A note to any new players: it's not too difficult to get to grips with (I've only played a few games myself) but the core of the game is interacting with other players. A mute Diplomacy player is as frustrating as a mime artist acting as a radio host.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 14m14 minutes ago Could anyone who is a Corbyn supporter explain why - given Labour is now supposedly "united" - the Tory poll lead continues to widen.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
Mr. Rentool, no, it didn't. It was always idiotic.
The Miliband changes meant the role of MPs had changed to being gatekeepers, from having substantial voting weight. Their task was to only permit credible leaders who found they acceptable onto the shortlist. They failed to understand their own rules, backed a man they didn't want then found out they'd made a terrible mistake.
There was nothing wrong with Ed Miliband's changes.
A note to any new players: it's not too difficult to get to grips with (I've only played a few games myself) but the core of the game is interacting with other players. A mute Diplomacy player is as frustrating as a mime artist acting as a radio host.
I've gone for a leisurely pace - but moves should be resolved as soon as everyone has finalised.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 14m14 minutes ago Could anyone who is a Corbyn supporter explain why - given Labour is now supposedly "united" - the Tory poll lead continues to widen.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 14m14 minutes ago Could anyone who is a Corbyn supporter explain why - given Labour is now supposedly "united" - the Tory poll lead continues to widen.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
The Times tried this stupid filter - and was pwned in 24hrs. I can't be bothered with any MSM now. It's all the same variant of monopoly Establishment viewpoint since 23rd June. They're protecting their pay cheques.
I've no interest in paying for their propaganda masquerading as news.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 14m14 minutes ago Could anyone who is a Corbyn supporter explain why - given Labour is now supposedly "united" - the Tory poll lead continues to widen.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
The only Working Men's Club round here closed some 5 years ago. We were once a mining town North Stoke on Trent. Now solidly Conservative,,,
Mr. 43, given the importance of farmers I wonder if there'd be an extension of the voluntarily expensive milk.
Mr. Max, understandable advice. [As an aside, it's counter-intuitive but the story a couple of years ago indicated most victims were male].
The deliberately expensive milk, meat and grains come from tariff quotas. If we "fall back" on WTO rules we won't have them any more and these products will see their farm gate prices fall by a third or more. The same may occur anyway as part of the WTO renegotiations that follow Brexit. That will make most agriculture in Britain uneconomic, certainly on current land values.
Not necessarily. Look at what happened in New Zealand when they abolished tariffs and subsidies.
I agree there is a case for abolishing tariffs. The difference with New Zealand is that it is a country with relatively large amounts of land suitable for animal grazing with a small population to be supported by it. The New Zealand experience was a pretty brutal one as well. It wasn't planned but was forced by a crisis.
90% of New Zealand's agricultural production is exported despite the total lack of subsidies. Their farmers can compete effectively against subsidised farmers overseas. As could ours if our farmers were liberated to farm based on what works productively rather than farming to maximise bureaucracy.
As for it being forced by a crisis - so what? Necessity is the mother of invention but that doesn't mean we should discard it afterwards. The evidence is that an agricultural free market works so let's embrace it.
"We will not only be more isolated and poorer but we will continue to be frustrated, just as we were in the dim, distant, past before we joined."
Can't say I felt isolated or frustrated before 1973. Used to travel to the continent several times a year, lived in Portugal for a spell. Didn't even need a full passport to visit most European countries.
As for poorer, yes we were as a nation but how much our increased prosperity has had to do with the EEC/EC/EU we will never know. Lots of countries outside the EEC/EC/EU have got richer over the past forty years. However, that overall picture doesn't count for much in peoples minds. It is their personal experience that matters not some figures that are meaningless to them.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 14m14 minutes ago Could anyone who is a Corbyn supporter explain why - given Labour is now supposedly "united" - the Tory poll lead continues to widen.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
One of the main requirements is to get an effective communicator. There needs to be one voice and it needs to be heard loud snd often. I've never yet been able to understand whether the relationship between the politburo and the media is so hopeless because
1. The politburo and/or Milne are clueless 2. They are trying but the media are ignoring them 3. Both
The Times tried this stupid filter - and was pwned in 24hrs. I can't be bothered with any MSM now. It's all the same variant of monopoly Establishment viewpoint since 23rd June. They're protecting their pay cheques.
I've no interest in paying for their propaganda masquerading as news.
Crikey, a new PB diplomacy game. The first one was I think in 2008, in which Nick Palmer played England and Andy Cooke shafted me (not that I bear grudges, you understand). I can't resist so I am in. Remind me someone, who is Temujin. Mr. Dancer you don't appear in the list of signed up players. Have I answered my own question?
I quite like the idea of a more leisurely pace, orders every five days should allow a lot of diploming, as long as people talk.
Welsh Kippers are 'special' - having your fruitcake and eating it I believe it's known as.
