Polls 3 months out are only straws in the wind, and always useful to see if they stand scruitiny.
It looks to me that those straws in the wind are being grasped at by the Trumpites. How does he win over the swing voters in swing states? I can see no plausible path.
Agreed. Presently the race is for Clinton to lose.
Trump's "Rust Belt Plus Strategy" is falling apart. His path through Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and Wisconsin is dead in the water. He is behind in Ohio and the "Plus" state is filtering down to Florida where he is also behind without even noting having to play defence in Georgia and Arizona.
There will doubtless be many twists and turns along the road to November but Trump has to become not Donald and Clinton to drop the ball multiple times for Trump to become competitive again.
Futurama fans may enjoy the fact that after Twitter started posting text of Trump utterances over Zapp Branigan[sp] pictures, the voiceover artist has started recording Trump lines as Zapp: https://twitter.com/TheBillyWest
Futurama fans may enjoy the fact that after Twitter started posting text of Trump utterances over Zapp Branigan[sp] pictures, the voiceover artist has started recording Trump lines as Zapp: https://twitter.com/TheBillyWest
As I ventured earlier today presumably the new NEC with its new Corbynite majority can change the rule again and cancel what had been decided thereby allowing the 130, 000 to vote. Would not need an Appeal.
I hadn't considered that. If the ruling boiled down to that the NEC was not restrained in the manner the High Court judge thought in these matters, that it was granted under the rules the ability to make vast changes to the rules in such a way, then presumably the NEC could indeed now make all sorts of changes that would benefit today's losing side.
Not until after Conference and thus the leadership election will the memebership change.
They can surely wait, as Corbyn will win, and it's not a though the NEC was entirely opposed to him, he won on the other point with them.
Did you lose a lot betting on Mr.Silver's outdated judgement during the primaries ?
I call a spade a spade, if Marist suddently since then has produced numbers that are crap, then it's crap.
Same for Rassmusen, Fox and Reuters. Why should I judge them differently than Marist if their results are equally crap ?
Simply because Marist is more favourable to Hillary that doesn't mean I thing, I never use the pro-Trump Rassmusen and Fox ones, so why should I use Marist ? If they are equally crap but in different directions that doesn't make them less crap.
Unlike many who changed their tune multiple times during the primaries I said Trump would win early on. Ditto Clinton. Accordingly Mrs JackW's Lower Limb Apparel Fund is in robust good health.
There will doubtless be many twists and turns along the road to November but Trump has to become not Donald and Clinton to drop the ball multiple times for Trump to become competitive again.
Or she could have the ball knocked out of her hands, once but big time. Using for example, Julian Assange and Wikileaks. I wouldn't understimate Trump's man Roger Stone. Clinton is unpopular. It's not as if all she has to do is walk in a straight line to win.
What does it mean for Trump to become "not Donald"?
Farcial decision from the High Court judges. Does this set a precedent allowing any Company to advertise on their webpages and take money for a product or a service that is not as described? Simply because the ruling body of that Company changed their minds?
No. It simply means that when you sign up to an unincorporated association, which is what the Labour Party is, you accept the rules of that association.
Not much comfort to those who signed up in May, with the message "Join the Labour Party and have a vote in our leadership election"
That wasn't the message. The message was, fairly generally, that if you join you can have a say in leadership elections, without saying how long you might have to wait to do so. It wasn't that as soon as you join you will immediately be able to vote in a leadership election that might be anticipated to be held in the near future or even worse one that is effectively already under way following a resignation. If you allow members such a decisive role in elections and don't have long freeze dates you make your party particularly vulnerable to entryism, which is why Corbyn and the far leftists pulling the strings around his leadership don't want long freeze dates. For that reason, before the Labour membership rules were changed, long freeze dates were already used in selections in the Labour Party where members already had the final say i.e. local government and parliamentary selections.
I see that on the previous thread scoffers at Lib Dem performance in " Pointless Parish by elections" suddenly take an interest in the Conservative performance in McDuff by sea and Ambridge .
Not me, but I noticed you didn't have anything to say about them.
The main conclusions that can be drawn from by elections over the past few months is that UKIPs vote is generally down, sometimes quite drastically. The LibDems are also generally doing better. Tories and Labour vary. e.g. from yesterday:
Farcial decision from the High Court judges. Does this set a precedent allowing any Company to advertise on their webpages and take money for a product or a service that is not as described? Simply because the ruling body of that Company changed their minds?
No. It simply means that when you sign up to an unincorporated association, which is what the Labour Party is, you accept the rules of that association.
Not much comfort to those who signed up in May, with the message "Join the Labour Party and have a vote in our leadership election"
That wasn't the message. The message was, fairly generally, that if you join you can have a say in leadership elections, without saying how long you might have to wait to do so. It wasn't that as soon as you join you will immediately be able to vote in a leadership election that might be anticipated to be held in the near future or even worse one that is effectively already under way following a resignation. If you allow members such a decisive role in elections and don't have long freeze dates you make your party particularly vulnerable to entryism, which is why Corbyn and the far leftists pulling the strings around his leadership don't want long freeze dates. For that reason, before the Labour membership rules were changed, long freeze dates were already used in selections in the Labour Party where members already had the final say i.e. local government and parliamentary selections.
