@LPDonovan: Gallup has Trump as the first nom on record whose convention actually made people less likely to support him (36/51) https://t.co/ySZEpOIPVG
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
However it is only a strong showing from Johnson that could take the state away from him, as Utah Republicans will otherwise stand behind their man (not that 35/36 gives 29% left over).
Brown took Uk bank regulation away from the Bank opf England.
Banks were then allowed to to lend too much, at too low interest rates, with too little capital and too great a proportion of wholesale borrowing. Breaking all the rules of prudent banking simultaneously.
Yep, a few years ago the then US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was asked what the primary cause of the crash was. He blamed banking regulation, and in particular regulation in London. Who changed centuries of UK banking regulation? Gordon Brown (the worst PM in living memory by the way).
Yes he may have said that, but it was bollo*** and he knew it.
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
However it is only a strong showing from Johnson that could take the state away from him, as Utah Republicans will otherwise stand behind their man (not that 35/36 gives 29% left over).
Yup but astonishing to think McCain took Utah by nearly 30% in 2008.
Labour's economic policy, such as it is, has remained largely unchanged from Alastair Darling -> Ed Balls -> John McDonnell. Where is this leftward drift?
The leftward drift is in the Tory policy. Corbyn and McDonnell have just been consistently stating left wing economic policy and letting the centre ground come to them.
I'm not sure you understand what the word "leftward" means. Are you saying the onward governing from the centre by the Tories is them capitalising on Labour abandoning it like a bunch of idiots?
Because yes, duh. That's the whole point. Elections are won from the centre. May knows this, Jez doesn't.
The centre ground is movable, so while parties should govern from the centre, they should also be seeking to move it towards their side. May should now be showing that right wing economics work, not endorsing Labour's economic critique and pursuing it herself.
What Tory economic policies are now right wing? Deficit reduction - dropped, Industrial Strategies - embraced, social security give aways - yep.
May can't show that right wing economics works - because it doesn't. Hence a shift to the sensible Keynesian approach that tends to work.
Oh do bugger off. When has Keynsianism EVER worked? It's mathematical idiocy.
Has it ever been properly tried ?
The "saving in the good times" bit - Brown and Osborne never did that bit..
I don't think Keynesianism and Democracy are a good fit. Once people realise they can just define "now" as "the good times" and vote to give everyone a magic money tree just before the next election, that's what will always happen.
It requires human nature to be Other than it is to be viable.
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
However it is only a strong showing from Johnson that could take the state away from him, as Utah Republicans will otherwise stand behind their man (not that 35/36 gives 29% left over).
Yup but astonishing to think McCain took Utah by nearly 30% in 2008.
Fun fact, McCain replaced Barry Goldwater as a senator for Arizona.
Labour's economic policy, such as it is, has remained largely unchanged from Alastair Darling -> Ed Balls -> John McDonnell. Where is this leftward drift?
The leftward drift is in the Tory policy. Corbyn and McDonnell have just been consistently stating left wing economic policy and letting the centre ground come to them.
I'm not sure you understand what the word "leftward" means. Are you saying the onward governing from the centre by the Tories is them capitalising on Labour abandoning it like a bunch of idiots?
Because yes, duh. That's the whole point. Elections are won from the centre. May knows this, Jez doesn't.
The centre ground is movable, so while parties should govern from the centre, they should also be seeking to move it towards their side. May should now be showing that right wing economics work, not endorsing Labour's economic critique and pursuing it herself.
What Tory economic policies are now right wing? Deficit reduction - dropped, Industrial Strategies - embraced, social security aways - yep.
May can't show that right wing economics works - because it doesn't. Hence a shift to the sensible Keynesian approach that tends to work.
Oh do bugger off. When has Keynsianism EVER worked? It's mathematical idiocy.
Has it ever been properly tried ?
The "saving in the good times" bit - Brown and Osborne never did that bit..
Keynesianism, has never worked, because it is fairy tail economics. Politicians like it because it gives them cover to indulged their fantasies, and spend other peoples money on their pet projects.
To understand how economies really work and what wood lead to the optimum allocation of resources, and therefor the heist possible sustainable economic growth, consistent with maximising human happiness. Read up on the 'Austrian school' of Economics, the Road to Serfdom by F A Hyack, or Man, Economy and State by M N Rothbard is a good start.
Spoiler, By leavening people alowen, they make more rational choses, because they understand there own wants and desires better than any politician or civil servant ever will!
That's certainly what he would want you to believe.
Wow, a Prime Minister of a small island could cause such a bad global crash, who would have believed that?
Are we still on the "too small, too poor, too stupid" campaign?
Yes, the US subprime crisis was the proximate cause of the recession - but the point is, Brown hadn't abolished boom'n'bust and had left us vulnerable to outside shocks. If it hadn't been US subprime it would have been something else and we would still have been screwed.
Labour's economic policy, such as it is, has remained largely unchanged from Alastair Darling -> Ed Balls -> John McDonnell. Where is this leftward drift?
The leftward drift is in the Tory policy. Corbyn and McDonnell have just been consistently stating left wing economic policy and letting the centre ground come to them.
I'm not sure you understand what the word "leftward" means. Are you saying the onward governing from the centre by the Tories is them capitalising on Labour abandoning it like a bunch of idiots?
Because yes, duh. That's the whole point. Elections are won from the centre. May knows this, Jez doesn't.
The centre ground is movable, so while parties should govern from the centre, they should also be seeking to move it towards their side. May should now be showing that right wing economics work, not endorsing Labour's economic critique and pursuing it herself.
What Tory economic policies are now right wing? Deficit reduction - dropped, Industrial Strategies - embraced, social security give aways - yep.
May can't show that right wing economics works - because it doesn't. Hence a shift to the sensible Keynesian approach that tends to work.
Oh do bugger off. When has Keynsianism EVER worked? It's mathematical idiocy.
Arguably the global response to the 2008 crisis was right out of the Keynsian tradition, and did a great deal to stave off the potential for a new Great Depression. in particular, the quantitative easing prevented the kind of credit crunch that did so much damage in 1929-32.
However, it's also worth noting that Keynsianism was far more complex that simple counter-cyclical spending, and also that Keynes was continually innovative and that he'd be appalled if the world was reciting his ideas from 80 years ago as some kind of mantra, with no consideration for the developments to economies, transport, markets and finance since.
Good article. Also lots of people seem very confident that certain candidates will win when they have no data to back it up with, and are just putting forward their wishes rather than anything backed up with decent data. Happens all over the media, but particularly acute on tw@tter.
Similiar things to be aware of with next football manager markets.
Labour's economic policy, such as it is, has remained largely unchanged from Alastair Darling -> Ed Balls -> John McDonnell. Where is this leftward drift?
The leftward drift is in the Tory policy. Corbyn and McDonnell have just been consistently stating left wing economic policy and letting the centre ground come to them.
I'm not sure you understand what the word "leftward" means. Are you saying the onward governing from the centre by the Tories is them capitalising on Labour abandoning it like a bunch of idiots?
Because yes, duh. That's the whole point. Elections are won from the centre. May knows this, Jez doesn't.
The centre ground is movable, so while parties should govern from the centre, they should also be seeking to move it towards their side. May should now be showing that right wing economics work, not endorsing Labour's economic critique and pursuing it herself.