'Welsh UKIP politician suggests Ireland could access EU funds for Welsh motorway works
Speaking in the Assembly this afternoon, Assembly Member David Rowlands asked: "Will the First Minister explore the possibility of part of the cost for the M4 improvement scheme being borne by the Irish Government, given that three quarters of all Irish exports to the EU and UK pass along that road?" First Minister Carwyn Jones swiftly denied the possibility, saying it is the Welsh Government's responsibility to maintain Welsh roads. However, Mr Rowlands followed up by stating: "This is a serious proposition, as I understand Ireland may be able to access funds from the Trans-European highways fund".'
Crikey, a new PB diplomacy game. The first one was I think in 2008, in which Nick Palmer played England and Andy Cooke shafted me (not that I bear grudges, you understand). I can't resist so I am in. Remind me someone, who is Temujin. Mr. Dancer you don't appear in the list of signed up players. Have I answered my own question?
I quite like the idea of a more leisurely pace, orders every five days should allow a lot of diploming, as long as people talk.
Superb, we're up to 4 players out of 7 now. Temujin is Morris, I'm fairly certain. Orders resolve once all finalised, so bear that in mind (There are some points in the game where 2 days is definitely too long for a single retreat !)
Welsh Kippers are 'special' - having your fruitcake and eating it I believe it's known as.
'Welsh UKIP politician suggests Ireland could access EU funds for Welsh motorway works
Speaking in the Assembly this afternoon, Assembly Member David Rowlands asked: "Will the First Minister explore the possibility of part of the cost for the M4 improvement scheme being borne by the Irish Government, given that three quarters of all Irish exports to the EU and UK pass along that road?" First Minister Carwyn Jones swiftly denied the possibility, saying it is the Welsh Government's responsibility to maintain Welsh roads. However, Mr Rowlands followed up by stating: "This is a serious proposition, as I understand Ireland may be able to access funds from the Trans-European highways fund".'
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 14m14 minutes ago Could anyone who is a Corbyn supporter explain why - given Labour is now supposedly "united" - the Tory poll lead continues to widen.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
Are you thinking of co-opting Paul Nuttall?
The more basic question is how can the collection of interests, from middle-class liberals to full-blown socialists to client demographics, be held together by *any* radical programme? (Not that Labour is unique in having this problem).
It's possible that Labour could get elected with a radical manifesto but it'll need a fair wind in terms of the other parties being tired, split and useless, and it'll also need to be delivered to an extent by stealth: it wouldn't be the manifesto that'd win it; it'd be a charismatic leader.
When does it cease to be 'clever', 'amusing' trolling, and become incitement ?
https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/803343633755893760 No, No think of it, you know, it's Russia after all. Somebody said "are you at all offended that he said nice things about you?" I said, "No, No." And they said "Oh Trump should have been much nastier. That's terrible." And then they said, "You know he's killed reporters," and I don't like that. I'm totally against that. By the way I hate some of these people, but I would never kill them. I hate them. No I think these people, honestly. I'll be honest. I would never kill them. I would never do that. Ah let's see... Nah. I would never kill them. But I do hate them. Some of them are such lying, disgusting people. It's true, it's true. [CHEERS] I would never kill then and anybody that does I think would be despicable. But you know nobody nobody said, they say he killed reporters. I said, "really?" He says he didn't. Other people say he didn't. Who did he kill. Well, we don't know but we hear that. I said, "Tell me, who did he kill?"
Just hilarious from a man who will command all the powers of the presidency.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 14m14 minutes ago Could anyone who is a Corbyn supporter explain why - given Labour is now supposedly "united" - the Tory poll lead continues to widen.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The polls were pretty much on the mark for both Labour leadership elections, in 2015 and 2016.
Mr. 43, given the importance of farmers I wonder if there'd be an extension of the voluntarily expensive milk.
Mr. Max, understandable advice. [As an aside, it's counter-intuitive but the story a couple of years ago indicated most victims were male].
The deliberately expensive milk, meat and grains come from tariff quotas. If we "fall back" on WTO rules we won't have them any more and these products will see their farm gate prices fall by a third or more. The same may occur anyway as part of the WTO renegotiations that follow Brexit. That will make most agriculture in Britain uneconomic, certainly on current land values.
Not necessarily. Look at what happened in New Zealand when they abolished tariffs and subsidies.
I agree there is a case for abolishing tariffs. The difference with New Zealand is that it is a country with relatively large amounts of land suitable for animal grazing with a small population to be supported by it. The New Zealand experience was a pretty brutal one as well. It wasn't planned but was forced by a crisis.
90% of New Zealand's agricultural production is exported despite the total lack of subsidies. Their farmers can compete effectively against subsidised farmers overseas. As could ours if our farmers were liberated to farm based on what works productively rather than farming to maximise bureaucracy.
As for it being forced by a crisis - so what? Necessity is the mother of invention but that doesn't mean we should discard it afterwards. The evidence is that an agricultural free market works so let's embrace it.
The trouble is that intensive farming, and subsidy free farming is by its very nature extremely intensive, inevitably passes on its external costs to society and/or the taxpayer in the form of environmental degradation, be it polluted rivers, degraded soils, atmospheric emissions or plant and animal diseases. The cost of cleaning eg nitrate out of drinking water is passed on to the consumer; the figures are eye opening - read Pretty et al, an assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture - some farming systems do more damage than benefit. That's why regulation is important. But once you start regulating you need to offer incentives not to pollute or to pollute within agreed levels.
