name for a band, just saying), Grenada, Tonga, F.S. Micronesia, The Seychelles, Antigua and Barbuda, Andorra, Dominica, The Marshalls, St Kitts, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Cook Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, Nauru, Niue and Vatican City.
If we're feeling ballsy we could see if we can tackle The Maldives.
And Wales
The Titans of Wales? The 135th most populated country in the entire world? My good sir, I can only believe you drunk to venture such an opinion. They have ten times the people of Iceland. We would be humiliated.
So, England couldn't beat Iceland who are the world's 175th most populated country. I put it to the board that we need to work backwards and only enter tournaments with even fewer people. Our permitted opponents in future are:
Barbados, Vanatu, Samoa, Sao Tome, St Lucia, Kirbati, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (an excellent name for a band, just saying), Grenada, Tonga, F.S. Micronesia, The Seychelles, Antigua and Barbuda, Andorra, Dominica, The Marshalls, St Kitts, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Cook Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, Nauru, Niue and Vatican City.
If we're feeling ballsy we could see if we can tackle The Maldives.
And Wales
The Titans of Wales? The 135th most populated country in the entire world? My good sir, I can only believe you drunk to venture such an opinion. They have ten times the people of Iceland. We would be humiliated.
Er. Technical point but we did get to play them little more than a week ago!
So, England couldn't beat Iceland who are the world's 175th most populated country. I put it to the board that we need to work backwards and only enter tournaments with even fewer people. Our permitted opponents in future are:
Barbados, Vanatu, Samoa, Sao Tome, St Lucia, Kirbati, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (an excellent name for a band, just saying), Grenada, Tonga, F.S. Micronesia, The Seychelles, Antigua and Barbuda, Andorra, Dominica, The Marshalls, St Kitts, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Cook Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, Nauru, Niue and Vatican City.
If we're feeling ballsy we could see if we can tackle The Maldives.
And Wales
The Titans of Wales? The 135th most populated country in the entire world? My good sir, I can only believe you drunk to venture such an opinion. They have ten times the people of Iceland. We would be humiliated.
Er. Technical point but we did get to play them little more than a week ago!
That was before Iceland. We clearly fluked it previously
You trust polls? Really? After what just happened? Methinks that's a classic example of hope over experience.
Mind you, at least you were honest about what you wanted.
48% voted to remain just now, you really think that 4% of the 52% of leave voters couldn't be convinced by the EEA argument. Most Tories I know voted to leave on the sovereignty argument. I don't doubt that immigration was a major driver of votes, but only half of leave voters listed it as the primary one. There is no mandate to ignore 16m people who voted to stay in the EU and single market and to retain free movement, this was nowhere near a landslide. You come across as bitter that you votes to remain at this point despite having been a leave supporter all the way through.
Still, it's good for those of us on them at 74/1! Missing a couple of key players for the semi - on the other hand, Portugal have hardly been impressive.
I think it might be time to cash out on Wales without Aaron Ramsey. Although Portugal are really crap. Damn, hard call.
Cash out half maybe?
Andy King is the King of Football :-)
(Also LCFC's representation at the Euro's now)
Gladd I topped up on Wales at 55 earlier...
Wales are basically Allen, Ramsey and Bale.
Can Williams keep playing three tiers above his ability? He should have conceded a penalty tonight. Can Robson-Kanu do another Cruyff? Without Ramsey, Wales are going to hurt. Of course, Portugal are really, really crap and should not be in the semis.
I'd say if you've got a decent bet on Wales for the outright, cash half of it in. If you've got a small bet like me, maybe let it ride.
I am on for £4 to win £120, am inclined to let it ride.
I have a bit on Italy too, who I fancy to put the Germans out.
So now we know for sure England's perennial failures are not about ability. It's organisation, focus, guts and calm.
Good for the Welsh. Just fantastic.
Yes, it was never talent. As I said after the Iceland debacle, there's something wrong with the mentality - plus a history of failure which weighs heavy on a supposedly "major" football nation. A great coach could fix much of that.
I think having a D-notice on reporting on the England team during a major tournament would help as well.
Yes, we should do all those things. In fact we could have done most of that years ago inside the EU. But we didn't, partly because the solutions are not obvious or easy. Hence the hideous 20%-odd rate of illiteracy and innumeracy which has been constant for many decades. I like your unfounded optimism you can fix these problems easily and quickly.
They also take time - education in particular takes decades to work through the system. In the meantime we're up sh*t creek; and that assumes such reforms actually work.