If the idea is to prevent entryism then why allow votes for £25?
Polls 3 months out are only straws in the wind, and always useful to see if they stand scruitiny.
It looks to me that those straws in the wind are being grasped at by the Trumpites. How does he win over the swing voters in swing states? I can see no plausible path.
Agreed. Presently the race is for Clinton to lose.
Trump's "Rust Belt Plus Strategy" is falling apart. His path through Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and Wisconsin is dead in the water. He is behind in Ohio and the "Plus" state is filtering down to Florida where he is also behind without even noting having to play defence in Georgia and Arizona.
There will doubtless be many twists and turns along the road to November but Trump has to become not Donald and Clinton to drop the ball multiple times for Trump to become competitive again.
How much is Clinton Spending again? $100M/ Month.
Since most people actually make up their minds right at the time of polling on wonders according to game theory as to the optimum time to commit resources.
I can't see why Ryan's odds should be shorter than either Pence's or Kasich's. But he certainly seems to be in the thick of it. The Washington Post lambastes him for repeatedly denouncing Trump after endorsing him, while HuffPo slaps him for continuing to "stand by" Trump. If Trump crashes out, Ryan seems more likely to anoint the replacement than be it.
I'll be quids in if Trump or Ryan wins, and much bigger quids in if any of the other main Republican possibilities wins. I established that position after reading some of Trump's books. Regardless of what he said recently about going on vacation if he loses, it's unlikely that this exceptionally vain man will want to risk "being a loser", so if he can't win he'll withdraw. This is a guy whose coat of arms, before he got the Scottish heralds to give him an official one, included lots of little dollar signs. He uses the arms with the dollar signs on the cushions in his Versailles-like pastiche of a triplex flat.
Politico is reporting that today's Trump-RNC meeting in Orlando, requested by the Trump campaign, may be an "emergency" meeting. They quote one "source" as saying that "(The Trump people) finally realize they need the RNC for their campaign because, let’s face it, there is no campaign."
Farcial decision from the High Court judges. Does this set a precedent allowing any Company to advertise on their webpages and take money for a product or a service that is not as described? Simply because the ruling body of that Company changed their minds?
No. It simply means that when you sign up to an unincorporated association, which is what the Labour Party is, you accept the rules of that association.
Not much comfort to those who signed up in May, with the message "Join the Labour Party and have a vote in our leadership election"
That wasn't the message. The message was, fairly generally, that if you join you can have a say in leadership elections, without saying how long you might have to wait to do so. It wasn't that as soon as you join you will immediately be able to vote in a leadership election that might be anticipated to be held in the near future or even worse one that is effectively already under way following a resignation. If you allow members such a decisive role in elections and don't have long freeze dates you make your party particularly vulnerable to entryism, which is why Corbyn and the far leftists pulling the strings around his leadership don't want long freeze dates. For that reason, before the Labour membership rules were changed, long freeze dates were already used in selections in the Labour Party where members already had the final say i.e. local government and parliamentary selections.
If the idea is to prevent entryism then why allow votes for £25?
I find it utterly bizarre that decisions about who can vote in a leadership vote are apparently made by the NE on the fly, and retrospectively. I would have thought it should be laid down in the constitution eg "members of my one year's standing are eligible to vote in an election for Party Leader". As well as the apparent insanity of disallowing members of over six months' standing but allowing "supporters" who joined much more recently to vote.
Farcial decision from the High Court judges. Does this set a precedent allowing any Company to advertise on their webpages and take money for a product or a service that is not as described? Simply because the ruling body of that Company changed their minds?
No. It simply means that when you sign up to an unincorporated association, which is what the Labour Party is, you accept the rules of that association.
Not much comfort to those who signed up in May, with the message "Join the Labour Party and have a vote in our leadership election"
That wasn't the message. The message was, fairly generally, that if you join you can have a say in leadership elections, without saying how long you might have to wait to do so. It wasn't that as soon as you join you will immediately be able to vote in a leadership election that might be anticipated to be held in the near future or even worse one that is effectively already under way following a resignation. If you allow members such a decisive role in elections and don't have long freeze dates you make your party particularly vulnerable to entryism, which is why Corbyn and the far leftists pulling the strings around his leadership don't want long freeze dates. For that reason, before the Labour membership rules were changed, long freeze dates were already used in selections in the Labour Party where members already had the final say i.e. local government and parliamentary selections.
If the idea is to prevent entryism then why allow votes for £25?