What Tory economic policies are now right wing? Deficit reduction - dropped, Industrial Strategies - embraced, social security give aways - yep.
May can't show that right wing economics works - because it doesn't. Hence a shift to the sensible Keynesian approach that tends to work.
Oh do bugger off. When has Keynsianism EVER worked? It's mathematical idiocy.
Has it ever been properly tried ?
The "saving in the good times" bit - Brown and Osborne never did that bit..
I don't think Keynesianism and Democracy are a good fit. Once people realise they can just define "now" as "the good times" and vote to give everyone a magic money tree just before the next election, that's what will always happen.
It requires human nature to be Other than it is to be viable.
Mr. Rog, indeed. That pensions dispute may have a significant impact on the corresponding question (writ very large) for the Scottish referendum [assuming there is one].
That's certainly what he would want you to believe.
Wow, a Prime Minister of a small island could cause such a bad global crash, who would have believed that?
Are we still on the "too small, too poor, too stupid" campaign?
Yes, the US subprime crisis was the proximate cause of the recession - but the point is, Brown hadn't abolished boom'n'bust and had left us vulnerable to outside shocks. If it hadn't been US subprime it would have been something else and we would still have been screwed.
I was never on such a campaign. Blaming Brown for the global crisis is just silly. Saying he could have been better prepared, which is what you seem to have switched too is better.
Labour's economic policy, such as it is, has remained largely unchanged from Alastair Darling -> Ed Balls -> John McDonnell. Where is this leftward drift?
The leftward drift is in the Tory policy. Corbyn and McDonnell have just been consistently stating left wing economic policy and letting the centre ground come to them.
I'm not sure you understand what the word "leftward" means. Are you saying the onward governing from the centre by the Tories is them capitalising on Labour abandoning it like a bunch of idiots?
Because yes, duh. That's the whole point. Elections are won from the centre. May knows this, Jez doesn't.
The centre ground is movable, so while parties should govern from the centre, they should also be seeking to move it towards their side. May should now be showing that right wing economics work, not endorsing Labour's economic critique and pursuing it herself.
What Tory economic policies are now right wing? Deficit reduction - dropped, Industrial Strategies - embraced, social security give aways - yep.
May can't show that right wing economics works - because it doesn't. Hence a shift to the sensible Keynesian approach that tends to work.
At the moment we have near-full employment, consistent growth and a bulging trade deficit: all characteristics of an economy heading towards a boom if not already there. I take it that you are therefore advocating that the government should be running a budget surplus (certainly in structural terms). how should it get there?
I would turn the question round - with such rosy data, coupled with Austerity, how come we aren't running a surplus already?
That's easy: combine an £80bn pa structural deficit from 2010 with political opposition to any cuts or (just about) any tax increases. It's always far easier politically to turn the taps on than off - and often far easier in practical terms too: you can't simply stop funding a road halfway through construction without looking like an idiot.
Labour's economic policy, such as it is, has remained largely unchanged from Alastair Darling -> Ed Balls -> John McDonnell. Where is this leftward drift?
The leftward drift is in the Tory policy. Corbyn and McDonnell have just been consistently stating left wing economic policy and letting the centre ground come to them.
I'm not sure you understand what the word "leftward" means. Are you saying the onward governing from the centre by the Tories is them capitalising on Labour abandoning it like a bunch of idiots?
Because yes, duh. That's the whole point. Elections are won from the centre. May knows this, Jez doesn't.
The centre ground is movable, so while parties should govern from the centre, they should also be seeking to move it towards their side. May should now be showing that right wing economics work, not endorsing Labour's economic critique and pursuing it herself.
What Tory economic policies are now right wing? Deficit reduction - dropped, Industrial Strategies - embraced, social security aways - yep.
May can't show that right wing economics works - because it doesn't. Hence a shift to the sensible Keynesian approach that tends to work.
Oh do bugger off. When has Keynsianism EVER worked? It's mathematical idiocy.
Has it ever been properly tried ?
The "saving in the good times" bit - Brown and Osborne never did that bit..
Keynesianism, has never worked, because it is fairy tail economics. Politicians like it because it gives them cover to indulged their fantasies, and spend other peoples money on their pet projects.
To understand how economies really work and what wood lead to the optimum allocation of resources, and therefor the heist possible sustainable economic growth, consistent with maximising human happiness. Read up on the 'Austrian school' of Economics, the Road to Serfdom by F A Hyack, or Man, Economy and State by M N Rothbard is a good start.
Spoiler, By leavening people alowen, they make more rational choses, because they understand there own wants and desires better than any politician or civil servant ever will!
"Keynes v Hayek: Two economic giants go head to head"
To understand how economies really work and what wood lead to the optimum allocation of resources, and therefor the heist possible sustainable economic growth, consistent with maximising human happiness. Read up on the 'Austrian school' of Economics, the Road to Serfdom by F A Hyack, or Man, Economy and State by M N Rothbard is a good start.
The Austrian school of economics thinks that recessions can never happen.
Or to be precise the Austrian school is founded on the proposition that market actors are always rational and recessions can only happen if market actors act irrationally.
So given that recessions do happen Austrian economic theory is bollocks.
Mr. Smithson, congrats on writing a piece for the Spectator.
Twitter's delivered some good results for me in F1. The 2012 Spanish Grand Prix saw Hamilton disqualified from pole and I backed the two chaps 'behind him' [starting 1st and 2nd] at about 6 to lead lap 1.
Mind you, that does pale in the shadow of the Verstappen bet at the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix.
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
We know in practice the other 29% there will come down heavily Republican when it comes to putting the X in the box on election day (or touching the heavily insecure computer screen or operating the needlessly complex mechanical voting machine or whatever the hell hey do in Utah)
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
To understand how economies really work and what wood lead to the optimum allocation of resources, and therefor the heist possible sustainable economic growth, consistent with maximising human happiness. Read up on the 'Austrian school' of Economics, the Road to Serfdom by F A Hyack, or Man, Economy and State by M N Rothbard is a good start.
The Austrian school of economics thinks that recessions can never happen.
Or to be precise the Austrian school is founded on the proposition that market actors are always rational and recessions can only happen if market actors act irrationally.
So given that recessions do happen Austrian economic theory is bollocks.
Ye it can be good but it's a minefield when you're searching for hard data - so many retweets of old news (old polls), opinion pieces and ramping.
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
Labour's economic policy, such as it is, has remained largely unchanged from Alastair Darling -> Ed Balls -> John McDonnell. Where is this leftward drift?
The leftward drift is in the Tory policy. Corbyn and McDonnell have just been consistently stating left wing economic policy and letting the centre ground come to them.
I'm not sure you understand what the word "leftward" means. Are you saying the onward governing from the centre by the Tories is them capitalising on Labour abandoning it like a bunch of idiots?
Because yes, duh. That's the whole point. Elections are won from the centre. May knows this, Jez doesn't.
The centre ground is movable, so while parties should govern from the centre, they should also be seeking to move it towards their side. May should now be showing that right wing economics work, not endorsing Labour's economic critique and pursuing it herself.
What Tory economic policies are now right wing? Deficit reduction - dropped, Industrial Strategies - embraced, social security give aways - yep.
May can't show that right wing economics works - because it doesn't. Hence a shift to the sensible Keynesian approach that tends to work.
