If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
And nobody suggested that.
But the speed with which you abandoned all reason was most entertaining.
The Brexiteer belief in British exceptionalism is truly astonishing.
"International Law you say? Fuck 'em, we're British..."
And they wonder why the rest of the World looks on aghast
Let them look. Who cares. We are the British. We gave the world Shakespeare, the Beatles, TV, the internet, the Industrial Revolution, cricket, rugby, tennis, football, the Theory of Evolution, Decorated Architecture, London, Bath, Edinburgh, Railways, Oxford, the discovery of DNA, Cambridge, skiing, Sir Isaac Newton, the English language, Masterchef, Strictly, Top Gear, the jet engine, computers, and the single largest global empire the world has seen, or will ever see.
We will cope with Brexit.
You are Hugh Grant's PM from Love Actually, and I claim my 5 pounds
How about "Europe: The Final Countdown (to Article 50)"?
There must be 50 Articles to leave EU lovers...
You just slip it in the box, Fox Drop it in the tray, May Take a chill pill, Phil Just get yourself free Hop on the bus, Truss You don't need to discuss much Slam the door with a thud, Rudd And get yourself free
If people like you tried to get Brexit scuppered via the European Court of Justice then, in all seriousness, I would like to see you imprisoned as a traitor. I use that word "traitor" in trolling jest, sometimes.
Not this time.
And nobody suggested that.
But the speed with which you abandoned all reason was most entertaining.
The Brexiteer belief in British exceptionalism is truly astonishing.
"International Law you say? Fuck 'em, we're British..."
And they wonder why the rest of the World looks on aghast
Let them look. Who cares. We are the British. We gave the world Shakespeare, the Beatles, TV, the internet, the Industrial Revolution, cricket, rugby, tennis, football, the Theory of Evolution, Decorated Architecture, London, Bath, Edinburgh, Railways, Oxford, the discovery of DNA, Cambridge, skiing, Sir Isaac Newton, the English language, Masterchef, Strictly, Top Gear, the jet engine, computers, and the single largest global empire the world has seen, or will ever see.
We will cope with Brexit.
You are Hugh Grant's PM from Love Actually, and I claim my 5 pounds
the internet?
brinternet?
not convinced that we did that by ourselves. And the only other notable things from the last 50 odd years are some shitty tv programmes
I prefer their B-side, "A song for the European Court of Justice"!
I'll get my coat
Celtic were playing Rangers. At some point the Rangers fans start to chant "To Hell with the pope! To Hell with the pope!"
The Celtic fans are concerned, because they don't have a pithy chant in response.
After a conference at half time, Celtic fans are ready. Rangers fans start again - "To hell with the pope! To hell with the pope!"
This time the Celtic fans are ready, and they respond immediately - "To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland! To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland!"
I prefer their B-side, "A song for the European Court of Justice"!
I'll get my coat
Celtic were playing Rangers. At some point the Rangers fans start to chant "To Hell with the pope! To Hell with the pope!"
The Celtic fans are concerned, because they don't have a pithy chant in response.
After a conference at half time, Celtic fans are ready. Rangers fans start again - "To hell with the pope! To hell with the pope!"
This time the Celtic fans are ready, and they respond immediately - "To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland! To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland!"
I prefer their B-side, "A song for the European Court of Justice"!
I'll get my coat
Celtic were playing Rangers. At some point the Rangers fans start to chant "To Hell with the pope! To Hell with the pope!"
The Celtic fans are concerned, because they don't have a pithy chant in response.
After a conference at half time, Celtic fans are ready. Rangers fans start again - "To hell with the pope! To hell with the pope!"
This time the Celtic fans are ready, and they respond immediately - "To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland! To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland!"
I prefer their B-side, "A song for the European Court of Justice"!
I'll get my coat
Celtic were playing Rangers. At some point the Rangers fans start to chant "To Hell with the pope! To Hell with the pope!"
The Celtic fans are concerned, because they don't have a pithy chant in response.
After a conference at half time, Celtic fans are ready. Rangers fans start again - "To hell with the pope! To hell with the pope!"
This time the Celtic fans are ready, and they respond immediately - "To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland! To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland!"
I'm not convinced you've really been to an old firm game
I quite enjoyed a song I once heard at Partick Thistle which had a charming refrain ending .."so FTP and FTQ" (not sung as acronyms, obv).
10+ Lib Dem leaflets, 2 fake newspapers, and a personalised letter. Labour seem to have finally woken up, two leaflets, one fake newspaper since saturday. Conservatives one generic letter from the PM today and another generic letter last week. And oh 1 green party letter.