I find it utterly bizarre that decisions about who can vote in a leadership vote are apparently made by the NE on the fly, and retrospectively. I would have thought it should be laid down in the constitution eg "members of my one year's standing are eligible to vote in an election for Party Leader". As well as the apparent insanity of disallowing members of over six months' standing but allowing "supporters" who joined much more recently to vote.
As the judgement says:
The Rule Book is a detailed document containing 15 chapters and 8 appendices. As stated by Foskett J in Foster v McNicol at [28], it is not the product of a single drafting exercise. The result is (see ibid at [53]) that it contains examples of what Roskill LJ in Bristol Equity v Gowing [1997] ICR 393 described as “untidy draftsmanship”.
OT. I was struck by the thought that no one born after September 1973 has ever experienced a UK cyclical recession in their adult lives. That's astonishing.
Do you mean a recession, where no one else is having one?
John M was probably in Mars in 2009/2010
Talking of Mars, at the end of next month Elon Musk is due to give details of his planned BFR (Big Fu***ng Rocket) and MCT (Mars Colonial Transport) at the IAC meeting in Mexico.
He wants to have a settlement of one million people on Mars. It may sound ridiculous, but this is Musk we're talking about ...
Well Musk made his fortune by advertising his cars on Wall Street. But I doubt he is going to find suckers for this.
Musk has made several fortunes, reinvesting one into the next: Zip2 Paypal Then, Tesla
He's aiming at a $500,000 price point for the Mars trip. Some people wold just go for the adventure, coming back later. The trick will be in making Mars liveable enough for people to want to live there (and to do so healthily). That last point is where the problem may lie, rather than the technology of getting there.
Putting a man on Mars is relatively easy. Getting him back to Earth is the difficult bit.
I don't know, the cost of the Apollo Program was 24$ billion 1969 dollars.
Mars is many times the distance of the Moon.
The cost of maintaining a space colony in either the Moon or Mars would make business sence only if they find large gold deposits.
Gold is nowhere near valuable enough. Tritium-3 perhaps.
Is there such a thing, or is it hydrogen-3?
Tritium is just another name for hydrogen-3, that is, a proton with two neutrons. However, that's not what moon miners would be looking for (they wouldn't find any since it is unstable, with a half-life of just a few days).
What may possibly be feasible is mining for helium-3, that is, two protons with a neutron. This is stable but occurs very rarely on the earth; it is, however, thought to be quite abundant on the surface of the moon. Its value is as a potential alternative fuel for nuclear fusion reactors which, while requiring higher temperatures that the typically used deuterium-tritium reaction, would produce energy more efficiently and cleanly. Such reactors are a long, long way off yet though.
OT. I was struck by the thought that no one born after September 1973 has ever experienced a UK cyclical recession in their adult lives. That's astonishing.
Do you mean a recession, where no one else is having one?
John M was probably in Mars in 2009/2010
Talking of Mars, at the end of next month Elon Musk is due to give details of his planned BFR (Big Fu***ng Rocket) and MCT (Mars Colonial Transport) at the IAC meeting in Mexico.
He wants to have a settlement of one million people on Mars. It may sound ridiculous, but this is Musk we're talking about ...
Well Musk made his fortune by advertising his cars on Wall Street. But I doubt he is going to find suckers for this.
Musk has made several fortunes, reinvesting one into the next: Zip2 Paypal Then, Tesla
He's aiming at a $500,000 price point for the Mars trip. Some people wold just go for the adventure, coming back later. The trick will be in making Mars liveable enough for people to want to live there (and to do so healthily). That last point is where the problem may lie, rather than the technology of getting there.
Putting a man on Mars is relatively easy. Getting him back to Earth is the difficult bit.
I don't know, the cost of the Apollo Program was 24$ billion 1969 dollars.
Mars is many times the distance of the Moon.
The cost of maintaining a space colony in either the Moon or Mars would make business sence only if they find large gold deposits.
Gold is nowhere near valuable enough. Tritium-3 perhaps.
Is there such a thing, or is it hydrogen-3?
Tritium is just another name for hydrogen-3, that is, a proton with two neutrons. However, that's not what moon miners would be looking for (they wouldn't find any since it is unstable, with a half-life of just a few days).
What may possibly be feasible is mining for helium-3, that is, two protons with a neutron. This is stable but occurs very rarely on the earth; it is, however, thought to be quite abundant on the surface of the moon. Its value is as a potential alternative fuel for nuclear fusion reactors which, while requiring higher temperatures that the typically used deuterium-tritium reaction, would produce energy more efficiently and cleanly. Such reactors are a long, long way off yet though.
Do you mean a recession, where no one else is having one?
John M was probably in Mars in 2009/2010
Talking of Mars, at the end of next month Elon Musk is due to give details of his planned BFR (Big Fu***ng Rocket) and MCT (Mars Colonial Transport) at the IAC meeting in Mexico.
He wants to have a settlement of one million people on Mars. It may sound ridiculous, but this is Musk we're talking about ...
