How many know the Government has allocated in excess of 500,000 million for this improved GP service
I think you may have added too many noughts to that.
* 500,000 million is half-a-trillion. That's 500,000,000,000, ie 5x10^11 * There are about 50,000 GPs in the UK, ie 5x 10^4 * So that's 10^7 each, that's £10 million each
So if your number is correct, the Government is planning to give each GP ten million quid each to work weekends.
Gosh Lib Dems now down to 9 -2 to win Stoke Central at William Hill.
They should win as long as they play the REMAIN card [ meaning Single Market ] hard.
The same in Copeland.
Backing the double for Labour in the two elections was my favourite bet so far, @ 31-10 too.
Copeland should be Labour with the right [ literally ] selection. That selection will not please me though.
Stoke is a gone-er as long as the Lib Dems stick to hard REMAIN. The opposition will be split three ways.
Stoke voted 69% Leave, the LDs have no chance there, if they won it Farron would be heading for number 10 with a landslide majority. For example the LDs got just 11% in Sleaford and Hykeham in an area which voted 62% Leave. It will be a Labour hold with a reduced majority. Copeland will be neck and neck between the Tories and Labour
60% of the 69% will vote for Con, UKIP or Labour. 9% of the Remain [ mostly Labour ] + the 31% will vote LD.
LD will get the Remain vote and the NOTA vote. They should not be ruled out in Copeland either.
The Tories will get some of the Remain and most of them will stick with Labour, there will be small leakage to the LDs at most. I was phoning in Copeland last week for 2 hours and got 1 LD the entire time. In both seats the LDs did worse than they did nationally at the general election and both areas also voted Leave, as was the case in Sleaford and Hykeham where they came third
Black_Rook said: ' We have already passed the point in this Parliament relative to which - when the election eventually occurred - a Labour Party in Opposition has ALWAYS polled lower. '
That is not ACTUALLY true! To take the 1987 - 1992 Parliament - there were polls in early 1991 giving Labour ratings of 34 and 32% - yet at the 1992 election they polled 35.2%. Going back to the 1959 - 1964 Parliament there were polls as late as October 1962 giving Labour a poll rating several points lower than achieved in October 1964.
I shall clarify: we have passed a particular point in the Parliament when the value that Labour achieves in the polls has always (in Opposition, and at any point in the last 50 years) proven to be higher than what they eventually score in the subsequent general election.
Their figures may have wobbled up and down in the intervening period, but the share ultimately achieved at the election itself is lower than at the critical point.
Suggests she is seeking a transition deal but obviously control of free movement requires ceasing full membership of the Single Market, better that the City realises that now rather than later
SpaceX have completed their primary mission and delivered ten Iridium satellites into orbit, and have also completed their secondary mission in successfully landing the first stage.
Woohoo!
Now they just need to refly a landed first stage - hopefully next month on SES-10.
It's good to see private industry replicating what state industries managed 60 years ago. Can we expect to see Elon Musk walking in Neil Armstrong's footsteps in another 12 years?
Only kidding. It is quite an achievement!
It is.
As for insanely rich madman Musk walking in Neil Armstrong's footsteps: nah. He wants to go to Mars, and sees the Moon as a distraction. Jeff Bezos is the insanely rich madman who wants to go to the Moon.
I'm so glad to be living through a bit if a resurgence in space. I remember trying to get as much information as possible on the DCX Clipper twenty years ago, and being devastated when it went kaboom and the project was cancelled.
The NHS findings really are a kick in the nuts for Labour.
More people agree than disagree that the Red Cross was right to describe the NHS was experiencing a humanitarian crisis (47% to 36%) but on who do they think would be better at managing the NHS winter crisis
Theresa May/Tories - 43%
Jeremy Corbyn/Labour - 31%
So a 12% lead for the Tories on the NHS.
I know I'm a tory supporter, but how the flying f*** are they not being hammered on the NHS?
Corbyn is utter shite.
One would hope that people are beginning to realise that the largest injection of money into the NHS came under Tone & Gordo and that we are still where we are.
I appreciate that there is a huge social care dimension to the state of the NHS atm but nevertheless, perhaps people realise that spunking money up the (ward) wall isn't always the answer.
Despite the constant negative stories on the NHS I do believe that people are beginning to question the constant demand for billions more and even if it is forthcoming how it is spent will be of most concern.