WTO rules with no subsidy could put many small farms out of business. It would favour big units of highly intensive management or niche farming. Hill farms would turn into massive ranches. Some changes might be good, but overall we would see another level of intensification that would lead to further environmental degradation.
The cost of cleaning eg nitrate out of drinking water is passed on to the consumer; the figures are eye opening - read Pretty et al, an assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture - some farming systems do more damage than benefit.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 14m14 minutes ago Could anyone who is a Corbyn supporter explain why - given Labour is now supposedly "united" - the Tory poll lead continues to widen.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
Are you thinking of co-opting Paul Nuttall?
The more basic question is how can the collection of interests, from middle-class liberals to full-blown socialists to client demographics, be held together by *any* radical programme? (Not that Labour is unique in having this problem).
It's possible that Labour could get elected with a radical manifesto but it'll need a fair wind in terms of the other parties being tired, split and useless, and it'll also need to be delivered to an extent by stealth: it wouldn't be the manifesto that'd win it; it'd be a charismatic leader.
Our last charismatic leader did execute some socialism by stealth in his first term - before he found his true vocation post 9/11. We are seeing around the world that the leader is becoming ever more important, with the policy platform playing second fiddle. I thought that Trump would test this notion to destruction, but he just reinforced it - perhaps a British Varoufakis could do the same here?
Crikey, a new PB diplomacy game. The first one was I think in 2008, in which Nick Palmer played England and Andy Cooke shafted me (not that I bear grudges, you understand). I can't resist so I am in. Remind me someone, who is Temujin. Mr. Dancer you don't appear in the list of signed up players. Have I answered my own question?
I quite like the idea of a more leisurely pace, orders every five days should allow a lot of diploming, as long as people talk.
Superb, we're up to 4 players out of 7 now. Temujin is Morris, I'm fairly certain. Orders resolve once all finalised, so bear that in mind (There are some points in the game where 2 days is definitely too long for a single retreat !)
I'm afraid I won't have time to play this time, but I'm sure I'll enjoy observing.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 14m14 minutes ago Could anyone who is a Corbyn supporter explain why - given Labour is now supposedly "united" - the Tory poll lead continues to widen.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
Are you thinking of co-opting Paul Nuttall?
The more basic question is how can the collection of interests, from middle-class liberals to full-blown socialists to client demographics, be held together by *any* radical programme? (Not that Labour is unique in having this problem).
It's possible that Labour could get elected with a radical manifesto but it'll need a fair wind in terms of the other parties being tired, split and useless, and it'll also need to be delivered to an extent by stealth: it wouldn't be the manifesto that'd win it; it'd be a charismatic leader.
Our last charismatic leader did execute some socialism by stealth in his first term - before he found his true vocation post 9/11. We are seeing around the world that the leader is becoming ever more important, with the policy platform playing second fiddle. I thought that Trump would test this notion to destruction, but he just reinforced it - perhaps a British Varoufakis could do the same here?
EDIT: you guys are up to 6 out of 7. This is the danger point for me - the old "only one place left..." feeling so popular with marketing and advertising companies. [RESISTS]
When does it cease to be 'clever', 'amusing' trolling, and become incitement ?
https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/803343633755893760 No, No think of it, you know, it's Russia after all. Somebody said "are you at all offended that he said nice things about you?" I said, "No, No." And they said "Oh Trump should have been much nastier. That's terrible." And then they said, "You know he's killed reporters," and I don't like that. I'm totally against that. By the way I hate some of these people, but I would never kill them. I hate them. No I think these people, honestly. I'll be honest. I would never kill them. I would never do that. Ah let's see... Nah. I would never kill them. But I do hate them. Some of them are such lying, disgusting people. It's true, it's true. [CHEERS] I would never kill then and anybody that does I think would be despicable. But you know nobody nobody said, they say he killed reporters. I said, "really?" He says he didn't. Other people say he didn't. Who did he kill. Well, we don't know but we hear that. I said, "Tell me, who did he kill?"
Just hilarious from a man who will command all the powers of the presidency.
Oh no. Oh no oh no oh no. Someone has traced the quote back to a joke told by a comedian in 2006. Ivanka didn’t say it at all. And my accidental lie has gone halfway round the world. So this is what they mean by all that ‘fake news’ going round.
** Diplomacy Post ** Mr. Pulpstar, if my failing memory serves, you are in Sheffield aren't you? Mr. Dancer is in Leeds, the good Doctor is in Leicester and I am in darkest Sussex. It is good to know these things because, whilst Diplomacy is a play by mail game, sometimes personal meetings are useful or necessary.
I have in my Diplomacy career conducted negotiations in numerous boozers, restaurants, the Palace of Westminster and a brothel in Macau, though that was not a PB game I hasten to add.
I wonder if we could persuade Mrs Cyclefree (lady of this parish) to join in. I reckon she would be a fearsome player.