Well Musk made his fortune by advertising his cars on Wall Street. But I doubt he is going to find suckers for this.
Musk has made several fortunes, reinvesting one into the next: Zip2 Paypal Then, Tesla
He's aiming at a $500,000 price point for the Mars trip. Some people wold just go for the adventure, coming back later. The trick will be in making Mars liveable enough for people to want to live there (and to do so healthily). That last point is where the problem may lie, rather than the technology of getting there.
Putting a man on Mars is relatively easy. Getting him back to Earth is the difficult bit.
I don't know, the cost of the Apollo Program was 24$ billion 1969 dollars.
Mars is many times the distance of the Moon.
The cost of maintaining a space colony in either the Moon or Mars would make business sence only if they find large gold deposits.
Gold is nowhere near valuable enough. Tritium-3 perhaps.
Is there such a thing, or is it hydrogen-3?
Tritium is just another name for hydrogen-3, that is, a proton with two neutrons. However, that's not what moon miners would be looking for (they wouldn't find any since it is unstable, with a half-life of just a few days).
What may possibly be feasible is mining for helium-3, that is, two protons with a neutron. This is stable but occurs very rarely on the earth; it is, however, thought to be quite abundant on the surface of the moon. Its value is as a potential alternative fuel for nuclear fusion reactors which, while requiring higher temperatures that the typically used deuterium-tritium reaction, would produce energy more efficiently and cleanly. Such reactors are a long, long way off yet though.
Well done; good use of Wikipedia there.
Thanks, though a PhD in plasma physics also helps.
The Appeal Court ruling is clearly good news for Smith, most of the post January members would be Trotskyite entryists trying to prop up Corbyn and he does better with more established members while he has also been getting some union support with the endorsement of unions like the GMB. Corbyn remains favourite but it now looks like it will be a real contest
Take the bloody games away from Rio. Zero atmosphere.
A bit late halfway through the games but doubt they will be going to South America again anytime soon (except maybe Buenos Aires or Santiago). The next games will be in Tokyo which should be a model of efficiency
I know little about betting but I notice that Skybet now have Smith at 9/2 and Corbyn at 1/8.
I am certainly now tempted to put some money on Smith, there is clearly nothing to be gained from betting on Corbyn but Smith is still perhaps longer odds than he should be
Combine it with terrorism in France, Belgium and Germany, Turkey, Egypt and the Maghreb being off the agenda for both Britons and foreigners and the domestic tourist economy will do well this summer. I think both Greece and Spain are having their best tourist seasons for years too.
Farcial decision from the High Court judges. Does this set a precedent allowing any Company to advertise on their webpages and take money for a product or a service that is not as described? Simply because the ruling body of that Company changed their minds?
No. It simply means that when you sign up to an unincorporated association, which is what the Labour Party is, you accept the rules of that association.
Not much comfort to those who signed up in May, with the message "Join the Labour Party and have a vote in our leadership election"
That wasn't the message. The message was, fairly generally, that if you join you can have a say in leadership elections, without saying how long you might have to wait to do so. It wasn't that as soon as you join you will immediately be able to vote in a leadership election that might be anticipated to be held in the near future or even worse one that is effectively already under way following a resignation. If you allow members such a decisive role in elections and don't have long freeze dates you make your party particularly vulnerable to entryism, which is why Corbyn and the far leftists pulling the strings around his leadership don't want long freeze dates. For that reason, before the Labour membership rules were changed, long freeze dates were already used in selections in the Labour Party where members already had the final say i.e. local government and parliamentary selections.
If the idea is to prevent entryism then why allow votes for £25?
Because having closed one loophole, the increase to £25 and the two day window was the best the NEC members who carried the vote could do close the other, given the balance of the votes they had at their disposal and the limitation of working within a party constitution with provision for a registered supporters scheme.
Take the bloody games away from Rio. Zero atmosphere.
A bit late halfway through the games but doubt they will be going to South America again anytime soon (except maybe Buenos Aires or Santiago). The next games will be in Tokyo which should be a model of efficiency
Yep, I can't see the IOC risking another games in South America any time soon, after this, and maybe not Africa, with the one possible exception of Cape Town
The bidding cities for 2024 are: Budapest, Hamburg, Los Angeles; Paris; and Rome,
Given the success of London and the troubles of Rio it must surely be Paris.
Not South Africa. Please. It'll make these games look good.
Take the bloody games away from Rio. Zero atmosphere.
A bit late halfway through the games but doubt they will be going to South America again anytime soon (except maybe Buenos Aires or Santiago). The next games will be in Tokyo which should be a model of efficiency
Yep, I can't see the IOC risking another games in South America any time soon, after this, and maybe not Africa, with the one possible exception of Cape Town
The bidding cities for 2024 are: Budapest, Hamburg, Los Angeles; Paris; and Rome,
Given the success of London and the troubles of Rio it must surely be Paris.