Sky reporting this morning big support for Theresa May on withholding funds on doctors not opening 8 - 8 - 7 days a week. How many know the Government has allocated in excess of 500,000 million for this improved GP service
There will be a big clamour to increase salaries but that will not address the massive increase in demand and you can bet that if Corbyn was given cart blanche it would go on salaries.
Gosh Lib Dems now down to 9 -2 to win Stoke Central at William Hill.
They should win as long as they play the REMAIN card [ meaning Single Market ] hard.
The same in Copeland.
Backing the double for Labour in the two elections was my favourite bet so far, @ 31-10 too.
Copeland should be Labour with the right [ literally ] selection. That selection will not please me though.
Stoke is a gone-er as long as the Lib Dems stick to hard REMAIN. The opposition will be split three ways.
Stoke voted 69% Leave, the LDs have no chance there, if they won it Farron would be heading for number 10 with a landslide majority. For example the LDs got just 11% in Sleaford and Hykeham in an area which voted 62% Leave. It will be a Labour hold with a reduced majority. Copeland will be neck and neck between the Tories and Labour
60% of the 69% will vote for Con, UKIP or Labour. 9% of the Remain [ mostly Labour ] + the 31% will vote LD.
LD will get the Remain vote and the NOTA vote. They should not be ruled out in Copeland either.
The Tories will get some of the Remain and most of them will stick with Labour, there will be small leakage to the LDs at most. I was phoning in Copeland last week for 2 hours and got 1 LD the entire time. In both seats the LDs did worse than they did nationally at the general election and both areas also voted Leave, as was the case in Sleaford and Hykeham where they came third
Note: funny how, in all the excitement about a local government ward, people seem to have banished Sleaford from their minds.
If the Leave/Remain divide is really so very, very important, then why should the Lib Dems win in Copeland from a low base, when they accumulated 11% from a low base in Sleaford?
If the Leave/Remain divide is really so very, very important, then why should the Lib Dems win in Copeland from a low base, when they accumulated 11% from a low base in Sleaford?
Possibly because they will have longer to campaign.
Gosh Lib Dems now down to 9 -2 to win Stoke Central at William Hill.
They should win as long as they play the REMAIN card [ meaning Single Market ] hard.
The same in Copeland.
Backing the double for Labour in the two elections was my favourite bet so far, @ 31-10 too.
Copeland should be Labour with the right [ literally ] selection. That selection will not please me though.
Stoke is a gone-er as long as the Lib Dems stick to hard REMAIN. The opposition will be split three ways.
Stoke voted 69% Leave, the LDs have no chance there, if they won it Farron would be heading for number 10 with a landslide majority. For example the LDs got just 11% in Sleaford and Hykeham in an area which voted 62% Leave. It will be a Labour hold with a reduced majority. Copeland will be neck and neck between the Tories and Labour
60% of the 69% will vote for Con, UKIP or Labour. 9% of the Remain [ mostly Labour ] + the 31% will vote LD.
LD will get the Remain vote and the NOTA vote. They should not be ruled out in Copeland either.
The Tories will get some of the Remain and most of them will stick with Labour, there will be small leakage to the LDs at most. I was phoning in Copeland last week for 2 hours and got 1 LD the entire time. In both seats the LDs did worse than they did nationally at the general election and both areas also voted Leave, as was the case in Sleaford and Hykeham where they came third
I agree with that.
Indeed, there is a danger of the LDs hyping up expectations in both seats to such an extent that if they fail to win or at least come second in Stoke and Copeland it will be seen as a blow to them.
To help us assess UKIP chances in Stoke, there are two by-elections coming up in Rotherham on Feb 2.
Two more failures like Sunderland last week and it points at defeat in the Potteries.
Think the same applies to labour. The Sunderland result was astonishing
The Sunderland result in the Sandill Ward was almost entirely down to the local councillor resigning due to non-attendance and a massive protest vote, the LDs were second in the ward in 2010, it was not a sign all Sunderland voters have suddenly swung in favour of free movement of workers http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8510&p=0&fsize=40kb&ftype=Results of Poll - Local Government Election on Thursday 6 May 2010.PDF
Thanks for the local knowledge - also wasn't turnout poor
How many know the Government has allocated in excess of 500,000 million for this improved GP service
I think you may have added too many noughts to that.