It will also severely damage the tech industry; as you say, the UK's seen as a hostile environment already, and the industry relies on educated immigrants. But that's what we voted for. Leavers were warned.
"we are being seen as a hostile environment for immigrants"
And that sums up my point. Hostile. And the people who are most hostile will only be much more hostile when they rightly feel they've been betrayed.
"Let's not throw it away by chasing an impossible policy of pulling up the drawbridge."
If you think it's an impossible policy, you should have voted remain instead of leave. Because that's what leave were selling.
No, leave was leaving the EU. Nothing more than that. If you want to read into their guff about immigration and money for the NHS that's up to you. As I said earlier, the question asked whether we should leave the EU, not whether we should restrict migration. If those who want that are upset they can continue to campaign for it and get a new referendum on ending free movement.
If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market. Remember only half of leave voters named immigration as their priority.
You're severely over-estimating the number of people who want open borders.
YouGov February 2013 & October 2012 Only 22% think immigration from Eastern Europe was positive & 70% think immigration rules governing migration from Europe weren’t strict enough.
British Social Attitudes Survey 2014: 77% of people want to see immigration reduced, with 56% wanting to see it reduced a lot.
Comments
EDIT
No. My mistake. The RMT are angry with her.
http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local/union-calls-for-nandy-to-resign-from-mp-post-1-7987223
2) You'd have thought - the current mess benefits no one. Not either faction or the country.
The United Kingdom should use a points-based system for immigration from countries in the European Economic Area.
Do you really think that would get less than 40% support?
However, part of my contract was to train up some people so that never again would that country have need to import someone with my skillset. That, for me, was the best bit of the entire contract. Not only was the teaching and training fun in and of itself, but when I left I knew I had made a difference.
Now had I stayed, which but for Herself's ginger hair I probably would have, then I would have felt under serious pressure to stop being an expat and become a native in terms of culture, if not religion.
Only political bets allowed are ones parleyed with welsh victory betting
Can we officially move the capital of the UK there please?
Just sayin'
Bye Bye Belgium.
In fact its getting to the point that I'll do better from the Labour Leadership than I did from the Referendum...
Edit to say -except for David Miliband who really needs to drift out so I can remove a large amount of locked in money
But.
They should have been down to 10 men and Belgium should also have had a penalty.
Perhaps you should have put a little more thought into what the leave campaigns were saying and, consequently, your own vote.
But you and others cynically thought you could use the leave voters to pursue your own narrow ends. It's classic bait-and-switch.
"If it went to a vote, I'm confident that at least 60% would support keeping free movement and the single market."
I'd like to think you were right, but I fear you are being extremely naive.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/restoring_public_trust_in_immigration_policy_a_points_based_non_discriminatory_immigration_system
You're not a democrat.
They were very good but helluva lucky as well.
My father-in-law spent time with Corbyn at a funeral today, he was very impressed he went considering all that is going on.
He said he doesn't seem down at all. Perhaps the pressure isn't getting to him after all, no matter what Dan Hodges says.
Cash out half maybe?
You've been banging this drum for hours and you're not convincing anyone else now.
Barbados, Vanatu, Samoa, Sao Tome, St Lucia, Kirbati, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (an excellent name for a band, just saying), Grenada, Tonga, F.S. Micronesia, The Seychelles, Antigua and Barbuda, Andorra, Dominica, The Marshalls, St Kitts, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Cook Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, Nauru, Niue and Vatican City.
If we're feeling ballsy we could see if we can tackle The Maldives.
(Also LCFC's representation at the Euro's now)
Gladd I topped up on Wales at 55 earlier...
Wales. What a Great British team.
Mind you, at least you were honest about what you wanted.
The Labour Rebels continue their discussions on who shall challenge Corbyn...
Can Williams keep playing three tiers above his ability? He should have conceded a penalty tonight. Can Robson-Kanu do another Cruyff? Without Ramsey, Wales are going to hurt. Of course, Portugal are really, really crap and should not be in the semis.
I'd say if you've got a decent bet on Wales for the outright, cash half of it in. If you've got a small bet like me, maybe let it ride.
Good for the Welsh. Just fantastic.
I have a bit on Italy too, who I fancy to put the Germans out.
YouGov February 2013 & October 2012
Only 22% think immigration from Eastern Europe was positive & 70% think immigration rules governing migration from Europe weren’t strict enough.
British Social Attitudes Survey 2014:
77% of people want to see immigration reduced, with 56% wanting to see it reduced a lot.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingpaper/document/249