I'm going with (%) Con 50 Lib Dem 20 Labour 15 Others inc UKIP 15
If the LDs got to 25/30 and knocked the Cons to early 40s, it would be quite the upset.
This doesn't add up. The LDs surely wouldn't be wasting so many resources on a fight that their best hope is a 10 point loss?
They have to fight the by-elections as they come up. Going from fourth to second would be a significant result. I would be astonished if the LDs won, but I do think it's a fight between them and the Tories with other parties squeezed. 30% for "others"seems high. Maybe 20% - 25% with Lib Dems on 25% to 30%.
I know there's a lot of optimism about the LibDems on here. And I know that have utterly flooded the constituency with activists. And I know they have - to some extent - got their mojo back.
But let's think about this rationally for a minute. The Conservative Party is about 8 points up on their GE share right now. The Liberal Democrats, even being charitable, are one point up, and might be down.
If we take the biggest swings achieved by the (then popular) LibDems against the (then unpopular) Conservatives, and apply them to this by-election, the Tories still win by 10 points.
Now, I backed the LDs at 24 on Betfair (23-1) with a fiver. A fiver I expect to lose.
The only way the LDs can win this is if turnout collapses and the Labour vote goes over in its entirety to them. I don't think that will happen.
Tories 45%, LDs 30%: a good result for them, but a fair way away from a victory.
(For the record, I suspect the Libs would win Richmond Park, because a, it is a lot more pro-Remain than Witney, b, because Heathrow, and c, because they have a large local activist base.)
The highest recent recent poll rating for the Tories has them at 43% - compared with 37.8% at the General Election - an increase of barely 5% rather than 8%. YouGov has them on 42%.
10+ Lib Dem leaflets, 2 fake newspapers, and a personalised letter. Labour seem to have finally woken up, two leaflets, one fake newspaper since saturday. Conservatives one generic letter from the PM today and another generic letter last week. And oh 1 green party letter.
I'm going with (%) Con 50 Lib Dem 20 Labour 15 Others inc UKIP 15
If the LDs got to 25/30 and knocked the Cons to early 40s, it would be quite the upset.
This doesn't add up. The LDs surely wouldn't be wasting so many resources on a fight that their best hope is a 10 point loss?
They have to fight the by-elections as they come up. Going from fourth to second would be a significant result. I would be astonished if the LDs won, but I do think it's a fight between them and the Tories with other parties squeezed. 30% for "others"seems high. Maybe 20% - 25% with Lib Dems on 25% to 30%.
I know there's a lot of optimism about the LibDems on here. And I know that have utterly flooded the constituency with activists. And I know they have - to some extent - got their mojo back.
But let's think about this rationally for a minute. The Conservative Party is about 8 points up on their GE share right now. The Liberal Democrats, even being charitable, are one point up, and might be down.
If we take the biggest swings achieved by the (then popular) LibDems against the (then unpopular) Conservatives, and apply them to this by-election, the Tories still win by 10 points.
Now, I backed the LDs at 24 on Betfair (23-1) with a fiver. A fiver I expect to lose.
The only way the LDs can win this is if turnout collapses and the Labour vote goes over in its entirety to them. I don't think that will happen.
Tories 45%, LDs 30%: a good result for them, but a fair way away from a victory.
(For the record, I suspect the Libs would win Richmond Park, because a, it is a lot more pro-Remain than Witney, b, because Heathrow, and c, because they have a large local activist base.)
The highest recent recent poll rating for the Tories has them at 43% - compared with 37.8% at the General Election - an increase of barely 5% rather than 8%. YouGov has them on 42%.
5 or 8% probably doesn't make that much of a difference, it'd be a landslide at 42 or 45%.
It's 12-1 at Ladbrokes on LD's winning by up to 5000, and 5-4 on Cons winning by up to 5000. So unless the LD's are uber-ramping*, it's possible to bet on both outcomes and come out in front either way.
It's 12-1 at Ladbrokes on LD's winning by up to 5000, and 5-4 on Cons winning by up to 5000. So unless the LD's are uber-ramping*, it's possible to bet on both outcomes and come out in front either way.
*Not impossible, of course.
The Ladbrokes Cons 0-5,000 victory looks a good bet. If turnout drops from 73.3% to sub 50% (and it might be more like 45%), then the Conservatives will likely be on about 13-15,000 (i.e around 40-45%). Better than evens on the LibDems to get above 30% or so sounds a reasonable bet.