* 500,000 million is half-a-trillion. That's 500,000,000,000, ie 5x10^11 * There are about 50,000 GPs in the UK, ie 5x 10^4 * So that's 10^7 each, that's £10 million each
So if your number is correct, the Government is planning to give each GP ten million quid each to work weekends.
The figure was £500,000 - I do wonder if this hacking cough and cold I and my wife have had for the last 14 days is having an adverse effect on me
Are they any views as to the effects (political, economic or otherwise) if the government:
1) Got rid of the 45% tax 'encourage wealth creating entrepreneurs and the highly skilled'
2) Brought in a 100% tax on incomes over £1m 'fatcats and footballers'
Wage caps and wage ratios alike are, under most circumstances, a terrible idea, and it only takes the length of time that people take to really consider the implications to work out why. As you imply, it would kill the Premier League stone dead for starters: If ManU were made to stick to a 20:1 ratio then, based on Paul Pogba's reported salary, they'd have to pay every single member of their staff at least £14.5K a week. That is not realistic.
As with many other initiatives that aim for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, this has really serious negative consequences. Unless you are going to imprison the entire population within our borders like Cuba, these wage policies will do nothing to punish the wealthy, or stop people earning what Mr Corbyn considers to be an excessive wage, or whatever the Hell they are meant to achieve.
The market sets wage levels for high earners, and if they can't get the going rate in Britain they'll just emigrate and get it elsewhere. They get what they want anyway, the Treasury loses all their taxes, the country cuts its nose off to spite its face. It's ludicrous.
To help us assess UKIP chances in Stoke, there are two by-elections coming up in Rotherham on Feb 2.
Two more failures like Sunderland last week and it points at defeat in the Potteries.
Think the same applies to labour. The Sunderland result was astonishing
The Sunderland result in the Sandill Ward was almost entirely down to the local councillor resigning due to non-attendance and a massive protest vote, the LDs were second in the ward in 2010, it was not a sign all Sunderland voters have suddenly swung in favour of free movement of workers http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=8510&p=0&fsize=40kb&ftype=Results of Poll - Local Government Election on Thursday 6 May 2010.PDF
Thanks for the local knowledge - also wasn't turnout poor
Some etiolated sapling from the Spectator (James Forsythe?) has a column in the Saturday Sun[1] saying that they intend to leave the single market and the customs union. So sell everything with a pound sign on it.
[1] It's more fun than the weekday version. The weekday version has Kelvin McKenzie, Jane Moore and Rod Liddle, each doing their impression of an arse sucking a lemon. The Saturday version has Clarkson and The Lovely Lorraine Kelly and is much less Saw
Black_Rook said: ' We have already passed the point in this Parliament relative to which - when the election eventually occurred - a Labour Party in Opposition has ALWAYS polled lower. '
That is not ACTUALLY true! To take the 1987 - 1992 Parliament - there were polls in early 1991 giving Labour ratings of 34 and 32% - yet at the 1992 election they polled 35.2%. Going back to the 1959 - 1964 Parliament there were polls as late as October 1962 giving Labour a poll rating several points lower than achieved in October 1964.
I shall clarify: we have passed a particular point in the Parliament when the value that Labour achieves in the polls has always (in Opposition, and at any point in the last 50 years) proven to be higher than what they eventually score in the subsequent general election.
Their figures may have wobbled up and down in the intervening period, but the share ultimately achieved at the election itself is lower than at the critical point.
I have just given you examples which contradict that though - and maybe the article as well because journalists often have little idea when it comes to psephology. In the 1992 election Labour polled 35.2% in GB . There were polls in January and March 1991 giving Labour 34 and 32% respectively. Ergo Labour did poll higher in the April 1992 election than the level at which at least some polls were rating them just over a year earlier. I can add another example. In the Summer and Autumn of 1973 there were several polls giving Labour a lower vote share than actually achieved at the February 1974 election. Perhaps the article refers to 'Averages' - I have yet to read it.