Yes, it must surely be Paris' turn again, 2024 would also be exactly a century since the last Paris summer games in 1924 and the IOC may like the symbolism
I love the analyst's comments though. It is but a foreshadowing of the doom ahead. On investment plans:
“The main concerns they have are about maintaining the arrangements that facilitate travel — open skies, soft checks for visas, EU drivers licence, health cards, consumer rights protection — many of which may cease to exist once Brexit is complete.”
They should change the dressage scoring system a bit tbh, monstrously loud aids by the germans compared to Carl Hester say.
Can't get over all the empty seats - so disappointing.
Watching now – virtually empty, even the seats designated for the press is less than half full.
What a difference from Greenwich Hospital and the superb view across the Thames to Canary.
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urMEKrFW9Ic
That's incredible. The difference
I'd forgotten there were jam packed stands. For the horse dancing.
I was in that crowd! It's the only thing I got tickets for, apart from one women's football event - (France versus Japan at Wembley, also sold out and also brilliant atmosphere)
I saw the mens Team Sabre at London Excel part of the Olympics. It was full apart from the corporate seats. I couldn't get anything for the Olympic Park, so got the Saturday at the Paralympics so could look around. We had a great day out. For the Paralympic athletics all 80 000 seats sold out and there was a great atmosphere despite no big names.
I think Rio has largely organised it well and the venues look fine. Brazil is not a rich country and had a 4% decline in GDP this year, and that is the fundamental problem. The Brazil World Cup in 2014 was one of the best ever, but that was a single sport.
I can see the need for it to move around the world, but Olympic bids are very expensive and usually leave behind a poisonous financial legacy. We should not expect ever increasing shows if we want anyone other than G7 countries hosting.
I cannot see Britain hosting another for a few decades, but if a quick alternative for a 2018 or 2022 World Cup was needed then we could easily step into the breach.
Take the bloody games away from Rio. Zero atmosphere.
A bit late halfway through the games but doubt they will be going to South America again anytime soon (except maybe Buenos Aires or Santiago). The next games will be in Tokyo which should be a model of efficiency
Yep, I can't see the IOC risking another games in South America any time soon, after this, and maybe not Africa, with the one possible exception of Cape Town
The bidding cities for 2024 are: Budapest, Hamburg, Los Angeles; Paris; and Rome,
Given the success of London and the troubles of Rio it must surely be Paris.
Not South Africa. Please. It'll make these games look good.
South Africa did not even bid. The selected candidate cities are Budapest, LA, Paris and Rome as SeanT suggests (Hamburg has withdrawn its candidacy after a November 2015 referendum). Durban is hosting the 2022 Commonwealth Games though so South Africa could use that as a dummy run for a future Olympics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Summer_Olympics
They should change the dressage scoring system a bit tbh, monstrously loud aids by the germans compared to Carl Hester say.
Can't get over all the empty seats - so disappointing.
Watching now – virtually empty, even the seats designated for the press is less than half full.
What a difference from Greenwich Hospital and the superb view across the Thames to Canary.
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urMEKrFW9Ic
That's incredible. The difference
I'd forgotten there were jam packed stands. For the horse dancing.
I was in that crowd! It's the only thing I got tickets for, apart from one women's football event - (France versus Japan at Wembley, also sold out and also brilliant atmosphere)
I saw the mens Team Sabre at London Excel part of the Olympics. It was full apart from the corporate seats. I couldn't get anything for the Olympic Park, so got the Saturday at the Paralympics so could look around. We had a great day out. For the Paralympic athletics all 80 000 seats sold out and there was a great atmosphere despite no big names.
I think Rio has largely organised it well and the venues look fine. Brazil is not a rich country and had a 4% decline in GDP this year, and that is the fundamental problem. The Brazil World Cup in 2014 was one of the best ever, but that was a single sport.
I can see the need for it to move around the world, but Olympic bids are very expensive and usually leave behind a poisonous financial legacy. We should not expect ever increasing shows if we want anyone other than G7 countries hosting.
I cannot see Britain hosting another for a few decades, but if a quick alternative for a 2018 or 2022 World Cup was needed then we could easily step into the breach.
The tourists have come and the sun keeps shining. Maybe I'm imagining it but it feels like one of the sunniest summers we've had in years.
It was throwing it down back in May and June.
July, August and September are actually the real summer months in the UK now, June is generally pretty wet and really late spring. Autumn only properly starts in October
They should change the dressage scoring system a bit tbh, monstrously loud aids by the germans compared to Carl Hester say.
Can't get over all the empty seats - so disappointing.
Watching now – virtually empty, even the seats designated for the press is less than half full.
What a difference from Greenwich Hospital and the superb view across the Thames to Canary.
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urMEKrFW9Ic
That's incredible. The difference
I'd forgotten there were jam packed stands. For the horse dancing.