10+ Lib Dem leaflets, 2 fake newspapers, and a personalised letter. Labour seem to have finally woken up, two leaflets, one fake newspaper since saturday. Conservatives one generic letter from the PM today and another generic letter last week. And oh 1 green party letter.
I'm going with (%) Con 50 Lib Dem 20 Labour 15 Others inc UKIP 15
If the LDs got to 25/30 and knocked the Cons to early 40s, it would be quite the upset.
This doesn't add up. The LDs surely wouldn't be wasting so many resources on a fight that their best hope is a 10 point loss?
They have to fight the by-elections as they come up. Going from fourth to second would be a significant result. I would be astonished if the LDs won, but I do think it's a fight between them and the Tories with other parties squeezed. 30% for "others"seems high. Maybe 20% - 25% with Lib Dems on 25% to 30%.
I know there's a lot of optimism about the LibDems on here. And I know that have utterly flooded the constituency with activists. And I know they have - to some extent - got their mojo back.
But let's think about this rationally for a minute. The Conservative Party is about 8 points up on their GE share right now. The Liberal Democrats, even being charitable, are one point up, and might be down.
If we take the biggest swings achieved by the (then popular) LibDems against the (then unpopular) Conservatives, and apply them to this by-election, the Tories still win by 10 points.
Now, I backed the LDs at 24 on Betfair (23-1) with a fiver. A fiver I expect to lose.
The only way the LDs can win this is if turnout collapses and the Labour vote goes over in its entirety to them. I don't think that will happen.
Tories 45%, LDs 30%: a good result for them, but a fair way away from a victory.
(For the record, I suspect the Libs would win Richmond Park, because a, it is a lot more pro-Remain than Witney, b, because Heathrow, and c, because they have a large local activist base.)
The highest recent recent poll rating for the Tories has them at 43% - compared with 37.8% at the General Election - an increase of barely 5% rather than 8%. YouGov has them on 42%.
5 or 8% probably doesn't make that much of a difference, it'd be a landslide at 42 or 45%.
That would depend on the lead - not the vote share per se! But to suggest that the Tory vote is up by 8 points exaggerates the increase by 60%!
5 or 8% probably doesn't make that much of a difference, it'd be a landslide at 42 or 45%.
That would depend on the lead - not the vote share per se! But to suggest that the Tory vote is up by 8 points exaggerates the increase by 60%!
It looks like it is up about 8 points on the polling average immediately prior to the election, at least that's what I gather from the chart on the wikipedia page.
Obviously I know you are joking. I just wonder what Trump thinks he will gain. Oh look here is the half brother of somebody who isn't running for president and doesn't really get on with him. And..I don't get it.
The Bill Clinton stunt I get. Although Bill isn't running, I kinda of get why you might try something like that. But this...shrugs...as clueless about this as Hiliary's policies.
It's 12-1 at Ladbrokes on LD's winning by up to 5000, and 5-4 on Cons winning by up to 5000. So unless the LD's are uber-ramping*, it's possible to bet on both outcomes and come out in front either way.
*Not impossible, of course.
The Ladbrokes Cons 0-5,000 victory looks a good bet. If turnout drops from 73.3% to sub 50% (and it might be more like 45%), then the Conservatives will likely be on about 13-15,000 (i.e around 40-45%). Better than evens on the LibDems to get above 30% or so sounds a reasonable bet.
I'm not sure.
I'd rather lay that bet.
In fact, i'll offer you slightly better odds than ladbrokes if you're interested (and awake!)
It's 12-1 at Ladbrokes on LD's winning by up to 5000, and 5-4 on Cons winning by up to 5000. So unless the LD's are uber-ramping*, it's possible to bet on both outcomes and come out in front either way.
*Not impossible, of course.
The Ladbrokes Cons 0-5,000 victory looks a good bet. If turnout drops from 73.3% to sub 50% (and it might be more like 45%), then the Conservatives will likely be on about 13-15,000 (i.e around 40-45%). Better than evens on the LibDems to get above 30% or so sounds a reasonable bet.
I'm not sure.
I'd rather lay that bet.
In fact, i'll offer you slightly better odds than ladbrokes if you're interested (and awake!)
Up to £200 @ 6/4
I'm assuming you think the conservative majority will be more than 5,000?
5 or 8% probably doesn't make that much of a difference, it'd be a landslide at 42 or 45%.
That would depend on the lead - not the vote share per se! But to suggest that the Tory vote is up by 8 points exaggerates the increase by 60%!