Are they any views as to the effects (political, economic or otherwise) if the government:
1) Got rid of the 45% tax 'encourage wealth creating entrepreneurs and the highly skilled'
2) Brought in a 100% tax on incomes over £1m 'fatcats and footballers'
Wage caps and wage ratios alike are, under most circumstances, a terrible idea, and it only takes the length of time that people take to really consider the implications to work out why. As you imply, it would kill the Premier League stone dead for starters: If ManU were made to stick to a 20:1 ratio then, based on Paul Pogba's reported salary, they'd have to pay every single member of their staff at least £14.5K a week. That is not realistic.
As with many other initiatives that aim for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, this has really serious negative consequences. Unless you are going to imprison the entire population within our borders like Cuba, these wage policies will do nothing to punish the wealthy, or stop people earning what Mr Corbyn considers to be an excessive wage, or whatever the Hell they are meant to achieve.
The market sets wage levels for high earners, and if they can't get the going rate in Britain they'll just emigrate and get it elsewhere. They get what they want anyway, the Treasury loses all their taxes, the country cuts its nose off to spite its face. It's ludicrous.
The major effect would be to move all the high earning positions in companies abroad. It would be pretty much impossible to stop the company re-headquartering to Paris, say, while keeping it's lower level operations here.
A side note: When I was young, I was tutored in maths by the ex-head of maths at Rugby. He told me that back in the 70s/80s when there was talk of the Labour Party banning/closing all private schools, the French political machine (left, right and middle) had quietly sprung into action. They promised that (a) a cast iron law protecting private schools in France (b) charitable status enshrined in law. The only requirement - that French be the prime language of the school. As he put it - "They saw the chance to capture the leadership of Britain, and turn them into Frenchmen at heart."
Apparently some the leading private schools in this country still own land/properties they bought in case this would actually happen.
Think of all the jobs created - high skilled policemen, translators, prison guards, far-right website editors, anti-fascist protesters, talking heads on TV........
If the Leave/Remain divide is really so very, very important, then why should the Lib Dems win in Copeland from a low base, when they accumulated 11% from a low base in Sleaford?
Possibly because they will have longer to campaign.
There was little effort in Sleaford because of the Richmond Park election.
I don't think either are winnable, but second place is doable. I wouldn't divert too much effort from the council elections.
Good evening all. I attended a gather of the clan to celebrate my Mum's 80th. This involved me going North of the Trent.
I can report that Brexit has resulted in at least one couple not speaking (she a Brexiteer, he a Remoaner who considers the Freddo price increase an unequivocal evidence that it's all a disaster).
Nevertheless no remorse shown by all other Brexiteers present. The real surprise was my Mum (who used to be Labour through and through) stating that Theresa May is her favourite politician. It may be early evidence of senility, but she seems terribly taken with her ("so much better than The Snatcher").
Black_Rook said: ' We have already passed the point in this Parliament relative to which - when the election eventually occurred - a Labour Party in Opposition has ALWAYS polled lower. '
That is not ACTUALLY true! To take the 1987 - 1992 Parliament - there were polls in early 1991 giving Labour ratings of 34 and 32% - yet at the 1992 election they polled 35.2%. Going back to the 1959 - 1964 Parliament there were polls as late as October 1962 giving Labour a poll rating several points lower than achieved in October 1964.
I shall clarify: we have passed a particular point in the Parliament when the value that Labour achieves in the polls has always (in Opposition, and at any point in the last 50 years) proven to be higher than what they eventually score in the subsequent general election.
Their figures may have wobbled up and down in the intervening period, but the share ultimately achieved at the election itself is lower than at the critical point.
I have just given you examples which contradict that though - and maybe the article as well because journalists often have little idea when it comes to psephology. In the 1992 election Labour polled 35.2% in GB . There were polls in January and March 1991 giving Labour 34 and 32% respectively. Ergo Labour did poll higher in the April 1992 election than the level at which at least some polls were rating them just over a year earlier. I can add another example. In the Summer and Autumn of 1973 there were several polls giving Labour a lower vote share than actually achieved at the February 1974 election. Perhaps the article refers to 'Averages' - I have yet to read it.
None of the examples that you gave were from the point to which I, and the article, referred - eighteen months into the Parliament in question. They are from the year before the election.
The author of the NS article is a modern history professor who knows plenty about psephology.
Think of all the jobs created - high skilled policemen, translators, prison guards, far-right website editors, anti-fascist protesters, talking heads on TV........
When I was younger we used to take the piss out of old people who said "I remember when you could leave your front door open and no one would nick stuff from your house", thinking they were making it up... then it dawned on me they weren't, & how they must miss those days.