I was in that crowd! It's the only thing I got tickets for, apart from one women's football event - (France versus Japan at Wembley, also sold out and also brilliant atmosphere)
I saw the mens Team Sabre at London Excel part of the Olympics. It was full apart from the corporate seats. I couldn't get anything for the Olympic Park, so got the Saturday at the Paralympics so could look around. We had a great day out. For the Paralympic athletics all 80 000 seats sold out and there was a great atmosphere despite no big names.
I think Rio has largely organised it well and the venues look fine. Brazil is not a rich country and had a 4% decline in GDP this year, and that is the fundamental problem. The Brazil World Cup in 2014 was one of the best ever, but that was a single sport.
I can see the need for it to move around the world, but Olympic bids are very expensive and usually leave behind a poisonous financial legacy. We should not expect ever increasing shows if we want anyone other than G7 countries hosting.
I cannot see Britain hosting another for a few decades, but if a quick alternative for a 2018 or 2022 World Cup was needed then we could easily step into the breach.
Brazil is the 8th largest economy in the world
It used to be sixth and has been in recession since 2014.
They should change the dressage scoring system a bit tbh, monstrously loud aids by the germans compared to Carl Hester say.
Can't get over all the empty seats - so disappointing.
Watching now – virtually empty, even the seats designated for the press is less than half full.
What a difference from Greenwich Hospital and the superb view across the Thames to Canary.
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urMEKrFW9Ic
That's incredible. The difference
I'd forgotten there were jam packed stands. For the horse dancing.
I was in that crowd! It's the only thing I got tickets for, apart from one women's football event - (France versus Japan at Wembley, also sold out and also brilliant atmosphere)
I saw the mens Team Sabre at London Excel part of the Olympics. It was full apart from the corporate seats. I couldn't get anything for the Olympic Park, so got the Saturday at the Paralympics so could look around. We had a great day out. For the Paralympic athletics all 80 000 seats sold out and there was a great atmosphere despite no big names.
I think Rio has largely organised it well and the venues look fine. Brazil is not a rich country and had a 4% decline in GDP this year, and that is the fundamental problem. The Brazil World Cup in 2014 was one of the best ever, but that was a single sport.
I can see the need for it to move around the world, but Olympic bids are very expensive and usually leave behind a poisonous financial legacy. We should not expect ever increasing shows if we want anyone other than G7 countries hosting.
I cannot see Britain hosting another for a few decades, but if a quick alternative for a 2018 or 2022 World Cup was needed then we could easily step into the breach.
Brazil is the 8th largest economy in the world
It used to be sixth and has been in recession since 2014.
Maybe but given there are 195 countries in the world, 8th out of 195 makes it a pretty rich country to me, even if rather closer to average on gdp per capita terms. The country is pretty rich even if not many of its people are
They should change the dressage scoring system a bit tbh, monstrously loud aids by the germans compared to Carl Hester say.
Can't get over all the empty seats - so disappointing.
Watching now – virtually empty, even the seats designated for the press is less than half full.
What a difference from Greenwich Hospital and the superb view across the Thames to Canary.
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urMEKrFW9Ic
That's incredible. The difference
I'd forgotten there were jam packed stands. For the horse dancing.
I was in that crowd! It's the only thing I got tickets for, apart from one women's football event - (France versus Japan at Wembley, also sold out and also brilliant atmosphere)
I think Rio has largely organised it well and the venues look fine. Brazil is not a rich country and had a 4% decline in GDP this year, and that is the fundamental problem. The Brazil World Cup in 2014 was one of the best ever, but that was a single sport.
I can see the need for it to move around the world, but Olympic bids are very expensive and usually leave behind a poisonous financial legacy. We should not expect ever increasing shows if we want anyone other than G7 countries hosting.
I cannot see Britain hosting another for a few decades, but if a quick alternative for a 2018 or 2022 World Cup was needed then we could easily step into the breach.
Brazil is the 8th largest economy in the world
It used to be sixth and has been in recession since 2014.
Maybe but given there are 195 countries in the world, 8th out of 195 makes it a pretty rich country to me, even if rather closer to average on gdp per capita terms
It's the usual problem with headline stats. GDP per capita is back at 2010 levels in a country with ~9% inflation. A lot of of very poor folk in Brazil.
Went to Knightsbridge a couple of days ago. As soon as I left the tube station I was hit by this strong sweet perfume smell, which many Gulf Arab women dowse themselves in, walking down the road all you hear is the roar of Lamborghinis and Ferraris. Tho this is quite normal I think. the Dhiram is pegged to the dollar so should see a surge in tourists.
Rio's big problem is that it isn't really that safe a city, is miles from anywhere and Brazilians couldn't really give a hoot about anything that their own aren't in.
Can't get over all the empty seats - so disappointing.
Watching now – virtually empty, even the seats designated for the press is less than half full.
What a difference from Greenwich Hospital and the superb view across the Thames to Canary.
