"I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum."
As far as I can tell, being better educated just means you can give more sophisticated reasons as to why you are right, and to explain them more lucidly. In tandem, it creates a temptation to belittle those who disagree, because they are less educated, which then reinforces the perception that they themselves are not subject to groupthink or cognitive bias.
I'm not sure there are any "right" or "wrong" answers in politics. That sort of why it's called politics.
"I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum."
That was the best article Ive read in ages.
Something in it for both Leavers and Remainers as long as you keep an open mind
As an aside, it hasn't received much attention but the Trump plans for a "border" profit tax of 35% are effectively a massive tariff on imported products.
The theory is that - if you sell products into the US - you will be responsible for paying the US government tax on the profit you make by that sale. And that tax will be levied at 35%. This tax will be levied on all goods and services sold into the US, not just on those that do not have free trade agreements with the US. (The reason it is structured like this is to try and avoid falling foul of existing treaty obligations.)
The biggest problem with the border income tax is "what is the profit on a particular item or service"? Is it based on the pre-tax profit rate of the corporation selling into the US? Or is it based on some estimate of the gross or operating profit of the particular product coming in?
Irrespective of which it is - and either adds massive complexity to the process of selling to the US, with out without a trade agreement - this is a massive move away from free trade.
Further to my suggestion of terms for the bet between Seant and williamglenn, I've tried to refine it further. Would the following be acceptable:
Brexit is the process of the UK withdrawing from its membership of the EU. It shall be complete when the following criteria are all met: 1. The UK government has served notice of its intention to withdraw from the EU under Article 50(2) of the TEU. 2. No revocation of the notification detailed in (1) shall have been given by the UK and accepted by the EU. 3. The exit date, as defined in Article 50(3) of the TEU, shall have passed i.e. at least one of the following sub-criteria shall have been met: a. Two years shall have elapsed from the notification in (1) without a withdrawal agreement as defined in Article 50(3) being agreed, or b. A withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK shall have been agreed and the date on which that agreement takes effect shall have passed. 4. No agreement shall have been reached by which the UK retains continuous membership of the EU at the conclusion of the withdrawal process, due to the UK agreeing a new membership with the EU to begin at the moment the old membership expires.
Which side of the bet would you rather be on btw ?
No chance , it is only 2 extra for Europe so we will still be miles away.
So it will be for nations like Australia then.
More African and Asian countries probably.
Will be a tedious affair , extra weeks of meaningless dribble of some diddy teams getting humped and then a week of real football at the end. Will rake inmore cash though so the troughers in FIFA will be rubbing their hands.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
But surely "EU administered bodies" = ECJ jurisdiction?
The ECJ rules on the EU treaties.
EU administered body does not necessarily equal that. But, in certain instances, yes.
There won't be a deal unless the EU feel they can argue its inferior and Remainers can critique it.
The Swiss are notoriously picky about their sovereignty and don't seem bothered by paying to be a part of the Erasmus programme. (And it's not clear to me how severe the ECJ's rulings could be on a student exchange programme.)
I have no problem with Erasmus.
Aren't you worried about it fostering friendships between people in different countries and therefore encouraging them to think continental-ly rather than nationally?
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn says pay cap wd restrain "ridiculous" salaries paid to some footballers and top executives
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn says Arsene Wenger would support a maximum wage cap for the Premier League.
Either Corbyn or Wenger would be wrong about that. A wage cap for the Premier League would see all top talent go overseas and we'd soon have no clubs able to compete in the Champions League. I don't think Wenger is that thick.
LOL, they get humped in the Champions League with all the foreign dross as it is. One thing Corbyn is right on they are a bunch of overpaid no-users.
There's a reason English football currently gets 4 clubs able to join the Champions League each year and it's not that they get humped. Winning the Champions League in Istanbul is my favourite club memory. The last and only time a Scottish club won the European Cup was 15 years before I was even born.
"I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum."
As far as I can tell, being better educated just means you can give more sophisticated reasons as to why you are right, and to explain them more lucidly. In tandem, it creates a temptation to belittle those who disagree, because they are less educated, which then reinforces the perception that they themselves are not subject to groupthink or cognitive bias.
I'm not sure there are any "right" or "wrong" answers in politics. That sort of why it's called politics.
Absolutely. I've listened to hours of Lefty vs Righty stuff and the pin-head dancing is confirmation bias ballet. Stephen Molyneux is superb at dissecting it. He's been on YouTube for a decade talking philosophy - before getting into politics. Over 500k subscribers.