It looks like it is up about 8 points on the polling average immediately prior to the election, at least that's what I gather from the chart on the wikipedia page.
But the polls have been adjusted since the election following their May 2015 debacle. Local by elections ,on the other hand , are showing no sign of a Tory advance.
5 or 8% probably doesn't make that much of a difference, it'd be a landslide at 42 or 45%.
That would depend on the lead - not the vote share per se! But to suggest that the Tory vote is up by 8 points exaggerates the increase by 60%!
It looks like it is up about 8 points on the polling average immediately prior to the election, at least that's what I gather from the chart on the wikipedia page.
But the polls have been adjusted since the election following their May 2015 debacle. Local by elections ,on the other hand , are showing no sign of a Tory advance.
We'll see. You'd have thought they would have learnt their lesson in 92
It's 12-1 at Ladbrokes on LD's winning by up to 5000, and 5-4 on Cons winning by up to 5000. So unless the LD's are uber-ramping*, it's possible to bet on both outcomes and come out in front either way.
*Not impossible, of course.
The Ladbrokes Cons 0-5,000 victory looks a good bet. If turnout drops from 73.3% to sub 50% (and it might be more like 45%), then the Conservatives will likely be on about 13-15,000 (i.e around 40-45%). Better than evens on the LibDems to get above 30% or so sounds a reasonable bet.
I'm not sure.
I'd rather lay that bet.
In fact, i'll offer you slightly better odds than ladbrokes if you're interested (and awake!)
Up to £200 @ 6/4
I'm assuming you think the conservative majority will be more than 5,000?
I think there's less than a 40% chance the tories win by less than 5000 votes.
IMO the Tories are likely to win by more than 5,000 votes in Witney. After all they're up by about 10% or 4 percentage points in the opinion polls compared to the general election.
IMO the Tories are likely to win by more than 5,000 votes in Witney. After all they're up by about 10% or 4 percentage points in the opinion polls compared to the general election.
I just looked at sedgefiled - labour lost almost half of their 2005 voters in the by-election after Tony stepped down.
IMO the Tories are likely to win by more than 5,000 votes in Witney. After all they're up by about 10% or 4 percentage points in the opinion polls compared to the general election.
I just looked at sedgefiled - labour lost almost half of their 2005 voters in the by-election after Tony stepped down.
It's 12-1 at Ladbrokes on LD's winning by up to 5000, and 5-4 on Cons winning by up to 5000. So unless the LD's are uber-ramping*, it's possible to bet on both outcomes and come out in front either way.
*Not impossible, of course.
The Ladbrokes Cons 0-5,000 victory looks a good bet. If turnout drops from 73.3% to sub 50% (and it might be more like 45%), then the Conservatives will likely be on about 13-15,000 (i.e around 40-45%). Better than evens on the LibDems to get above 30% or so sounds a reasonable bet.
I'm not sure.
I'd rather lay that bet.
In fact, i'll offer you slightly better odds than ladbrokes if you're interested (and awake!)
Up to £200 @ 6/4
Tempting, if the 6/4 were to also include an LD win (or a tie!) but I don't know the area so I can't really claim any factual or instinctive basis for making the bet. The fact that the Tories are up in national opinion polls is virtually irrelevant, as probably is the fact that the LDs used to have a reasonable base. My guess would be Con 16,000 LD 10,000.
The Fox News poll sample became four net points more Republican, and Trump still only picked up one point against Hillary. Thats a bad omen. pic.twitter.com/QOugCRhThB
Obviously I know you are joking. I just wonder what Trump thinks he will gain. Oh look here is the half brother of somebody who isn't running for president and doesn't really get on with him. And..I don't get it.
The Bill Clinton stunt I get. Although Bill isn't running, I kinda of get why you might try something like that. But this...shrugs...as clueless about this as Hiliary's policies.
He is promising more special guests. Because Trump is a child listening to lunatics
"My own fame is about 1% of Trump’s fame. And I can confirm that when women hear what I do for a living, they tend to act sexually available. In other words, they flirt. But it isn’t always the “real” kind of flirting. They might have husbands or boyfriends and no intention of cheating. But their body language tends to be inviting in ways that non-famous people never see. The signals can be confusing because sexual attraction and celebrity-awe look the same to the observer.