At the moment we have near-full employment, consistent growth and a bulging trade deficit: all characteristics of an economy heading towards a boom if not already there. I take it that you are therefore advocating that the government should be running a budget surplus (certainly in structural terms). how should it get there?
I would turn the question round - with such rosy data, coupled with Austerity, how come we aren't running a surplus already?
That's easy: combine an £80bn pa structural deficit from 2010 with political opposition to any cuts or (just about) any tax increases. It's always far easier politically to turn the taps on than off - and often far easier in practical terms too: you can't simply stop funding a road halfway through construction without looking like an idiot.
In practice we have had unjustifiable tax cuts though. The 50-45pc top rate income tax cut was executed at the right time to (and arguably for the purpose of) render it impossible to assess its long term effect on tax take rather than just see the impact distorted by transition-year noise. The consistent cuts in corporation tax are costly and their benefit is unproven.
Not enough to eliminate the deficit but nevertheless one would think that a higher tax take could have been pursued without massive political opposition.
Mr. Smithson, congrats on writing a piece for the Spectator.
Twitter's delivered some good results for me in F1. The 2012 Spanish Grand Prix saw Hamilton disqualified from pole and I backed the two chaps 'behind him' [starting 1st and 2nd] at about 6 to lead lap 1.
Mind you, that does pale in the shadow of the Verstappen bet at the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix.
Would that the bet you landed at the staggering PB.com all-comers world record odds of 250/1 on which yours truly wagered £1.00 each way?
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
We know in practice the other 29% there will come down heavily Republican when it comes to putting the X in the box on election day (or touching the heavily insecure computer screen or operating the needlessly complex mechanical voting machine or whatever the hell hey do in Utah)
Or, Utah could become the first state to ever vote for a Libertarian Party candidate, The link does not say haw much Gary Johnson is getting but I suspect he will be getting most of that 29%
Serially, I think just one pole in one state showing him winning and the media narrative will change, and it could become a self for filling prophecy.
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
We know in practice the other 29% there will come down heavily Republican when it comes to putting the X in the box on election day (or touching the heavily insecure computer screen or operating the needlessly complex mechanical voting machine or whatever the hell hey do in Utah)
Or, Utah could become the first state to ever vote for a Libertarian Party candidate, The link does not say haw much Gary Johnson is getting but I suspect he will be getting most of that 29%
Serially, I think just one pole in one state showing him winning and the media narrative will change, and it could become a self for filling prophecy.
I doubt he is getting more than 5-10%, the rest will be DK/refusers.
I'm not sure you understand what the word "leftward" means. Are you saying the onward governing from the centre by the Tories is them capitalising on Labour abandoning it like a bunch of idiots?
Because yes, duh. That's the whole point. Elections are won from the centre. May knows this, Jez doesn't.
The centre ground is movable, so while parties should govern from the centre, they should also be seeking to move it towards their side. May should now be showing that right wing economics work, not endorsing Labour's economic critique and pursuing it herself.
What Tory economic policies are now right wing? Deficit reduction - dropped, Industrial Strategies - embraced, social security give aways - yep.
May can't show that right wing economics works - because it doesn't. Hence a shift to the sensible Keynesian approach that tends to work.
At the moment we have near-full employment, consistent growth and a bulging trade deficit: all characteristics of an economy heading towards a boom if not already there. I take it that you are therefore advocating that the government should be running a budget surplus (certainly in structural terms). how should it get there?
I would turn the question round - with such rosy data, coupled with Austerity, how come we aren't running a surplus already?
That's easy: combine an £80bn pa structural deficit from 2010 with political opposition to any cuts or (just about) any tax increases. It's always far easier politically to turn the taps on than off - and often far easier in practical terms too: you can't simply stop funding a road halfway through construction without looking like an idiot.
In practice we have had unjustifiable tax cuts though. The 50-45pc top rate income tax cut was executed at the right time to (and arguably for the purpose of) render it impossible to assess its long term effect on tax take rather than just see the impact distorted by transition-year noise. The consistent cuts in corporation tax are costly and their benefit is unproven.
Not enough to eliminate the deficit but nevertheless one would think that a higher tax take could have been pursued without massive political opposition.
That is true. In fact, given the chance, I'd increase income tax at all bands by 5p and cut NI to some extent to offset a little for those producing economic output. i don't think that it's politically possible or practically wise to attempt to achieve all the reduction through cuts. but the opposition to such a move would be immense.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
We know in practice the other 29% there will come down heavily Republican when it comes to putting the X in the box on election day (or touching the heavily insecure computer screen or operating the needlessly complex mechanical voting machine or whatever the hell hey do in Utah)
Or, Utah could become the first state to ever vote for a Libertarian Party candidate, The link does not say haw much Gary Johnson is getting but I suspect he will be getting most of that 29%
Serially, I think just one pole in one state showing him winning and the media narrative will change, and it could become a self for filling prophecy.
Johnson is best-priced at 300/1 with sportingbet, which is still longer than the best for Sanders, Biden, Romney and Ryan.
He seems to be polling reasonably well at the moment - in high single figures - and I agree that one topside outlier giving him, say, 12-13% might well create a media narrative taking him more seriously, with the additional coverage giving him a feedback effect.
But though he might become a spanner in Trump's works (presumably Trump though Hillary is such a poor campaigner that she's also vulnerable), it's hard to see how he can overcome the immense political, structural and organisational barriers to win a state in anything other than special circumstances.
To understand how economies really work and what wood lead to the optimum allocation of resources, and therefor the heist possible sustainable economic growth, consistent with maximising human happiness. Read up on the 'Austrian school' of Economics, the Road to Serfdom by F A Hyack, or Man, Economy and State by M N Rothbard is a good start.
The Austrian school of economics thinks that recessions can never happen.
Or to be precise the Austrian school is founded on the proposition that market actors are always rational and recessions can only happen if market actors act irrationally.
So given that recessions do happen Austrian economic theory is bollocks.
No, Austrian economics, states that recessions happen because the state, interferes with the markets for money, ether through changing the money supply, or the price of money, typically by holding interest rates to low for to long, and therefore price signals do not work and people therefor act 'irrationally'.
While external shocks may lead to some ups and downs in the economy, if markets and especially the market for money are not manipulated any recession that does happen will be short and miled, before a strong rebound.
That's certainly what he would want you to believe.
Wow, a Prime Minister of a small island could cause such a bad global crash, who would have believed that?
Are we still on the "too small, too poor, too stupid" campaign?
Yes, the US subprime crisis was the proximate cause of the recession - but the point is, Brown hadn't abolished boom'n'bust and had left us vulnerable to outside shocks. If it hadn't been US subprime it would have been something else and we would still have been screwed.
I was never on such a campaign. Blaming Brown for the global crisis is just silly. Saying he could have been better prepared, which is what you seem to have switched too is better.
I don't blame Brown for the crisis, only for the effect it had on the British economy.
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
We know in practice the other 29% there will come down heavily Republican when it comes to putting the X in the box on election day (or touching the heavily insecure computer screen or operating the needlessly complex mechanical voting machine or whatever the hell hey do in Utah)
Or, Utah could become the first state to ever vote for a Libertarian Party candidate, The link does not say haw much Gary Johnson is getting but I suspect he will be getting most of that 29%
Serially, I think just one pole in one state showing him winning and the media narrative will change, and it could become a self for filling prophecy.