"The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg has been interviewing Jeremy Corbyn. On Twitter she says Corbyn does not think immigration levels are too high." - Guardian.
If they got paid for their performances there would be a massive reduction in wage bills.
Cristiano Ronaldo & Aaron Rogers (The two highest paid players in their respective sports) are worth their salaries. The Ashley Youngs of this world however...
For sure the bulk of them could be done under the trade descriptions act.
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
But surely "EU administered bodies" = ECJ jurisdiction?
The ECJ rules on the EU treaties.
EU administered body does not necessarily equal that. But, in certain instances, yes.
There won't be a deal unless the EU feel they can argue its inferior and Remainers can critique it.
The Swiss are notoriously picky about their sovereignty and don't seem bothered by paying to be a part of the Erasmus programme. (And it's not clear to me how severe the ECJ's rulings could be on a student exchange programme.)
I have no problem with Erasmus.
Aren't you worried about it fostering friendships between people in different countries and therefore encouraging them to think continental-ly rather than nationally?
Nah
we are told travel broadens the mind, but equally it also confirms prejudices
I would describe myself as a genuine germanophile but that doesnt mean I cant see the big clumping faults in the german character
Cumming's seems to me to make an error that many bettors are guilty of, namely remembering the winning bets and forgetting those that lost.
He says Farage would have lost 600k of middle class votes, but doesn't put a figure on how many working class voted he got to give a net +/-... people are always saying how Farage is never off the tv, yet somehow we are meant to simultaneously believe that him not being on TV was he reason Leave won.
In truth, I think it was precisely because there were two Leave campaigns, and that they could act as a pincer movement campaigning on different issues without being called hypocritical, that Leave reached so many people.
No chance , it is only 2 extra for Europe so we will still be miles away.
The Scottish Government should mount a serious investigation into what has gone wrong with Scottish football over the past two or three decades. It is not the national side (which realistically was never up to much) or even the clubs' decline but where are the world class Scottish players -- the modern Denis Law or the Scottish Gareth Bale?
"I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum."
That was the best article Ive read in ages.
Something in it for both Leavers and Remainers as long as you keep an open mind
I've just sent it to Scott Adams - I hope he'll read it. Incidentally - he doesn't vote.
"I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum."
As far as I can tell, being better educated just means you can give more sophisticated reasons as to why you are right, and to explain them more lucidly. In tandem, it creates a temptation to belittle those who disagree, because they are less educated, which then reinforces the perception that they themselves are not subject to groupthink or cognitive bias.
I'm not sure there are any "right" or "wrong" answers in politics. That sort of why it's called politics.
I wish humility were more in fashion. One of my takeaways from Cumming's stream-of-consciousness-as-blog-post is that the EUref win was accidental, low probability and was as much due to the workings of (as gamers say) RNGesus as Machiavellian planning.
Enjoyed his write up very much, even though I don't agree with all his conclusions. I've long appreciated how shonky our cognitive mechanisms are, and how readily we fall victim to self-deception (his Feynman quote is one of my favourites, which clearly predisposes me to like his essay!).
Does anyone, including anyone in the Labour Party, have a clue what Labour's policy is on free movement, single market or customs union? It's not like this is important or topical or anything!
The PM seems to heading towards clarity on this: No free movement (ie right to live and work) but controlled movement. Access to single market but potentially with constraints as required by the above (and no worse or different from eg China, USA or Japan). Not in THE EU customs union but in A customs union with the EU (a la Turkey). We get to sign trade deals elsewhere as we see fit. We might pay in a bit but not a lot. Fair dinkum.
Correct. For a deal to stick, EU side, they will want to be able to say:
(1) We are paying more for membership of X, Y and Z, than we would be if we were EU members (2) We have to comply with rules in X, Y, and Z (or even A, B, C if we opt-in to aspects of the single market) without having any say in them
They will also point to how GBP has suffered, and say that the UK was a very special case - outside the euro, half-in/half-out - anyway.
That - they hope - would be enough stabilise the EU politically, and then we could all get on with working and trading together under the new relationship in future.
But surely "EU administered bodies" = ECJ jurisdiction?
The ECJ rules on the EU treaties.
EU administered body does not necessarily equal that. But, in certain instances, yes.
There won't be a deal unless the EU feel they can argue its inferior and Remainers can critique it.
The Swiss are notoriously picky about their sovereignty and don't seem bothered by paying to be a part of the Erasmus programme. (And it's not clear to me how severe the ECJ's rulings could be on a student exchange programme.)