I agree there is a case for abolishing tariffs. The difference with New Zealand is that it is a country with relatively large amounts of land suitable for animal grazing with a small population to be supported by it. The New Zealand experience was a pretty brutal one as well. It wasn't planned but was forced by a crisis.
90% of New Zealand's agricultural production is exported despite the total lack of subsidies. Their farmers can compete effectively against subsidised farmers overseas. As could ours if our farmers were liberated to farm based on what works productively rather than farming to maximise bureaucracy.
As for it being forced by a crisis - so what? Necessity is the mother of invention but that doesn't mean we should discard it afterwards. The evidence is that an agricultural free market works so let's embrace it.
The trouble is that intensive farming, and subsidy free farming is by its very nature extremely intensive, inevitably passes on its external costs to society and/or the taxpayer in the form of environmental degradation, be it polluted rivers, degraded soils, atmospheric emissions or plant and animal diseases. The cost of cleaning eg nitrate out of drinking water is passed on to the consumer; the figures are eye opening - read Pretty et al, an assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture - some farming systems do more damage than benefit. That's why regulation is important. But once you start regulating you need to offer incentives not to pollute or to pollute within agreed levels.
WTO rules with no subsidy could put many small farms out of business. It would favour big units of highly intensive management or niche farming. Hill farms would turn into massive ranches. Some changes might be good, but overall we would see another level of intensification that would lead to further environmental degradation.
That is a possible outcome but there is also a strong likelihood that many areas, such as hill farms, would simply not be viable at all and return to wilderness rather than being intensively farmed.
I agree there is a case for abolishing tariffs. The difference with New Zealand is that it is a country with relatively large amounts of land suitable for animal grazing with a small population to be supported by it. The New Zealand experience was a pretty brutal one as well. It wasn't planned but was forced by a crisis.
90% of New Zealand's agricultural production is exported despite the total lack of subsidies. Their farmers can compete effectively against subsidised farmers overseas. As could ours if our farmers were liberated to farm based on what works productively rather than farming to maximise bureaucracy.
As for it being forced by a crisis - so what? Necessity is the mother of invention but that doesn't mean we should discard it afterwards. The evidence is that an agricultural free market works so let's embrace it.
The trouble is that intensive farming, and subsidy free farming is by its very nature extremely intensive, inevitably passes on its external costs to society and/or the taxpayer in the form of environmental degradation, be it polluted rivers, degraded soils, atmospheric emissions or plant and animal diseases. The cost of cleaning eg nitrate out of drinking water is passed on to the consumer; the figures are eye opening - read Pretty et al, an assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture - some farming systems do more damage than benefit. That's why regulation is important. But once you start regulating you need to offer incentives not to pollute or to pollute within agreed levels.
WTO rules with no subsidy could put many small farms out of business. It would favour big units of highly intensive management or niche farming. Hill farms would turn into massive ranches. Some changes might be good, but overall we would see another level of intensification that would lead to further environmental degradation.
That is a possible outcome but there is also a strong likelihood that many areas, such as hill farms, would simply not be viable at all and return to wilderness rather than being intensively farmed.
That might be a welcome change. All that's needed is to do nothing and wait 20 years, by which time deciduous trees will be doing nicely.
Wooded hills look nicer than sloping manicured lawns with small white dots (sheep) on them. It seems that they resist flooding better too because the forest undergrowth is more absorbent of rainwater and stores it better than pasture.
Well, have to remember that the EU introduced milk quotas, reduced the quotas for UK farmers to below the market level here and sent the rest overseas to their favourite countries. A lot of UK milk farmers had to close. And we have the absurdity that if you wish to support UK farmers by buying milk with the union jack on the bottle the money from that is also sent abroad, because we can't discriminate.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
Are you thinking of co-opting Paul Nuttall?
The more basic question is how can the collection of interests, from middle-class liberals to full-blown socialists to client demographics, be held together by *any* radical programme? (Not that Labour is unique in having this problem).
It's possible that Labour could get elected with a radical manifesto but it'll need a fair wind in terms of the other parties being tired, split and useless, and it'll also need to be delivered to an extent by stealth: it wouldn't be the manifesto that'd win it; it'd be a charismatic leader.
Our last charismatic leader did execute some socialism by stealth in his first term - before he found his true vocation post 9/11. We are seeing around the world that the leader is becoming ever more important, with the policy platform playing second fiddle. I thought that Trump would test this notion to destruction, but he just reinforced it - perhaps a British Varoufakis could do the same here?
It was (and is) Tsipras who led (and leads) Syriza.
But yes, I think that in the right circumstances a far left leader could indeed win given sufficient organisation, charisma and political nous.
I agree there is a case for abolishing tariffs. The difference with New Zealand is that it is a country with relatively large amounts of land suitable for animal grazing with a small population to be supported by it. The New Zealand experience was a pretty brutal one as well. It wasn't planned but was forced by a crisis.
As for it being forced by a crisis - so what? Necessity is the mother of invention but that doesn't mean we should discard it afterwards. The evidence is that an agricultural free market works so let's embrace it.