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urMEKrFW9Ic
That's incredible. The difference
I'd forgotten there were jam packed stands. For the horse dancing.
I was in that crowd! It's the only thing I got tickets for, apart from one women's football event - (France versus Japan at Wembley, also sold out
I sa.
I cannot see Britain hosting ano
Brazil is the 8th largest economy in the world
It used to be sixth and has been in recession since 2014.
Maybe but g
Brazil is a developing country, but its GDP per capita is TWICE that of China's. TWICE. And the Brazilian economy is large, as you say.
They should be able to organise a decent Games and, given their huge population, they should be able to guarantee packed stadia
This is embarrassing. It just goes to show what an achievement Beijing was for a poor nation (in per capita terms) and what an achievement London was (in terms of attendance, enthusiasm, ambience - and legacy)
Indeed, after two outstanding games we were due a poor one though I think Brazil has been unlucky in that its elected President is presently about to be impeached for corruption, perhaps along with her predecessor and the present incumbent who is holding the fort is almost universally loathed. Rio is a beautiful city and it could have been a great games, just a pity the government has been so preoccupied by infighting.
If I were the organising committee I would be on the phone to Barry Manilow, asking him to name a fee and then fly him down by private jet to sing 'Copacobana' supported by hundreds of dancing girls and samba dancers in the closing ceremony, it would at least make for a memorable finale!
Farcical decision to end - or not - a farcical process. Can there be an appeal to the Supreme Court now or is the Appeal Court's ruling final.
Appeal Court have refused leave to appeal. And awarded all costs to the complainants.
I'd be a bit pissed off were I one of them. Isn't that effectively saying that there's no reasonable ground for reaching an alternative decision - even though the High Court did exactly that?
I don't get it either.
It effectively gives Labour (and any other group with rules along similar lines) the right to act in a capricious manner to gerrymander an election result - and the courts will refuse to intervene.
Personally I would have thought the law of the land regarding contracts trumped anything in a party rule book. At least it should.
I would recommend reading the judgement.
The point in this case is that the rulebook constitutes the contract between the party and its members. Therefore, provided the NEC has acted in line with the party's rulebook, there is no reason for the courts to intervene. The view of the Court of Appeal is that the clear, natural and ordinary meaning of the party's rules is that the NEC has the power to impose a retrospective freeze date. They point out that the High Court judge tried to interpret the rules in a way which is not compatible with the natural reading of those rules and, indeed, his judgement rendered some clauses of the rules meaningless.
If the rulebook was in any way contrary to the law of contract the law would have won. The view of the Court of Appeal is that the rulebook is not contrary to the law of contract. It is quite clear from the rulebook that the vote is NOT automatically granted to all members, only to eligible members and it is for the NEC to determine eligibility. It is also clear from the rulebook that retrospective freeze dates can be imposed, in part as an attempt to prevent entryism.
Farcical decision to end - or not - a farcical process. Can there be an appeal to the Supreme Court now or is the Appeal Court's ruling final.
Appeal Court have refused leave to appeal. And awarded all costs to the complainants.
I'd be a bit pissed off were I one of them. Isn't that effectively saying that there's no reasonable ground for reaching an alternative decision - even though the High Court did exactly that?
I don't get it either.
It effectively gives Labour (and any other group with rules along similar lines) the right to act in a capricious manner to gerrymander an election result - and the courts will refuse to intervene.
Personally I would have thought the law of the land regarding contracts trumped anything in a party rule book. At least it should.
I would recommend reading the judgement.
The point in this case is that the rulebook constitutes the contract between the party and its members. Therefore, provided the NEC has acted in line with the party's rulebook, there is no reason for the courts to intervene. The view of the Court of Appeal is that the clear, natural and ordinary meaning of the party's rules is that the NEC has the power to impose a retrospective freeze date. They point out that the High Court judge tried to interpret the rules in a way which is not compatible with the natural reading of those rules and, indeed, his judgement rendered some clauses of the rules meaningless.
If the rulebook was in any way contrary to the law of contract the law would have won. The view of the Court of Appeal is that the rulebook is not contrary to the law of contract. It is quite clear from the rulebook that the vote is NOT automatically granted to all members, only to eligible members and it is for the NEC to determine eligibility. It is also clear from the rulebook that retrospective freeze dates can be imposed, in part as an attempt to prevent entryism.
Just to add, that doesn't mean the NEC can do whatever it wants. It does, however, mean that the courts will only step in if the NEC's actions are Wednesbury unreasonable.
Comments
Trump's "Rust Belt Plus Strategy" is falling apart. His path through Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and Wisconsin is dead in the water. He is behind in Ohio and the "Plus" state is filtering down to Florida where he is also behind without even noting having to play defence in Georgia and Arizona.
There will doubtless be many twists and turns along the road to November but Trump has to become not Donald and Clinton to drop the ball multiple times for Trump to become competitive again.
https://twitter.com/TheBillyWest
Ref: xx Matched: 18:34 12-Aug-16
We disagree. You are wrong. Live with it.