I have no problem with Erasmus.
Aren't you worried about it fostering friendships between people in different countries and therefore encouraging them to think continental-ly rather than nationally?
Nope. I went to an international school and married a foreigner.
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn says pay cap wd restrain "ridiculous" salaries paid to some footballers and top executives
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn says Arsene Wenger would support a maximum wage cap for the Premier League.
Either Corbyn or Wenger would be wrong about that. A wage cap for the Premier League would see all top talent go overseas and we'd soon have no clubs able to compete in the Champions League. I don't think Wenger is that thick.
LOL, they get humped in the Champions League with all the foreign dross as it is. One thing Corbyn is right on they are a bunch of overpaid no-users.
There's a reason English football currently gets 4 clubs able to join the Champions League each year and it's not that they get humped. Winning the Champions League in Istanbul is my favourite club memory. The last and only time a Scottish club won the European Cup was 15 years before I was even born.
When did anyone from Premiership even get close to winning it , they get pumped as soon as they meet real teams. They flatter during the protected group section and humped as soon as they meet any decent team. Your pathetic mention of Scottish teams shows what a cretin you are. Do you even realise who was first British Team to win the European cup since you seem to have an inferiority complex. I will give you a clue it was from a a very small country. Your premiership has lots of money , a bunch of overpaid fannies and xewnophobic cretins like you thinking they are "BIG" teams despite them getting humped year in and year out by the real big teams. Your teams are only there for their SKY money otherwise you would be in the diddy cups where you belong.
Yes you won it once 50 years ago this year as I mentioned, a year before the first English club won it and a decade before it was won 6 years in a row by English clubs.
As for when did anyone from a Premier League team get close to winning it ... well it was last won by one in 2012. Only Spanish and German clubs have won it since. It's been won 4 times by English clubs in the last two decades and had 5 runners up in that time too. More English clubs have won the European Cup than clubs from any other nation in the whole of UEFA.
Further to my suggestion of terms for the bet between Seant and williamglenn, I've tried to refine it further. Would the following be acceptable:
Brexit is the process of the UK withdrawing from its membership of the EU. It shall be complete when the following criteria are all met: 1. The UK government has served notice of its intention to withdraw from the EU under Article 50(2) of the TEU. 2. No revocation of the notification detailed in (1) shall have been given by the UK and accepted by the EU. 3. The exit date, as defined in Article 50(3) of the TEU, shall have passed i.e. at least one of the following sub-criteria shall have been met: a. Two years shall have elapsed from the notification in (1) without a withdrawal agreement as defined in Article 50(3) being agreed, or b. A withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK shall have been agreed and the date on which that agreement takes effect shall have passed. 4. No agreement shall have been reached by which the UK retains continuous membership of the EU at the conclusion of the withdrawal process, due to the UK agreeing a new membership with the EU to begin at the moment the old membership expires.
Which side of the bet would you rather be on btw ?
Question wasn't for me, but I wouldn't take it for end Dec 2019.
I think there's a chance a deal is struck to run to the end of the EU budget period in 2020. But, I do think May *must* be going into the next GE with a deal agreed and a way out confirmed.
No chance , it is only 2 extra for Europe so we will still be miles away.
So it will be for nations like Australia then.
More African and Asian countries probably.
Will be a tedious affair , extra weeks of meaningless dribble of some diddy teams getting humped and then a week of real football at the end. Will rake inmore cash though so the troughers in FIFA will be rubbing their hands.
We have 8 groups of 4 at the moment? Total matches = 8*6 = 48 16 groups of 3 becomes (I think) : 16 * 3 = 48
"I’ve learned over the years that ‘rational discussion’ accomplishes almost nothing in politics, particularly with people better educated than average. Most educated people are not set up to listen or change their minds about politics, however sensible they are in other fields. But I have also learned that when you say or write something, although it has roughly zero effect on powerful/prestigious people or the immediate course of any ‘debate’, you are throwing seeds into a wind and are often happily surprised. A few years ago I wrote something that was almost entirely ignored in SW1 but someone at Harvard I’d never met read it. This ended up having a decisive effect on the referendum."
As far as I can tell, being better educated just means you can give more sophisticated reasons as to why you are right, and to explain them more lucidly. In tandem, it creates a temptation to belittle those who disagree, because they are less educated, which then reinforces the perception that they themselves are not subject to groupthink or cognitive bias.