WTO rules with no subsidy could put many small farms out of business. It would favour big units of highly intensive management or niche farming. Hill farms would turn into massive ranches. Some changes might be good, but overall we would see another level of intensification that would lead to further environmental degradation.
That is a possible outcome but there is also a strong likelihood that many areas, such as hill farms, would simply not be viable at all and return to wilderness rather than being intensively farmed.
That might be a welcome change. All that's needed is to do nothing and wait 20 years, by which time deciduous trees will be doing nicely.
Wooded hills look nicer than sloping manicured lawns with small white dots (sheep) on them. It seems that they resist flooding better too because the forest undergrowth is more absorbent of rainwater and stores it better than pasture.
Many uplands areas are seriously over grazed, thanks to a subsidy policy that encouraged farmers to pack as many sheep onto the land as they could. When Foot & Mouth struck, suddenly there were wild flowers blooming where normally there is just grass.
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
Are you thinking of co-opting Paul Nuttall?
The more basic question is how can the collection of interests, from middle-class liberals to full-blown socialists to client demographics, be held together by *any* radical programme? (Not that Labour is unique in having this problem).
It's possible that Labour could get elected with a radical manifesto but it'll need a fair wind in terms of the other parties being tired, split and useless, and it'll also need to be delivered to an extent by stealth: it wouldn't be the manifesto that'd win it; it'd be a charismatic leader.
Our last charismatic leader did execute some socialism by stealth in his first term - before he found his true vocation post 9/11. We are seeing around the world that the leader is becoming ever more important, with the policy platform playing second fiddle. I thought that Trump would test this notion to destruction, but he just reinforced it - perhaps a British Varoufakis could do the same here?
It was (and is) Tsipras who led (and leads) Syriza.
But yes, I think that in the right circumstances a far left leader could indeed win given sufficient organisation, charisma and political nous.
Ah, but Tsipras blinked first - Varoufakis would have won the game of chicken with Brussels/Berlin.
That is a possible outcome but there is also a strong likelihood that many areas, such as hill farms, would simply not be viable at all and return to wilderness rather than being intensively farmed.
Is it actually possible to intensively farm sheep/cattle on the Hills? I wouldn't have thought that it was. Aside from the introduction of modern conveniences such as the quad bike, the pattern of farming on the Hills is pretty much unchanged over hundreds of years.
The problems come when we have two conflicting desires. We want cheap meat in the supermarket and we want the gorgeous landscapes of places like the Lake District and the Dales. At the moment the solution is to subsidise the farmer (not that they make much of a living even with subsidies).
And it turns out Michael Gove's glorious schools revolution has not made any difference to our children's ability to count and add up and stuff. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38131731
A good question *from* the Corbynistas is since when were the polls any guide?
And that is a real problem. Corbynistas have no reason to believe the polls which were wrong about every ballot within recent memory, and after Brown and Miliband were beaten, no reason to believe a more mainstream leader would be elected. So how are you going to convince them?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
Are you thinking of co-opting Paul Nuttall?
The more basic question is how can the collection of interests, from middle-class liberals to full-blown socialists to client demographics, be held together by *any* radical programme? (Not that Labour is unique in having this problem).
It's possible that Labour could get elected with a radical manifesto but it'll need a fair wind in terms of the other parties being tired, split and useless, and it'll also need to be delivered to an extent by stealth: it wouldn't be the manifesto that'd win it; it'd be a charismatic leader.
Our last charismatic leader did execute some socialism by stealth in his first term - before he found his true vocation post 9/11. We are seeing around the world that the leader is becoming ever more important, with the policy platform playing second fiddle. I thought that Trump would test this notion to destruction, but he just reinforced it - perhaps a British Varoufakis could do the same here?
It was (and is) Tsipras who led (and leads) Syriza.
But yes, I think that in the right circumstances a far left leader could indeed win given sufficient organisation, charisma and political nous.
The right circumstances as in say, Russia in 1917, China in 1949, Cuba in 1959?
That is a possible outcome but there is also a strong likelihood that many areas, such as hill farms, would simply not be viable at all and return to wilderness rather than being intensively farmed.
What we need to do is to subsidise the nutritional content within our food, rather than the yield. Nitrate fertilisers (understandably if you apply some thought) result in crops that are bulky but totally starved of the full complement of minerals they should have for healthy people. It's like the difference between a stage set and a house. They also end up just as expensive for farmers with the cost of weedkillers, spraying equipment etc.
We need to move back to mixed farming, and soils should be enriched with essential minerals to encourage strong growth rather than fertilisers. The landscape would benefit, the taxpayer would benefit, but most of all people would be healthier and stronger. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/3324442/We-want-real-food.html
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
Are you thinking of co-opting Paul Nuttall?
The more basic question is how can the collection of interests, from middle-class liberals to full-blown socialists to client demographics, be held together by *any* radical programme? (Not that Labour is unique in having this problem).
It's possible that Labour could get elected with a radical manifesto but it'll need a fair wind in terms of the other parties being tired, split and useless, and it'll also need to be delivered to an extent by stealth: it wouldn't be the manifesto that'd win it; it'd be a charismatic leader.