I’m willing to bet that when Trump is alone with a woman, she often – but not always – sends signals of availability, whether she intends it or not. Her rational mind – and her words – might be giving a clear message of no while her eyes, body language, and other signals are responding to power the way humans have evolved to respond. "
"My own fame is about 1% of Trump’s fame. And I can confirm that when women hear what I do for a living, they tend to act sexually available. In other words, they flirt. But it isn’t always the “real” kind of flirting. They might have husbands or boyfriends and no intention of cheating. But their body language tends to be inviting in ways that non-famous people never see. The signals can be confusing because sexual attraction and celebrity-awe look the same to the observer.
I’m willing to bet that when Trump is alone with a woman, she often – but not always – sends signals of availability, whether she intends it or not. Her rational mind – and her words – might be giving a clear message of no while her eyes, body language, and other signals are responding to power the way humans have evolved to respond. "
It's all very disappointing for people who quite liked dilbert in the 90s
I remain sceptical about human evolutionary adaptations to orangeness, wigs and small hands.
(We're gonna have such wonderful evolutionary adaptations. and Mexico will pay)
Yeah I used to read that blog before it went a bit odd... Stopped in lately and at times it really does read like ramblings of someone who has lost the plot... The cartoons are still pretty good though.
"My own fame is about 1% of Trump’s fame. And I can confirm that when women hear what I do for a living, they tend to act sexually available. In other words, they flirt. But it isn’t always the “real” kind of flirting. They might have husbands or boyfriends and no intention of cheating. But their body language tends to be inviting in ways that non-famous people never see. The signals can be confusing because sexual attraction and celebrity-awe look the same to the observer.
I’m willing to bet that when Trump is alone with a woman, she often – but not always – sends signals of availability, whether she intends it or not. Her rational mind – and her words – might be giving a clear message of no while her eyes, body language, and other signals are responding to power the way humans have evolved to respond. "
It's all very disappointing for people who quite liked dilbert in the 90s
I remain sceptical about human evolutionary adaptations to orangeness, wigs and small hands.
(We're gonna have such wonderful evolutionary adaptations. and Mexico will pay)
Yeah I used to read that blog before it went a bit odd... Stopped in lately and at times it really does read like ramblings of someone who has lost the plot... The cartoons are still pretty good though.
Comments
Close to EU
I never promised EU a rose garden
She Loves EU
A song for EU
I'll get my coat
You just slip it in the box, Fox
Drop it in the tray, May
Take a chill pill, Phil
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Truss
You don't need to discuss much
Slam the door with a thud, Rudd
And get yourself free
brinternet?
not convinced that we did that by ourselves. And the only other notable things from the last 50 odd years are some shitty tv programmes
(these are Sean Ts opinions, not mine)
The Celtic fans are concerned, because they don't have a pithy chant in response.
After a conference at half time, Celtic fans are ready. Rangers fans start again - "To hell with the pope! To hell with the pope!"
This time the Celtic fans are ready, and they respond immediately - "To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland! To hell with the moderator of the general assembly of the church of Scotland!"
I quite enjoyed a song I once heard at Partick Thistle which had a charming refrain ending .."so FTP and FTQ" (not sung as acronyms, obv).
*Not impossible, of course.
Obviously I know you are joking. I just wonder what Trump thinks he will gain. Oh look here is the half brother of somebody who isn't running for president and doesn't really get on with him. And..I don't get it.
The Bill Clinton stunt I get. Although Bill isn't running, I kinda of get why you might try something like that. But this...shrugs...as clueless about this as Hiliary's policies.
I'd rather lay that bet.
In fact, i'll offer you slightly better odds than ladbrokes if you're interested (and awake!)
Up to £200 @ 6/4
LD/Con didn't really gain, though.
Just pi$$ poor turnout;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedgefield_by-election,_2007
Josh Jordan – Verified account @NumbersMuncher
The Fox News poll sample became four net points more Republican, and Trump still only picked up one point against Hillary. Thats a bad omen. pic.twitter.com/QOugCRhThB
The Bill Clinton stunt I get. Although Bill isn't running, I kinda of get why you might try something like that. But this...shrugs...as clueless about this as Hiliary's policies.
He is promising more special guests. Because Trump is a child listening to lunatics
I’m willing to bet that when Trump is alone with a woman, she often – but not always – sends signals of availability, whether she intends it or not. Her rational mind – and her words – might be giving a clear message of no while her eyes, body language, and other signals are responding to power the way humans have evolved to respond. "
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151933602961/lie-detection-and-scandals
It's all very disappointing for people who quite liked dilbert in the 90s
I remain sceptical about human evolutionary adaptations to orangeness, wigs and small hands.
(We're gonna have such wonderful evolutionary adaptations. and Mexico will pay)
For example see:
http://dilbert.com/strip/2016-08-01