I'm not sure there are any "right" or "wrong" answers in politics. That sort of why it's called politics.
I think whatever the question Corbyn is the "wrong" answer.
Morning all. This morning's interview's seem somewhat 'brave' of Mr Corbyn, as Sir Humphrey might once have said.
Not half as brave as @williamglen though, in calling @SeanT's £10k bet. Hope he didn't have too much whisky last night, but at least one can say he is prepared to put his money where his mouth is! Good luck to the pair of you, PB at its finest
The ironic thing is that this is ultimately a smart and essential move from Labour. They are NEVER going to get a hearing from the voters until they talk sense on immigration.
Or public spending. Remember the audible gasp from the GE Question Time audience when Miliband answered 'No' to the question 'Do you think the last Labour government spent too much'?
Right now Labour is pro waste, pro unions, pro strikes, pro immigration, pro EU, pro nannying. It's not a winning hand.
When did anyone from Premiership even get close to winning it ,
EPL teams were finalists or champions in 2012, 2011, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 1999.
You probably get burned for witchcraft if you have a TV in Scotland so your ignorance on the matter is excusable and understandable.
LOL, 4 times in last 32 years for the supposed best league in the world kind of bursts your bubble. Is it any wonder you clowns think Britain is a world power.
Extraordinary enough to think we had a top rate of tax of 98% in the 60s (in one year I believe 103% - retrospectively)
It was 98% (including the unearned income surcharge) in the '70s as well. The highest income tax rate (until the Thatcher governments first budget) was 83%.
No chance , it is only 2 extra for Europe so we will still be miles away.
So it will be for nations like Australia then.
More African and Asian countries probably.
Will be a tedious affair , extra weeks of meaningless dribble of some diddy teams getting humped and then a week of real football at the end. Will rake inmore cash though so the troughers in FIFA will be rubbing their hands.
We have 8 groups of 4 at the moment? Total matches = 8*6 = 48 16 groups of 3 becomes (I think) : 16 * 3 = 48
Presumably this will be followed by a round of 32. So essentially they've turned the current tournament into a knock out competition with more extra time and penalties. An utter disgrace.
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn says pay cap wd restrain "ridiculous" salaries paid to some footballers and top executives
@PolhomeEditor: Jeremy Corbyn says Arsene Wenger would support a maximum wage cap for the Premier League.
Either Corbyn or Wenger would be wrong about that. A wage cap for the Premier League would see all top talent go overseas and we'd soon have no clubs able to compete in the Champions League. I don't think Wenger is that thick.
LOL, they get humped in the Champions League with all the foreign dross as it is. One thing Corbyn is right on they are a bunch of overpaid no-users.
There's a reason English football currently gets 4 clubs able to join the Champions League each year and it's not that they get humped. Winning the Champions League in Istanbul is my favourite club memory. The last and only time a Scottish club won the European Cup was 15 years before I was even born.
When did anyone from Premiership even get close to winning it , they get pumped as soon as they meet real teams. They flatter during the protected group section and humped as soon as they meet any decent team. Your pathetic mention of Scottish teams shows what a cretin you are. Do you even realise who was first British Team to win the European cup since you seem to have an inferiority complex. I will give you a clue it was from a a very small country. Your premiership has lots of money , a bunch of overpaid fannies and xewnophobic cretins like you thinking they are "BIG" teams despite them getting humped year in and year out by the real big teams. Your teams are only there for their SKY money otherwise you would be in the diddy cups where you belong.
Yes you won it once 50 years ago this year as I mentioned, a year before the first English club won it and a decade before it was won 6 years in a row by English clubs.
As for when did anyone from a Premier League team get close to winning it ... well it was last won by one in 2012. Only Spanish and German clubs have won it since. It's been won 4 times by English clubs in the last two decades and had 5 runners up in that time too. More English clubs have won the European Cup than clubs from any other nation in the whole of UEFA.
So facts aren't your friend.
4 times in 32 years you mean. Not exactly the "Best League in the World" and not something a sensible person would try to brag about. All that money and still struggle to keep up. Your living on past glories is fetching.
@MarqueeMark bet a gold sovereign with a poster who welched - what's the value of one of those?
£10k is serious cash. I've just loaned my brother £10k and don't expect to see it again - but he's in a fix and family.
Popular, friend of the mods @Neil managed to knock me for a couple of hundred quid
The only welcher (if someone endlessly twisting & turning & prevaricating over a small amount money counts) I've encountered, Aapropos of nothing, was a Libdem. I had 2 outstanding bets with tim, one of which I won and one which I lost, but he'd departed in disgust by then.