Johnson is best-priced at 300/1 with sportingbet, which is still longer than the best for Sanders, Biden, Romney and Ryan.
He seems to be polling reasonably well at the moment - in high single figures - and I agree that one topside outlier giving him, say, 12-13% might well create a media narrative taking him more seriously, with the additional coverage giving him a feedback effect.
But though he might become a spanner in Trump's works (presumably Trump though Hillary is such a poor campaigner that she's also vulnerable), it's hard to see how he can overcome the immense political, structural and organisational barriers to win a state in anything other than special circumstances.
I think the conventions have largely put pay to that, but I have £5 at 350/1 just in case it's more fun that way
Mr. Patrick, not seen it in person, but have heard positive things about that particular trebuchet (although it may have been the one that accidentally destroyed an ancient boathouse with an errant fireball).
A trebuchet-based judicial system is a sensible policy, for a happier Britain.
The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election
I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.
He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.
Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.
He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.
A bit unfair on Brown. He wasn't so far off it in 2010 despite having been in the chair during ttook office he would have been more electable than Cameron, despite being already a very familiar figure in politics.
Brown experienced a brief moment of popularity, followed by a longer period of unpopularity and often profound unpopularity - even Corbyn hasn't plunged anywhere near the depths of the 18% share recorded in Labour's worst poll on Brown's watch (never mind the actual 16% Labour scored in the 2009 Euros).
He was a man manifestly temperamentally unsuited to being prime minister who briefly caught a wave due to his being not-Blair. That wore off as soon as people remembered that he is-Brown. As for a 2007 election, the whole reason he chickened out of calling one was because the internal polls suggested that he wouldn't do well with swing voters in marginal constituencies. Whether that was right or not we'll never know but we can be sure from what did in fact follow that had he won, he'd have lost badly in 2012.
And despite all this Brown has the best reputation of all the C21 PMs.
You keep that delusion going, Jonathan. If you keep wishing it, one day it might become true.
It is true.
Tony Blair, whilst successful in many ways will never escape Iraq.
Or
David Cameron, the man who destroyed himself overnight, under no pressure whatsoever and left office compared to Eden. A total abject failure whose reputation will never escape Brexit.
By comparison, Brown's reputation is stellar.
The idea that Cameron destroyed himself under no pressure whatsoever is manifestly and demonstrably nonsense. That he made the wrong choices under the pressure and played his hand badly would be a fair assessment, but he was destroyed by Brexit, and he only offered a referendum on it because he felt, rightly or wrongly, unable to resist the pressure he faced to call one.
As for Brown, I always preferred him to Blair, frankly.
The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election
I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.
He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.
Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.
He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.
In its 100 years of history, the Labour Party has had 22 leaders or acting leaders. Only 4 of those have managed to win a General Election - Ramsay McDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Only one of those was a socialist, and he is the one known as "the accidental Prime Minister".
Mr. kle4, Blair will have the worst reputation of modern prime ministers, simply because nobody will defend him. Brown still has lefties, some at least, on-side. But they revile Blair. The right will hardly speak up for him.
He trashed the regulatory system,didn't have a clue what the banks were doing, allowed a credit explosion including 125% self certified mortgages & left the NHS with a £2 billion annual bill for his PFI disaster.
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
We know in practice the other 29% there will come down heavily Republican when it comes to putting the X in the box on election day (or touching the heavily insecure computer screen or operating the needlessly complex mechanical voting machine or whatever the hell hey do in Utah)
Or, Utah could become the first state to ever vote for a Libertarian Party candidate, The link does not say haw much Gary Johnson is getting but I suspect he will be getting most of that 29%
Serially, I think just one pole in one state showing him winning and the media narrative will change, and it could become a self for filling prophecy.
Johnson is best-priced at 300/1 with sportingbet, which is still longer than the best for Sanders, Biden, Romney and Ryan.
He seems to be polling reasonably well at the moment - in high single figures - and I agree that one topside outlier giving him, say, 12-13% might well create a media narrative taking him more seriously, with the additional coverage giving him a feedback effect.
But though he might become a spanner in Trump's works (presumably Trump though Hillary is such a poor campaigner that she's also vulnerable), it's hard to see how he can overcome the immense political, structural and organisational barriers to win a state in anything other than special circumstances.
While I largely agree with you, there are immense political, structural and organisational barriers, and theses will probably stop him. but he has already had one pole where he is at 13% and another at 12%, the next outlier could have him over 15% and because of the significance of that and getting in to the debates it would have a big coverage feedback effect. and if he gets in the debates, which is a bit 'IF' that would be the single biggest barrier overcome.
The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election
I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.
He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.
Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.
He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.
In its 100 years of history, the Labour Party had had 22 leaders or acting leaders. Only 4 of those have managed to win a General Election - Ramsay McDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Only one of those was a socialist, and he is the one known as "the accidental Prime Minister".
The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election
I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.
He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.
Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.
He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.
In its 100 years of history, the Labour Party had had 22 leaders or acting leaders. Only 4 of those have managed to win a General Election - Ramsay McDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Only one of those was a socialist, and he is the one known as "the accidental Prime Minister".
What were the other three?
McDonald started as a socialist but lost his faith because of the post 1929 crash and threw his lot in with Liberals and Liberal Conservatives. Wilson was a pragmatist and Blair was a Social Democrat.
The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election
I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.
He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.
Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.
He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.
In its 100 years of history, the Labour Party had had 22 leaders or acting leaders. Only 4 of those have managed to win a General Election - Ramsay McDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Only one of those was a socialist, and he is the one known as "the accidental Prime Minister".
The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election
I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.
He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.
Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.
He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.
In its 100 years of history, the Labour Party had had 22 leaders or acting leaders. Only 4 of those have managed to win a General Election - Ramsay McDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Only one of those was a socialist, and he is the one known as "the accidental Prime Minister".
What were the other three?
McDonald started as a socialist but lost his faith because of the post 1929 crash and threw his lot in with Liberals and Liberal Conservatives. Wilson was a pragmatist and Blair was a Social Democrat.
Think it would be more accurate to describe Blair as a Christian Democrat, in European terms.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
It's good fun. Did you stick around for the falconry?
1) How many Labour Prime Ministers have there been with the first name 'James'? and can you name them all.
and
2) How many general elections have Labour leaders called James won? (won as in most votes)
James Callaghan – and wasn’t Gordon, actually James Gordon Brown?
Sunny Jim's first name was actually Leonard, answer to a Quizmaster trivia machine question way back in the mists of time.
(quick google) So it is - cheers Mr Divvie – you learn something new every day etc..
List of Labour Prime Ministers with the first name James are
1) James Ramsay MacDonald 2) James Harold Wilson 3) James Gordon Brown
James Callaghan doesn't count, as he was Leonard James Callaghan
Have more Labour PMs used their middle name over their first name??
It's a 2-2 tie. Attlee experimented with using his middle name ("Richard") in early life but not for long. Had he stuck with it, it would have been 3-1 against first names.
1) How many Labour Prime Ministers have there been with the first name 'James'? and can you name them all.
and
2) How many general elections have Labour leaders called James won? (won as in most votes)
James Callaghan – and wasn’t Gordon, actually James Gordon Brown?