Our last charismatic leader did execute some socialism by stealth in his first term - before he found his true vocation post 9/11. We are seeing around the world that the leader is becoming ever more important, with the policy platform playing second fiddle. I thought that Trump would test this notion to destruction, but he just reinforced it - perhaps a British Varoufakis could do the same here?
It was (and is) Tsipras who led (and leads) Syriza.
But yes, I think that in the right circumstances a far left leader could indeed win given sufficient organisation, charisma and political nous.
The right circumstances as in say, Russia in 1917, China in 1949, Cuba in 1959?
No need to such extremes. We're only talking about an election, not a revolution.
Off topic, should we be worried that all the electricity-generating capacity seems to be running at (or pretty damn near) maximum, even before people go home and put kettles on?
The first step is to get them to realise that Jezza is a dud. The second step is to offer an option that involves changing the leader but not the manifesto.
I think you might be a tad confused there Sandy. Yes, people generally speaking hate Jezza. Coz he's a commie. With a commie manifesto. A shiny bright new looking leader with a commie manifesto is going to get creamed just the same. The real challenge for Labour and its leadership and direction / raison d'etre is to learn from history that socialism makes you a lot poorer and a lot less free. No amount of Fidel adulation will change this.
This is where we have to differ. I believe with the right leader a radical manifesto will see a Labour-led government. The slightly less vanilla approach of Ed enthused no-one. However, I don't mean the Islington version of radical - it has to grounded in the Working Mens' Clubs, not the dinner party circuit.
Are you thinking of co-opting Paul Nuttall?
The more basic question is how can the collection of interests, from middle-class liberals to full-blown socialists to client demographics, be held together by *any* radical programme? (Not that Labour is unique in having this problem).
It's possible that Labour could get elected with a radical manifesto but it'll need a fair wind in terms of the other parties being tired, split and useless, and it'll also need to be delivered to an extent by stealth: it wouldn't be the manifesto that'd win it; it'd be a charismatic leader.
Our last charismatic leader did execute some socialism by stealth in his first term - before he found his true vocation post 9/11. We are seeing around the world that the leader is becoming ever more important, with the policy platform playing second fiddle. I thought that Trump would test this notion to destruction, but he just reinforced it - perhaps a British Varoufakis could do the same here?
It was (and is) Tsipras who led (and leads) Syriza.
But yes, I think that in the right circumstances a far left leader could indeed win given sufficient organisation, charisma and political nous.
The right circumstances as in say, Russia in 1917, China in 1949, Cuba in 1959?
No need to such extremes. We're only talking about an election, not a revolution.
That was my point. In what circumstances here would a far left leader win an election?
** Diplomacy Post ** Mr. Pulpstar, if my failing memory serves, you are in Sheffield aren't you? Mr. Dancer is in Leeds, the good Doctor is in Leicester and I am in darkest Sussex. It is good to know these things because, whilst Diplomacy is a play by mail game, sometimes personal meetings are useful or necessary.
I have in my Diplomacy career conducted negotiations in numerous boozers, restaurants, the Palace of Westminster and a brothel in Macau, though that was not a PB game I hasten to add.
I wonder if we could persuade Mrs Cyclefree (lady of this parish) to join in. I reckon she would be a fearsome player.
Sounds like a good game. I'll spectate if i may. I've done most of my playing on webdiplomacy but i guess the rules are the same.
Off topic, should we be worried that all the electricity-generating capacity seems to be running at (or pretty damn near) maximum, even before people go home and put kettles on?
That is a possible outcome but there is also a strong likelihood that many areas, such as hill farms, would simply not be viable at all and return to wilderness rather than being intensively farmed.
Is it actually possible to intensively farm sheep/cattle on the Hills? I wouldn't have thought that it was. Aside from the introduction of modern conveniences such as the quad bike, the pattern of farming on the Hills is pretty much unchanged over hundreds of years.
The problems come when we have two conflicting desires. We want cheap meat in the supermarket and we want the gorgeous landscapes of places like the Lake District and the Dales. At the moment the solution is to subsidise the farmer (not that they make much of a living even with subsidies).
No it's not. The soil is poor and large areas are needed to sustain each beast which makes the labour input greater and the costs such as fencing greater. We have hill farms because we subsidise them, not because they are economically viable.
Off topic, should we be worried that all the electricity-generating capacity seems to be running at (or pretty damn near) maximum, even before people go home and put kettles on?
Off topic, should we be worried that all the electricity-generating capacity seems to be running at (or pretty damn near) maximum, even before people go home and put kettles on?
Probably not, given that the current available outputs are greater than indicated on that site. The current available output of CCGT generation, for example, is about 27 GW, not 25 GW.
Off topic, should we be worried that all the electricity-generating capacity seems to be running at (or pretty damn near) maximum, even before people go home and put kettles on?
Probably not, given that the current available outputs are greater than indicated on that site. The current available output of CCGT generation, for example, is about 27 GW, not 25 GW.