No chance , it is only 2 extra for Europe so we will still be miles away.
So it will be for nations like Australia then.
More African and Asian countries probably.
Will be a tedious affair , extra weeks of meaningless dribble of some diddy teams getting humped and then a week of real football at the end. Will rake inmore cash though so the troughers in FIFA will be rubbing their hands.
We have 8 groups of 4 at the moment? Total matches = 8*6 = 48 16 groups of 3 becomes (I think) : 16 * 3 = 48
Presumably this will be followed by a round of 32. So essentially they've turned the current tournament into a knock out competition with more extra time and penalties. An utter disgrace.
(added)
Of more importance is the psychological aspect. Playing in blocks of 4 with 2 to qualify meant you could lose one match. Playing in blocks of 3 means that if you lose a match then you are effectively out. Which means the first match of each group is going to be an ultra-defensive affair - and the side who doesn't play that match is going to have a serious advantage, in that they can work out whether it is OK to go for a draw or have to play for a win, before they play their 1st match.
No chance , it is only 2 extra for Europe so we will still be miles away.
The Scottish Government should mount a serious investigation into what has gone wrong with Scottish football over the past two or three decades. It is not the national side (which realistically was never up to much) or even the clubs' decline but where are the world class Scottish players -- the modern Denis Law or the Scottish Gareth Bale?
It is certainly not in good shape and producing few if any good players, but I believe it si a UK issue and would ask same question of England , all that money sloshing about and where is the talent, are there any world class English players , the English team is absolute crap. They are just Scotland with a more money, absolute crap but with bigger player pool and cash. Both countries were streets ahead of where they are now and both seem to have declined over the same period. Bosman is the only thing I can think of, been downhill for both ever since then.
No chance , it is only 2 extra for Europe so we will still be miles away.
So it will be for nations like Australia then.
More African and Asian countries probably.
Will be a tedious affair , extra weeks of meaningless dribble of some diddy teams getting humped and then a week of real football at the end. Will rake inmore cash though so the troughers in FIFA will be rubbing their hands.
We have 8 groups of 4 at the moment? Total matches = 8*6 = 48 16 groups of 3 becomes (I think) : 16 * 3 = 48
Presumably this will be followed by a round of 32. So essentially they've turned the current tournament into a knock out competition with more extra time and penalties. An utter disgrace.
(added)
Of more importance is the psychological aspect. Playing in blocks of 4 with 2 to qualify meant you could lose one match. Playing in blocks of 3 means that if you lose a match then you are effectively out. Which means the first match of each group is going to be an ultra-defensive affair - and the side who doesn't play that match is going to have a serious advantage, in that they can work out whether it is OK to go for a draw or have to play for a win, before they play their 1st match.
No, groups of 3, with 2 going through, means that if you win a match you are effectively through. The only exception being a relatively unlikely circular set of victories. So on balance you should see more attacking football in the groups. The problems will be dead third games, or teams contriving to deliberately finish 2nd for a preferred draw going forward.
No chance , it is only 2 extra for Europe so we will still be miles away.
So it will be for nations like Australia then.
More African and Asian countries probably.
Will be a tedious affair , extra weeks of meaningless dribble of some diddy teams getting humped and then a week of real football at the end. Will rake inmore cash though so the troughers in FIFA will be rubbing their hands.
We have 8 groups of 4 at the moment? Total matches = 8*6 = 48 16 groups of 3 becomes (I think) : 16 * 3 = 48
I stand corrected, however it will just be as boring as ever with one team per group instead of two going through. It is quantity over quality for the sake of it. Why not just dump qualifying and have them all play in the finals. It is a money making exercise just the same.
@MarqueeMark bet a gold sovereign with a poster who welched - what's the value of one of those?
£10k is serious cash. I've just loaned my brother £10k and don't expect to see it again - but he's in a fix and family.
"Can I borrow a tenner?"
He rang me up, engaged in pointless 'how are you' discussion for about 10mins and given this isn't really my sort of chitchat - I smelt a rat. Asked him what he was worried about - he finally confessed to being in a corner with the bank and sinking. Asked him how much he needed to fix it - he said £5k - that sounded like a lie given he hadn't told his wife the scale of it. After another 10 mins he said £10k would do it...
Now he's still too embarrassed to talk with me - we're rather too similar. He rang in desperation and now wants to ignore the whole exchange ever happened. Humans are funny things where pride is concerned.