Sunny Jim's first name was actually Leonard, answer to a Quizmaster trivia machine question way back in the mists of time.
(quick google) So it is - cheers Mr Divvie – you learn something new every day etc..
List of Labour Prime Ministers with the first name James are
1) James Ramsay MacDonald 2) James Harold Wilson 3) James Gordon Brown
James Callaghan doesn't count, as he was Leonard James Callaghan
Have more Labour PMs used their middle name over their first name??
It's a 2-2 tie. Attlee experimented with using his middle name ("Richard") in early life but not for long. Had he stuck with it, it would have been 3-1 against first names.
There have been more than 4 Labour Prime Ministers
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
It's good fun. Did you stick around for the falconry?
Yup. They had a condor with a 10ft wingspan - that was cool.
The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election
I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.
He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.
Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.
He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.
In its 100 years of history, the Labour Party had had 22 leaders or acting leaders. Only 4 of those have managed to win a General Election - Ramsay McDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Only one of those was a socialist, and he is the one known as "the accidental Prime Minister".
What were the other three?
Sane?
22 leaders, only 4 winners. Despite this record, which should demonstrate how hard it is to win, the modern Labour party is intent on ploughing on to another loss.
He trashed the regulatory system,didn't have a clue what the banks were doing, allowed a credit explosion including 125% self certified mortgages & left the NHS with a £2 billion annual bill for his PFI disaster.
But the original claim was : "Funniest post of the year, the PM that gave us the biggest economic crash for 80 years ! "
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible.
Mr. Patrick, not seen it in person, but have heard positive things about that particular trebuchet (although it may have been the one that accidentally destroyed an ancient boathouse with an errant fireball).
A trebuchet-based judicial system is a sensible policy, for a happier Britain.
Out of interest, what type of landing area is associated with that trebuchet justice system? A field of stakes, or a nice swimming pool?
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Demonstrating an ability to joust should be a precondition before anyone is awarded a knighthood.
Mr. Patrick, not seen it in person, but have heard positive things about that particular trebuchet (although it may have been the one that accidentally destroyed an ancient boathouse with an errant fireball).
A trebuchet-based judicial system is a sensible policy, for a happier Britain.
Out of interest, what type of landing area is associated with that trebuchet justice system? A field of stakes, or a nice swimming pool?
With a sufficiently large trebuchet that's a matter for the EU. The channel can serve for minor offences though.
1) How many Labour Prime Ministers have there been with the first name 'James'? and can you name them all.
and
2) How many general elections have Labour leaders called James won? (won as in most votes)
James Callaghan – and wasn’t Gordon, actually James Gordon Brown?
Sunny Jim's first name was actually Leonard, answer to a Quizmaster trivia machine question way back in the mists of time.
(quick google) So it is - cheers Mr Divvie – you learn something new every day etc..
List of Labour Prime Ministers with the first name James are
1) James Ramsay MacDonald 2) James Harold Wilson 3) James Gordon Brown
James Callaghan doesn't count, as he was Leonard James Callaghan
Have more Labour PMs used their middle name over their first name??
It's a 2-2 tie. Attlee experimented with using his middle name ("Richard") in early life but not for long. Had he stuck with it, it would have been 3-1 against first names.
There have been more than 4 Labour Prime Ministers
True. Including unelected Labour Prime ministers, 2 used their first names (Attlee and Blair) and 4 did not (McDonald, Wilson, Callaghan and Brown).
Mr. T, it varies. More vile miscreants will be launched into the North Sea. Those treated with mercy will be launched into the English Channel.
Those beyond hope of reforming their character will be sent to the space cannon, or solar death ray.
Mr. Llama, that's a pet hate in fantasy. That and [which I try to avoid] shouting 'fire'. They're not firearms...
Mr. Patrick, a decade or two ago there was a BBC series about deadliest predators (speed, venom, mass proportionate to prey etc). The chap had a gauntlet on and a harpy eagle. The expert was explaining to the presenter that a week earlier the harpy eagle had crushed such a gauntlet and destroyed the arm of the person wearing it. The host did not look thrilled
''Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible. ''
I saw something on the box that claimed there isn;t one surviving example of a British medieval longbow. They have to go on drawings, paintings, written accounts etc.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Demonstrating an ability to joust should be a precondition before anyone is awarded a knighthood.
I’d be sorry for Philip Green’s horse! There ought to be a law against such cruelty!
1) How many Labour Prime Ministers have there been with the first name 'James'? and can you name them all.
and
2) How many general elections have Labour leaders called James won? (won as in most votes)
James Callaghan – and wasn’t Gordon, actually James Gordon Brown?
Sunny Jim's first name was actually Leonard, answer to a Quizmaster trivia machine question way back in the mists of time.
(quick google) So it is - cheers Mr Divvie – you learn something new every day etc..
List of Labour Prime Ministers with the first name James are
1) James Ramsay MacDonald 2) James Harold Wilson 3) James Gordon Brown
James Callaghan doesn't count, as he was Leonard James Callaghan
Have more Labour PMs used their middle name over their first name??
It's a 2-2 tie. Attlee experimented with using his middle name ("Richard") in early life but not for long. Had he stuck with it, it would have been 3-1 against first names.
There have been more than 4 Labour Prime Ministers
True. Including unelected Labour Prime ministers, 2 used their first names (Attlee and Blair) and 4 did not (McDonald, Wilson, Callaghan and Brown).
But have any Labour Chancellors of the Exchequer changed their first names because they didn't like the ones they'd been given?
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Demonstrating an ability to joust should be a precondition before anyone is awarded a knighthood.
Tis the thin edge of the wedge Mr Rentool - next all peerages would come with a castle
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
40 mph is a fast racehorse, flat out. I suppose 20 mph x 2 comes to the same thing. Either way, falls at those sorts of speeds are a bit life-threatening, so you'd expect them to play it safe.
A new Hinckley Institute-Salt Lake Tribune poll shows the two are virtually tied with 35 percent for Donald Trump and 36 percent for Hillary Clinton. That is as close as a Democratic candidate has been to victory in more than half a century
We know in practice the other 29% there will come down heavily Republican when it comes to putting the X in the box on election day (or touching the heavily insecure computer screen or operating the needlessly complex mechanical voting machine or whatever the hell hey do in Utah)
Or, Utah could become the first state to ever vote for a Libertarian Party candidate, The link does not say haw much Gary Johnson is getting but I suspect he will be getting most of that 29%
Serially, I think just one pole in one state showing him winning and the media narrative will change, and it could become a self for filling prophecy.
No chance in Utah, given his opposition to religious freedom being protected and his support for cannabis legalisation. Maybe a state like Alaska gives him a better chance.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible.
Yes saw archery too. A great day out all told - kids loved it.
A small bit of language geekery from a gun pedant: The centre of an archery target is a white circle (surrounded by rings of different colours). When you're very close you don't need to aim high so you aim directly at the white. This was called 'point blank' range for obvious reasons. A modern rifle has a scope above the barrel. The bullet rises, crosses the line of sight (at the 'near zero' range), reaches a high point, falls back, recrosses the line of sight (at the 'zero' range) and then falls again to a point below the line of sight equal to the high point above it. At all times within this final distance the bullet is never further away from the line of sight than the height of the scope above the axis of the barrel. You don't need to aim off. The 'point blank' range of a 5.56mm NATO rifle is around 225m. 'Point blank' does NOT mean 'at very very close range'. Technically.
''Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible. ''
I saw something on the box that claimed there isn;t one surviving example of a British medieval longbow. They have to go on drawings, paintings, written accounts etc.
There are plenty of longbows and arrows surviving from the Mary Rose wreck. Well worth a trip to Portsmouth to see
''Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible. ''
I saw something on the box that claimed there isn;t one surviving example of a British medieval longbow. They have to go on drawings, paintings, written accounts etc.
Not quite medieval but they recovered a lot of bow staves from the Mary Rose. So an accurate idea of what they looked like and the strength needed to draw one is easily available. Additionally skeletons of archers have been recovered from battlefield graves and show clear evidence of deformities caused by asymmetrical muscle growth. I think the archaeological evidence is pretty solid.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible.
Yes saw archery too. A great day out all told - kids loved it.
A small bit of language geekery from a gun pedant: The centre of an archery target is a white circle (surrounded by rings of different colours). When you're very close you don't need to aim high so you aim directly at the white. This was called 'point blank' range for obvious reasons. A modern rifle has a scope above the barrel. The bullet rises, crosses the line of sight (at the 'near zero' range), reaches a high point, falls back, recrosses the line of sight (at the 'zero' range) and then falls again to a point below the line of sight equal to the high point above it. At all times within this final distance the bullet is never further away from the line of sight than the height of the scope above the axis of the barrel. You don't need to aim off. The 'point blank' range of a 5.56mm NATO rifle is around 225m. 'Point blank' does NOT mean 'at very very close range'. Technically.
When we describe something as 'tilted' we usually mean 'inclined at an angle' and it could be said to be at 'full tilt' when it was about to topple over. The expression 'full tilt' is most often heard these days in regard to the Full Tilt poker game. Of course, that isn't the origin of the term, although the source is related to another type of poker - the lance used in medieval jousting.
Tilt derives from the Old English word tealt or tylte, meaning to totter unsteadily. It isn't surprising that tilting was the early name for jousting, as the sport involves two knights on horseback charging at each other and trying to topple their opponent off his horse. This is the same meaning of tilt as in the eponymous hero's 'tilting at windmills' in Cervantes' Don Quixote.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible.
Yes saw archery too. A great day out all told - kids loved it.
A small bit of language geekery from a gun pedant: The centre of an archery target is a white circle (surrounded by rings of different colours). When you're very close you don't need to aim high so you aim directly at the white. This was called 'point blank' range for obvious reasons. A modern rifle has a scope above the barrel. The bullet rises, crosses the line of sight (at the 'near zero' range), reaches a high point, falls back, recrosses the line of sight (at the 'zero' range) and then falls again to a point below the line of sight equal to the high point above it. At all times within this final distance the bullet is never further away from the line of sight than the height of the scope above the axis of the barrel. You don't need to aim off. The 'point blank' range of a 5.56mm NATO rifle is around 225m. 'Point blank' does NOT mean 'at very very close range'. Technically.
Excellent bit of geekery there, Mr. Patrick, thank you.
''Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible. ''
I saw something on the box that claimed there isn;t one surviving example of a British medieval longbow. They have to go on drawings, paintings, written accounts etc.
Not quite medieval but they recovered a lot of bow staves from the Mary Rose. So an accurate idea of what they looked like and the strength needed to draw one is easily available. Additionally skeletons of archers have been recovered from battlefield graves and show clear evidence of deformities caused by asymmetrical muscle growth. I think the archaeological evidence is pretty solid.
I am confused. Is the myth we are debunking, the belief that these things could not be held in the aim position? If it is, surely that is self-debunking, because why would they exist if they were effectively useless (and how did we win Agincourt without them?)
The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election
I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.
He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.
Ed must be comforted by no longer being such an outlier.
He's not an outlier. He's keeping company with Foot, Kinnock and Brown and is ahead of Corbyn.
In its 100 years of history, the Labour Party had had 22 leaders or acting leaders. Only 4 of those have managed to win a General Election - Ramsay McDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair. Only one of those was a socialist, and he is the one known as "the accidental Prime Minister".
What were the other three?
Sane?
22 leaders, only 4 winners. Despite this record, which should demonstrate how hard it is to win, the modern Labour party is intent on ploughing on to another loss.
It's not quite so unbalanced when you judge it by years in charge. Starting in 1922 (Labour didn't really have leaders up to and including WWI, when the NEC was corporately the leader, and the number one in parliament was simply 'chair of the PLP'), the four leaders have run Labour:
1922-31 MacDonald 1935-55 Attlee 1963-76 Wilson 1994-2007 Blair
Total: 55 years.
That's considerably more than the other ten put together.
''Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible. ''
I saw something on the box that claimed there isn;t one surviving example of a British medieval longbow. They have to go on drawings, paintings, written accounts etc.
There are plenty of longbows and arrows surviving from the Mary Rose wreck. Well worth a trip to Portsmouth to see
Heard Robert Hardy (All Creatures Great and Small) ages ago on a Beeb 4 programme (Second String - people who are famous for one thing but who are quite good at something else for which they are not famous) talking about archery. He claimed that there was no-one alive in Britain with the strength to draw a longbow as it required something like 120 lbs draw strength (forget the details). Anyhow, he wrote an interesting book on the longbow:
Mr. Patrick, not seen it in person, but have heard positive things about that particular trebuchet (although it may have been the one that accidentally destroyed an ancient boathouse with an errant fireball).
A trebuchet-based judicial system is a sensible policy, for a happier Britain.
Out of interest, what type of landing area is associated with that trebuchet justice system? A field of stakes, or a nice swimming pool?
With a sufficiently large trebuchet that's a matter for the EU. The channel can serve for minor offences though.
What we really need is HD2's space trebuchet though...
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Demonstrating an ability to joust should be a precondition before anyone is awarded a knighthood.
Tis the thin edge of the wedge Mr Rentool - next all peerages would come with a castle
Or....No peerage without first owning a castle. That would keep the top end of the property market quite lively.
To understand how economies really work and what wood lead to the optimum allocation of resources, and therefor the heist possible sustainable economic growth, consistent with maximising human happiness. Read up on the 'Austrian school' of Economics, the Road to Serfdom by F A Hyack, or Man, Economy and State by M N Rothbard is a good start.
The Austrian school of economics thinks that recessions can never happen.
Or to be precise the Austrian school is founded on the proposition that market actors are always rational and recessions can only happen if market actors act irrationally.
So given that recessions do happen Austrian economic theory is bollocks.
No, Austrian economics, states that recessions happen because the state, interferes with the markets for money, ether through changing the money supply, or the price of money, typically by holding interest rates to low for to long, and therefore price signals do not work and people therefor act 'irrationally'.
While external shocks may lead to some ups and downs in the economy, if markets and especially the market for money are not manipulated any recession that does happen will be short and miled, before a strong rebound.
Ah, the famed rational market actors who are completely unable to rationally act on public information.
When to can define rational to mean irrational then any theory works.