Off topic, should we be worried that all the electricity-generating capacity seems to be running at (or pretty damn near) maximum, even before people go home and put kettles on?
Probably not, given that the current available outputs are greater than indicated on that site. The current available output of CCGT generation, for example, is about 27 GW, not 25 GW.
Plus we can increase our imports from France quite easily.
I'm not so sure about that. I seem to remember hearing that the French interconnector is currently limited to half capacity, i.e. 1 GW rather than 2 GW.
Off topic, should we be worried that all the electricity-generating capacity seems to be running at (or pretty damn near) maximum, even before people go home and put kettles on?
I'm guessing GridWatch's figures don't automatically include capacity that is held in reserve and can be switched on quickly - a function we consumers pay a pretty packet for. I guess as they get switched on the maximum capacity on the figures will alter accordingly.
However this has been a longstanding disagreement between RCS and myself: I think we're cutting our power generation reserves too close to the bone, and he disagrees.
I'm not saying we're going to get brownouts; just that the risk of them is too high. And asking industry to cut power usage at certain times is a desperate measure and a sign of failure.
** Diplomacy Post ** Mr. Pulpstar, if my failing memory serves, you are in Sheffield aren't you? Mr. Dancer is in Leeds, the good Doctor is in Leicester and I am in darkest Sussex. It is good to know these things because, whilst Diplomacy is a play by mail game, sometimes personal meetings are useful or necessary.
I have in my Diplomacy career conducted negotiations in numerous boozers, restaurants, the Palace of Westminster and a brothel in Macau, though that was not a PB game I hasten to add.
I wonder if we could persuade Mrs Cyclefree (lady of this parish) to join in. I reckon she would be a fearsome player.
Sounds like a good game. I'll spectate if i may. I've done most of my playing on webdiplomacy but i guess the rules are the same.
From what I can see WebDiplomacy is just another online implementation of the the Diplomacy Game. If you fancy joining us then there is still a space left:
Off topic, should we be worried that all the electricity-generating capacity seems to be running at (or pretty damn near) maximum, even before people go home and put kettles on?
I'm guessing GridWatch's figures don't automatically include capacity that is held in reserve and can be switched on quickly - a function we consumers pay a pretty packet for. I guess as they get switched on the maximum capacity on the figures will alter accordingly.
However this has been a longstanding disagreement between RCS and myself: I think we're cutting our power generation reserves too close to the bone, and he disagrees.
I'm not saying we're going to get brownouts; just that the risk of them is too high. And asking industry to cut power usage at certain times is a desperate measure and a sign of failure.
Gridwatch gets its data from the Elexon portal that I linked to. Its indications of current consumption are accurate, but the fixed limits to the gauges don't properly reflect the changing availability of the different generation capacities.
The Crown Prosecution Service seem to have decided it is in the public interest to prosecute after all - after a few years of deciding otherwise.
Without discussing this particular case, is there a legal reason why fourteen is important? I would have guessed that 'under sixteen' was the relevant factor.
Comments
A note to any new players: it's not too difficult to get to grips with (I've only played a few games myself) but the core of the game is interacting with other players. A mute Diplomacy player is as frustrating as a mime artist acting as a radio host.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/who-are-the-morons-who-nominated-jeremy-corbyn-for-the-labour-leadership-contest-10406527.html
Some of those 35, Skinner, Burgon, Abbott, McDonnell... clearly wanted Corbyn to become leader.
It is the ones who nominated and have subsequently reverse ferreted that are getting the punishment they richly deserve.
After all not much going on politically...
As for it being forced by a crisis - so what? Necessity is the mother of invention but that doesn't mean we should discard it afterwards. The evidence is that an agricultural free market works so let's embrace it.
Can't say I felt isolated or frustrated before 1973. Used to travel to the continent several times a year, lived in Portugal for a spell. Didn't even need a full passport to visit most European countries.
As for poorer, yes we were as a nation but how much our increased prosperity has had to do with the EEC/EC/EU we will never know. Lots of countries outside the EEC/EC/EU have got richer over the past forty years. However, that overall picture doesn't count for much in peoples minds. It is their personal experience that matters not some figures that are meaningless to them.
1. The politburo and/or Milne are clueless
2. They are trying but the media are ignoring them
3. Both
Leave 52%
Trump 46%
TITTERS
I quite like the idea of a more leisurely pace, orders every five days should allow a lot of diploming, as long as people talk.
'Welsh UKIP politician suggests Ireland could access EU funds for Welsh motorway works
Speaking in the Assembly this afternoon, Assembly Member David Rowlands asked: "Will the First Minister explore the possibility of part of the cost for the M4 improvement scheme being borne by the Irish Government, given that three quarters of all Irish exports to the EU and UK pass along that road?"
First Minister Carwyn Jones swiftly denied the possibility, saying it is the Welsh Government's responsibility to maintain Welsh roads.
However, Mr Rowlands followed up by stating: "This is a serious proposition, as I understand Ireland may be able to access funds from the Trans-European highways fund".'
http://tinyurl.com/jcrvod9
Orders resolve once all finalised, so bear that in mind (There are some points in the game where 2 days is definitely too long for a single retreat !)