I think I'll give him a call - just for the squirming entertainment - and find out how he's feeling. That'll take at least 30mins of pointless deflection to do...
Comments
I'm not sure there are any "right" or "wrong" answers in politics. That sort of why it's called politics.
Something in it for both Leavers and Remainers as long as you keep an open mind
The theory is that - if you sell products into the US - you will be responsible for paying the US government tax on the profit you make by that sale. And that tax will be levied at 35%. This tax will be levied on all goods and services sold into the US, not just on those that do not have free trade agreements with the US. (The reason it is structured like this is to try and avoid falling foul of existing treaty obligations.)
The biggest problem with the border income tax is "what is the profit on a particular item or service"? Is it based on the pre-tax profit rate of the corporation selling into the US? Or is it based on some estimate of the gross or operating profit of the particular product coming in?
Irrespective of which it is - and either adds massive complexity to the process of selling to the US, with out without a trade agreement - this is a massive move away from free trade.
£10k is serious cash. I've just loaned my brother £10k and don't expect to see it again - but he's in a fix and family.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, used to collect coins (not gold sovereigns, though...) but it'd depend on condition and age.
Would the leavers have us out the next world cup
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/audio-jeremy-corbyns-extraordinary-today-programme-interview/
You probably get burned for witchcraft if you have a TV in Scotland so your ignorance on the matter is excusable and understandable.
we are told travel broadens the mind, but equally it also confirms prejudices
I would describe myself as a genuine germanophile but that doesnt mean I cant see the big clumping faults in the german character
He says Farage would have lost 600k of middle class votes, but doesn't put a figure on how many working class voted he got to give a net +/-... people are always saying how Farage is never off the tv, yet somehow we are meant to simultaneously believe that him not being on TV was he reason Leave won.
In truth, I think it was precisely because there were two Leave campaigns, and that they could act as a pincer movement campaigning on different issues without being called hypocritical, that Leave reached so many people.
Enjoyed his write up very much, even though I don't agree with all his conclusions. I've long appreciated how shonky our cognitive mechanisms are, and how readily we fall victim to self-deception (his Feynman quote is one of my favourites, which clearly predisposes me to like his essay!).
As for when did anyone from a Premier League team get close to winning it ... well it was last won by one in 2012. Only Spanish and German clubs have won it since. It's been won 4 times by English clubs in the last two decades and had 5 runners up in that time too. More English clubs have won the European Cup than clubs from any other nation in the whole of UEFA.
So facts aren't your friend.
I think there's a chance a deal is struck to run to the end of the EU budget period in 2020. But, I do think May *must* be going into the next GE with a deal agreed and a way out confirmed.
Or she's toast.
16 groups of 3 becomes (I think) : 16 * 3 = 48
Not half as brave as @williamglen though, in calling @SeanT's £10k bet. Hope he didn't have too much whisky last night, but at least one can say he is prepared to put his money where his mouth is! Good luck to the pair of you, PB at its finest
Extraordinary enough to think we had a top rate of tax of 98% in the 60s (in one year I believe 103% - retrospectively)
General Election 97
Westminster voting intention
CON 31% [0]
LAB 48% [-2]
LD 16% [+1]
LAB lead +17 [-2]
ICM for the Guardian
(3-5/1)
NEW THREAD
Right now Labour is pro waste, pro unions, pro strikes, pro immigration, pro EU, pro nannying. It's not a winning hand.
Of more importance is the psychological aspect. Playing in blocks of 4 with 2 to qualify meant you could lose one match. Playing in blocks of 3 means that if you lose a match then you are effectively out. Which means the first match of each group is going to be an ultra-defensive affair - and the side who doesn't play that match is going to have a serious advantage, in that they can work out whether it is OK to go for a draw or have to play for a win, before they play their 1st match.
He rang me up, engaged in pointless 'how are you' discussion for about 10mins and given this isn't really my sort of chitchat - I smelt a rat. Asked him what he was worried about - he finally confessed to being in a corner with the bank and sinking. Asked him how much he needed to fix it - he said £5k - that sounded like a lie given he hadn't told his wife the scale of it. After another 10 mins he said £10k would do it...
Now he's still too embarrassed to talk with me - we're rather too similar. He rang in desperation and now wants to ignore the whole exchange ever happened. Humans are funny things where pride is concerned.
I think I'll give him a call - just for the squirming entertainment - and find out how he's feeling. That'll take at least 30mins of pointless deflection to do...
Dream on OGH