''Was the archery demonstration on? That was well worth watching when we went a few years ago. Laid a few myths about the use of the long bow - notably holding it in the aim position was physically impossible. ''
I saw something on the box that claimed there isn;t one surviving example of a British medieval longbow. They have to go on drawings, paintings, written accounts etc.
Not quite medieval but they recovered a lot of bow staves from the Mary Rose. So an accurate idea of what they looked like and the strength needed to draw one is easily available. Additionally skeletons of archers have been recovered from battlefield graves and show clear evidence of deformities caused by asymmetrical muscle growth. I think the archaeological evidence is pretty solid.
I am confused. Is the myth we are debunking, the belief that these things could not be held in the aim position? If it is, surely that is self-debunking, because why would they exist if they were effectively useless (and how did we win Agincourt without them?)
They could not be held in the aim position because of you tried it you would rip all the muscles down the right hand side of your back. The demonstration at Warwick was that one knocked to arrow to the string then in one fluid movement raised and drew the bow, using the strength of the back and shoulder muscles as well as the arms, and loosed the arrow immediately.
That isn't to say it was impossible to aim, the demonstrator managed to hit a head sized target at about 50 yards range with three arrows out of ten. However, the longbow was a an effective weapon a) because of its power b) the rate of "fire" that could be achieved (a skilled archer could be putting out about, if memory serves, something like twenty arrows a minute) and c) it was used on masse. It was if you like an area effect weapon; think machine gun rather than sniper rifle.
To understand how economies really work and what wood lead to the optimum allocation of resources, and therefor the heist possible sustainable economic growth, consistent with maximising human happiness. Read up on the 'Austrian school' of Economics, the Road to Serfdom by F A Hyack, or Man, Economy and State by M N Rothbard is a good start.
The Austrian school of economics thinks that recessions can never happen.
Or to be precise the Austrian school is founded on the proposition that market actors are always rational and recessions can only happen if market actors act irrationally.
So given that recessions do happen Austrian economic theory is bollocks.
No, Austrian economics, states that recessions happen because the state, interferes with the markets for money, ether through changing the money supply, or the price of money, typically by holding interest rates to low for to long, and therefore price signals do not work and people therefor act 'irrationally'.
While external shocks may lead to some ups and downs in the economy, if markets and especially the market for money are not manipulated any recession that does happen will be short and miled, before a strong rebound.
Ah, the famed rational market actors who are completely unable to rationally act on public information.
When to can define rational to mean irrational then any theory works.
For many actual decisions when there are innumerable factors, even more interactions, insufficient time to fully enumerate and evaluate all the available options and imperfect data, the very terms 'rational' and 'irrational' become meaningless. We fall back on heuristics, which we may or may not be able to articulate, but which is a very rational (and mostly effective) thing to do.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Demonstrating an ability to joust should be a precondition before anyone is awarded a knighthood.
Tis the thin edge of the wedge Mr Rentool - next all peerages would come with a castle
Or....No peerage without first owning a castle. That would keep the top end of the property market quite lively.
Perhaps there should be a set of tests and trials for qualification for a peerage, not just one. I quite like the idea that jousting ability is integral to holding a noble title, as is castle ownership. But shouldn't also the ability to swim the moat of the castle in full armour be included?
''Additionally skeletons of archers have been recovered from battlefield graves and show clear evidence of deformities caused by asymmetrical muscle growth. I think the archaeological evidence is pretty solid. ''
Its fascinating stuff. I once saw a documentary on the discovery of a pit full of bodies from the battle of Towton.
Many of the corpses had old, healed, injuries that suggest medieval surgeons were far more skilled than previously thought. We have a wonderful, rich heritage.
The Smith campaign, which is starting to look as though its getting its act together, is focusing on electability at a general election
I'm not sure Smith should focus too heavily on this. I think he's about as electable as Corbyn.
He is much more electable than Corbyn, but much less electable than Ed Miliband.
I disagree. Smith comes across as far less geeky than Miliband did. He connects much better as being 'normal' to ordinary voters. He is also much less of a windbag than Kinnock.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Demonstrating an ability to joust should be a precondition before anyone is awarded a knighthood.
Tis the thin edge of the wedge Mr Rentool - next all peerages would come with a castle
Or....No peerage without first owning a castle. That would keep the top end of the property market quite lively.
Perhaps there should be a set of tests and trials for qualification for a peerage, not just one. I quite like the idea that jousting ability is integral to holding a noble title, as is castle ownership. But shouldn't also the ability to swim the moat of the castle in full armour be included?
Ability to pull up the drawbridge should be a requirement for any UKIP peer.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Demonstrating an ability to joust should be a precondition before anyone is awarded a knighthood.
Tis the thin edge of the wedge Mr Rentool - next all peerages would come with a castle
Or....No peerage without first owning a castle. That would keep the top end of the property market quite lively.
Perhaps there should be a set of tests and trials for qualification for a peerage, not just one. I quite like the idea that jousting ability is integral to holding a noble title, as is castle ownership. But shouldn't also the ability to swim the moat of the castle in full armour be included?
Ability to pull up the drawbridge should be a requirement for any UKIP peer.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Demonstrating an ability to joust should be a precondition before anyone is awarded a knighthood.
Tis the thin edge of the wedge Mr Rentool - next all peerages would come with a castle
Or....No peerage without first owning a castle. That would keep the top end of the property market quite lively.
Perhaps there should be a set of tests and trials for qualification for a peerage, not just one. I quite like the idea that jousting ability is integral to holding a noble title, as is castle ownership. But shouldn't also the ability to swim the moat of the castle in full armour be included?
I like your thinking – one proviso, none of that Lord’s champion malarkey doing it for them.
Just seen a fabulous docu on More4 - Spying on Hitler's Army.
Transcripts of wiretaps on POWs. Stunning stuff.
Worth finding on catch-up or recording the next broadcast.
If it's the transcripts I am thinking of, it rather puts the kibosh on the claim that the German Army was unaware of the Final Solution and the illegality of certain of the orders they were implementing.
Mr. Putney, indeed. 'tis a race to remember, amidst gleeful cackling.
Just wanted to say that I saw the Warwick Castle trebuchet in action at the weekend. Effing fabtastic! Threw a fireball the size of a space hopper three hundred feet. I was quite close to the dungeon entrance as I watched. The thinking behind a trebuchet based justice system is becoming clearer to me.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
Demonstrating an ability to joust should be a precondition before anyone is awarded a knighthood.
Tis the thin edge of the wedge Mr Rentool - next all peerages would come with a castle
Or....No peerage without first owning a castle. That would keep the top end of the property market quite lively.
You jest but at one time it was expected that a peer should have the means to live to his title. It's one reason (or justification, if you prefer) why Marlborough was given Blenheim Palace to go with his dukedom. I seem to remember watching a documentary that said that Nelson hadn't progressed beyond a viscountcy because there were questions as to whether he could maintain an earldom - presumably had he survived Trafalgar, he'd have been awarded a substantial cash sum to go with a further progression in the peerage.
Mine's Tim, hence the MTimT once TimT was no longer available.
Have worked with a few diplomats with only one name (i.e. no family name). And others with at least 6 names (all four grandparents christian names, plus both paternal and maternal family names)
Comments
However it is only a strong showing from Johnson that could take the state away from him, as Utah Republicans will otherwise stand behind their man (not that 35/36 gives 29% left over).