Temujin was the original name of Genghis Khan.
The more basic question is how can the collection of interests, from middle-class liberals to full-blown socialists to client demographics, be held together by *any* radical programme? (Not that Labour is unique in having this problem).
It's possible that Labour could get elected with a radical manifesto but it'll need a fair wind in terms of the other parties being tired, split and useless, and it'll also need to be delivered to an extent by stealth: it wouldn't be the manifesto that'd win it; it'd be a charismatic leader.
https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/803343633755893760
No, No think of it, you know, it's Russia after all. Somebody said "are you at all offended that he said nice things about you?" I said, "No, No." And they said "Oh Trump should have been much nastier. That's terrible." And then they said, "You know he's killed reporters," and I don't like that. I'm totally against that.
By the way I hate some of these people, but I would never kill them. I hate them. No I think these people, honestly. I'll be honest. I would never kill them. I would never do that.
Ah let's see...
Nah. I would never kill them. But I do hate them. Some of them are such lying, disgusting people. It's true, it's true.
[CHEERS]
I would never kill then and anybody that does I think would be despicable. But you know nobody nobody said, they say he killed reporters. I said, "really?" He says he didn't. Other people say he didn't. Who did he kill. Well, we don't know but we hear that. I said, "Tell me, who did he kill?"
Just hilarious from a man who will command all the powers of the presidency.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3982506/That-s-no-joke-Comedian-Eddie-Izzard-spent-36-000-failed-bid-stop-country-voting-Brexit.html
Michael Gove has used the word 'totes'
https://twitter.com/michaelgove/status/803597274630721536
WTO rules with no subsidy could put many small farms out of business. It would favour big units of highly intensive management or niche farming. Hill farms would turn into massive ranches. Some changes might be good, but overall we would see another level of intensification that would lead to further environmental degradation.
"Atletico Nacional player Gilberto García led the calls for the tournament to be awarded to their opponents, saying: 'We want Chapecoense to be champions'. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3982644/Atletico-Nacional-ask-Copa-Sudamericana-awarded-Chapecoense-plane-crash.html
EDIT: you guys are up to 6 out of 7.
This is the danger point for me - the old "only one place left..." feeling so popular with marketing and advertising companies.
[RESISTS]
It really is horrific. These are brave people.
Media Guido
http://order-order.com/2016/11/29/week-hugo-rifkind/
"Friday 25th – Evening
Oh no. Oh no oh no oh no. Someone has traced the quote back to a joke told by a comedian in 2006. Ivanka didn’t say it at all. And my accidental lie has gone halfway round the world. So this is what they mean by all that ‘fake news’ going round.
I’m going viral again. But in a bad way.
*according to Guido.
Mr. Pulpstar, if my failing memory serves, you are in Sheffield aren't you? Mr. Dancer is in Leeds, the good Doctor is in Leicester and I am in darkest Sussex. It is good to know these things because, whilst Diplomacy is a play by mail game, sometimes personal meetings are useful or necessary.
I have in my Diplomacy career conducted negotiations in numerous boozers, restaurants, the Palace of Westminster and a brothel in Macau, though that was not a PB game I hasten to add.
I wonder if we could persuade Mrs Cyclefree (lady of this parish) to join in. I reckon she would be a fearsome player.
Wooded hills look nicer than sloping manicured lawns with small white dots (sheep) on them. It seems that they resist flooding better too because the forest undergrowth is more absorbent of rainwater and stores it better than pasture.
"Kate Bush says Theresa May is "wonderful":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38144908
But yes, I think that in the right circumstances a far left leader could indeed win given sufficient organisation, charisma and political nous.
The problems come when we have two conflicting desires. We want cheap meat in the supermarket and we want the gorgeous landscapes of places like the Lake District and the Dales. At the moment the solution is to subsidise the farmer (not that they make much of a living even with subsidies).
GMP police chief admits drunken abuse over 'boob job'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38148080
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38131731
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/niederlande-verbieten-burkas-in-oeffentlichen-gebaeuden-14550989.html
OK that one is less common...
Any woman who wants to wear one can be like nun and join a religious order.
We'd never condone the general female population wearing habits.
Are we now living in a Mayan civilisation?
We need to move back to mixed farming, and soils should be enriched with essential minerals to encourage strong growth rather than fertilisers. The landscape would benefit, the taxpayer would benefit, but most of all people would be healthier and stronger.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/3324442/We-want-real-food.html
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
You may be right but I can't see it myself.
See here for more details:
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/trump-picks-elaine-chao-for-transportation-secretary/index.html
However this has been a longstanding disagreement between RCS and myself: I think we're cutting our power generation reserves too close to the bone, and he disagrees.
I'm not saying we're going to get brownouts; just that the risk of them is too high. And asking industry to cut power usage at certain times is a desperate measure and a sign of failure.
http://www.playdiplomacy.com
The game name is PB.Com and the password PoliticalBetting
Can you stop exposing hypocrisy please, it's annoying.
Apparently David Clarke is in with a decent shot at the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security role.