What does it mean for Trump to become "not Donald"?
Only in America!
That's what I've done;
Trump +16
Hillary +16
Ryan +-0
Sanders +-0
Pence +1200
everyone else >=+16
For anyone interested, this is an interesting piece on Viking horses and their unusual style
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/08/the-prized-ambling-gait-originated-in-york-as-study-traces-gene/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Or not. We just beat the Koreans, which bodes well though.
The balance of the book is more important than the actual figures though - how is your book balanced?
btw, I agree about laying Owen Smith @ 4/1. That's a decent bet.
Would you put money on the prospect?
I spent a summer driving a herd of horses across Iceland when I was a kid - so much more bearable than trotting the whole way
Johnson 360.14
Trump 558.43
Stein 1629.38
Other -305.62
Sanders 36.43
+5000 odd Pence/the Dem VP.
£s and pence
Since most people actually make up their minds right at the time of polling on wonders according to game theory as to the optimum time to commit resources.
I'll be quids in if Trump or Ryan wins, and much bigger quids in if any of the other main Republican possibilities wins. I established that position after reading some of Trump's books. Regardless of what he said recently about going on vacation if he loses, it's unlikely that this exceptionally vain man will want to risk "being a loser", so if he can't win he'll withdraw. This is a guy whose coat of arms, before he got the Scottish heralds to give him an official one, included lots of little dollar signs. He uses the arms with the dollar signs on the cushions in his Versailles-like pastiche of a triplex flat.
Politico is reporting that today's Trump-RNC meeting in Orlando, requested by the Trump campaign, may be an "emergency" meeting. They quote one "source" as saying that "(The Trump people) finally realize they need the RNC for their campaign because, let’s face it, there is no campaign."
1:19.4 would be a very respectable running time for 20k.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/
The Rule Book is a detailed document containing 15 chapters and 8 appendices. As
stated by Foskett J in Foster v McNicol at [28], it is not the product of a single
drafting exercise. The result is (see ibid at [53]) that it contains examples of what
Roskill LJ in Bristol Equity v Gowing [1997] ICR 393 described as “untidy
draftsmanship”.
Twas ever thus.
What may possibly be feasible is mining for helium-3, that is, two protons with a neutron. This is stable but occurs very rarely on the earth; it is, however, thought to be quite abundant on the surface of the moon. Its value is as a potential alternative fuel for nuclear fusion reactors which, while requiring higher temperatures that the typically used deuterium-tritium reaction, would produce energy more efficiently and cleanly. Such reactors are a long, long way off yet though.
What a difference from Greenwich Hospital and the superb view across the Thames to Canary.
I know nothing about trampolining.
Only at the Olympics.
Golly, we've a chance of a medal
Commentator we've never won a tramps medal anywhere
“The main concerns they have are about maintaining the arrangements that facilitate travel — open skies, soft checks for visas, EU drivers licence, health cards, consumer rights protection — many of which may cease to exist once Brexit is complete.”
I think Rio has largely organised it well and the venues look fine. Brazil is not a rich country and had a 4% decline in GDP this year, and that is the fundamental problem. The Brazil World Cup in 2014 was one of the best ever, but that was a single sport.
I can see the need for it to move around the world, but Olympic bids are very expensive and usually leave behind a poisonous financial legacy. We should not expect ever increasing shows if we want anyone other than G7 countries hosting.
I cannot see Britain hosting another for a few decades, but if a quick alternative for a 2018 or 2022 World Cup was needed then we could easily step into the breach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Summer_Olympics
It was throwing it down back in May and June.
Another Olympic record
Edit: us, because Pulpstar and I are solely responsible for GB's olympic success
What's the deal with Wiggins?
And outside of football, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_at_the_Olympics that ain't all that much.
If I were the organising committee I would be on the phone to Barry Manilow, asking him to name a fee and then fly him down by private jet to sing 'Copacobana' supported by hundreds of dancing girls and samba dancers in the closing ceremony, it would at least make for a memorable finale!
The point in this case is that the rulebook constitutes the contract between the party and its members. Therefore, provided the NEC has acted in line with the party's rulebook, there is no reason for the courts to intervene. The view of the Court of Appeal is that the clear, natural and ordinary meaning of the party's rules is that the NEC has the power to impose a retrospective freeze date. They point out that the High Court judge tried to interpret the rules in a way which is not compatible with the natural reading of those rules and, indeed, his judgement rendered some clauses of the rules meaningless.
If the rulebook was in any way contrary to the law of contract the law would have won. The view of the Court of Appeal is that the rulebook is not contrary to the law of contract. It is quite clear from the rulebook that the vote is NOT automatically granted to all members, only to eligible members and it is for the NEC to determine eligibility. It is also clear from the rulebook that retrospective freeze dates can be imposed, in part as an attempt to prevent entryism.