It requires human nature to be Other than it is to be viable.
Clinton 50
Trump 42
That's up from a near-tie last week.
https://t.co/v10hOpzFKX
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/eu-demands-britain-pays-pensions-of-1730-eurocrats-in-wake-of-br/
To understand how economies really work and what wood lead to the optimum allocation of resources, and therefor the heist possible sustainable economic growth, consistent with maximising human happiness. Read up on the 'Austrian school' of Economics, the Road to Serfdom by F A Hyack, or Man, Economy and State by M N Rothbard is a good start.
Spoiler, By leavening people alowen, they make more rational choses, because they understand there own wants and desires better than any politician or civil servant ever will!
Yes, the US subprime crisis was the proximate cause of the recession - but the point is, Brown hadn't abolished boom'n'bust and had left us vulnerable to outside shocks. If it hadn't been US subprime it would have been something else and we would still have been screwed.
However, it's also worth noting that Keynsianism was far more complex that simple counter-cyclical spending, and also that Keynes was continually innovative and that he'd be appalled if the world was reciting his ideas from 80 years ago as some kind of mantra, with no consideration for the developments to economies, transport, markets and finance since.
Similiar things to be aware of with next football manager markets.
Blaming Brown for the global crisis is just silly. Saying he could have been better prepared, which is what you seem to have switched too is better.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-14366054
Or to be precise the Austrian school is founded on the proposition that market actors are always rational and recessions can only happen if market actors act irrationally.
So given that recessions do happen Austrian economic theory is bollocks.
Twitter's delivered some good results for me in F1. The 2012 Spanish Grand Prix saw Hamilton disqualified from pole and I backed the two chaps 'behind him' [starting 1st and 2nd] at about 6 to lead lap 1.
Mind you, that does pale in the shadow of the Verstappen bet at the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix.
Not enough to eliminate the deficit but nevertheless one would think that a higher tax take could have been pursued without massive political opposition.
Serially, I think just one pole in one state showing him winning and the media narrative will change, and it could become a self for filling prophecy.
(they also had 'jousting' but that was a bit tame. Fun but touristy. No-one was in real danger of getting knocked off his mount at forty miles an hour - more's the pity)
He seems to be polling reasonably well at the moment - in high single figures - and I agree that one topside outlier giving him, say, 12-13% might well create a media narrative taking him more seriously, with the additional coverage giving him a feedback effect.
But though he might become a spanner in Trump's works (presumably Trump though Hillary is such a poor campaigner that she's also vulnerable), it's hard to see how he can overcome the immense political, structural and organisational barriers to win a state in anything other than special circumstances.
While external shocks may lead to some ups and downs in the economy, if markets and especially the market for money are not manipulated any recession that does happen will be short and miled, before a strong rebound.
A trebuchet-based judicial system is a sensible policy, for a happier Britain.
As for Brown, I always preferred him to Blair, frankly.
'Was it Brown's fault? I thought it was to do with sub-prime US housing.
http://positivemoney.org/issues/recessions-crisis'
He trashed the regulatory system,didn't have a clue what the banks were doing, allowed a credit explosion including 125% self certified mortgages & left the NHS with a £2 billion annual bill for his PFI disaster.
Combined, Vettel and Hamilton now equal Schumacher's titles and wins. Although they took a combined 348 starts, and he achieved his in 306.
At '300 to 1' I think its a value bet.
Maurice Harold Macmillan went with his middle name, Douglas-Home and Heath did not.
"Funniest post of the year, the PM that gave us the biggest economic crash for 80 years ! "
James Keir Hardie I guess...
Blair and Attlee didn't have James anywhere in their names, unusually for Labour PMs..
If I was a Labour PM I guess I'd be a "Tony"
Those beyond hope of reforming their character will be sent to the space cannon, or solar death ray.
Mr. Llama, that's a pet hate in fantasy. That and [which I try to avoid] shouting 'fire'. They're not firearms...
Mr. Patrick, a decade or two ago there was a BBC series about deadliest predators (speed, venom, mass proportionate to prey etc). The chap had a gauntlet on and a harpy eagle. The expert was explaining to the presenter that a week earlier the harpy eagle had crushed such a gauntlet and destroyed the arm of the person wearing it. The host did not look thrilled
I saw something on the box that claimed there isn;t one surviving example of a British medieval longbow. They have to go on drawings, paintings, written accounts etc.
A small bit of language geekery from a gun pedant: The centre of an archery target is a white circle (surrounded by rings of different colours). When you're very close you don't need to aim high so you aim directly at the white. This was called 'point blank' range for obvious reasons. A modern rifle has a scope above the barrel. The bullet rises, crosses the line of sight (at the 'near zero' range), reaches a high point, falls back, recrosses the line of sight (at the 'zero' range) and then falls again to a point below the line of sight equal to the high point above it. At all times within this final distance the bullet is never further away from the line of sight than the height of the scope above the axis of the barrel. You don't need to aim off. The 'point blank' range of a 5.56mm NATO rifle is around 225m. 'Point blank' does NOT mean 'at very very close range'. Technically.
I liked this trivia re full-tilt http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/full-tilt.html
When we describe something as 'tilted' we usually mean 'inclined at an angle' and it could be said to be at 'full tilt' when it was about to topple over. The expression 'full tilt' is most often heard these days in regard to the Full Tilt poker game. Of course, that isn't the origin of the term, although the source is related to another type of poker - the lance used in medieval jousting.
Tilt derives from the Old English word tealt or tylte, meaning to totter unsteadily. It isn't surprising that tilting was the early name for jousting, as the sport involves two knights on horseback charging at each other and trying to topple their opponent off his horse. This is the same meaning of tilt as in the eponymous hero's 'tilting at windmills' in Cervantes' Don Quixote.
1922-31 MacDonald
1935-55 Attlee
1963-76 Wilson
1994-2007 Blair
Total: 55 years.
That's considerably more than the other ten put together.
"Your ballot will be dispatched to you by the end of August via email and in the post, and you'll have until noon 21 September to vote."
https://www.amazon.com/Longbow-Military-History-Robert-Hardy/dp/1852604123
Apparently, he was also consulted in the raising of the Mary Rose.
When to can define rational to mean irrational then any theory works.
That isn't to say it was impossible to aim, the demonstrator managed to hit a head sized target at about 50 yards range with three arrows out of ten. However, the longbow was a an effective weapon a) because of its power b) the rate of "fire" that could be achieved (a skilled archer could be putting out about, if memory serves, something like twenty arrows a minute) and c) it was used on masse. It was if you like an area effect weapon; think machine gun rather than sniper rifle.
Its fascinating stuff. I once saw a documentary on the discovery of a pit full of bodies from the battle of Towton.
Many of the corpses had old, healed, injuries that suggest medieval surgeons were far more skilled than previously thought. We have a wonderful, rich heritage.
Transcripts of wiretaps on POWs. Stunning stuff.
Worth finding on catch-up or recording the next broadcast.
If it's the transcripts I am thinking of, it rather puts the kibosh on the claim that the German Army was unaware of the Final Solution and the illegality of certain of the orders they were implementing.
Have worked with a few diplomats with only one name (i.e. no family name). And others with at least 6 names (all four grandparents christian names, plus both paternal and maternal family names)