In a decade or so, youngsters will find it hard to believe us when we say you used to go around London and not see armed police
Think of all the jobs created - high skilled policemen, translators, prison guards, far-right website editors, anti-fascist protesters, talking heads on TV........
When I was younger we used to take the piss out of old people who said "I remember when you could leave your front door open and no one would nick stuff from your house", thinking they were making it up... then it dawned on me they weren't, & how they must miss those days.
In a decade or so, youngsters will find it hard to believe us when we say you used to go around London and not see armed police
Eventually all the police will be routinely armed, and we'll end up with the same torrent of nastiness as they have in the US - accusations of people being blown away by trigger happy cops, and that a disproportionate number of them are black and so all the police are racist, etc, etc.
This is entirely down to the threat of terrorism. However much we like to pretend that we won't let these people change our society, it's happening and it will keep on happening. Damn 'em.
I have now read that New Statesman article - or re-read it as it did come my way when published last November. At the time I found it to be very unsound and not very accurate historically. He was referring to the 19 month point of a Parliament and gave the example of Kinnock being 8 points adrift at that point.He totally ignored the fact that at the 20 month point there were four polls giving the Tories leads of between 10 and 13%. He also made no mention of big Tory leads chalked up in the early months of Majors Premiership. So again , from the 20 month point Labour's position did improve by April 1992 - which it lost by 7.6%. A much more persuasive analysis was alluded to in one of Keiren Pedley's Podcasts late last year, and made the point that - looking at the period since 1945 - whenever a party has enjoyed a really commanding poll lead, it has failed to be confirmed at the subsequent General Election.This applied to Labour's big leads leading up to the elections of 1966 and October 1974. It even applies to the Thatcher landslide of 1983 in that the Tory lead of just over 15% was significantly less than predicted by both the final polls and from the previous summer. As discussed above, the big lead the Tories had from mid-1987 to early 1989 was not reflected in the 1992 result. Again both Blair landslides fell well short of midterm poll predictions, and the big Labour leads of 2002 and 2003 narrowed to an advantage of just 3% at the 2005 election. So I really don't believe that O'Hara's New Statesman article rings true at all - but people have to judge the evidence for themselves and hopefully reach an objective conclusion!
Think of all the jobs created - high skilled policemen, translators, prison guards, far-right website editors, anti-fascist protesters, talking heads on TV........
When I was younger we used to take the piss out of old people who said "I remember when you could leave your front door open and no one would nick stuff from your house", thinking they were making it up... then it dawned on me they weren't, & how they must miss those days.
In a decade or so, youngsters will find it hard to believe us when we say you used to go around London and not see armed police
The thing is that the change was down to home grown scrotes. British crimes for British criminals....
Black_Rook said: ' We have already passed the point in this Parliament relative to which - when the election eventually occurred - a Labour Party in Opposition has ALWAYS polled lower. '
That is not ACTUALLY true! To take the 1987 - 1992 Parliament - there were polls in early 1991 giving Labour ratings of 34 and 32% - yet at the 1992 election they polled 35.2%. Going back to the 1959 - 1964 Parliament there were polls as late as October 1962 giving Labour a poll rating several points lower than achieved in October 1964.
I shall clarify: we have passed a particular point in the Parliament when the value that Labour achieves in the polls has always (in Opposition, and at any point in the last 50 years) proven to be higher than what they eventually score in the subsequent general election.
Their figures may have wobbled up and down in the intervening period, but the share ultimately achieved at the election itself is lower than at the critical point.
I have just given you examples which contradict that though - and maybe the article as well because journalists often have little idea when it comes to psephology. In the 1992 election Labour polled 35.2% in GB . There were polls in January and March 1991 giving Labour 34 and 32% respectively. Ergo Labour did poll higher in the April 1992 election than the level at which at least some polls were rating them just over a year earlier. I can add another example. In the Summer and Autumn of 1973 there were several polls giving Labour a lower vote share than actually achieved at the February 1974 election. Perhaps the article refers to 'Averages' - I have yet to read it.
None of the examples that you gave were from the point to which I, and the article, referred - eighteen months into the Parliament in question. They are from the year before the election.
The author of the NS article is a modern history professor who knows plenty about psephology.
Gosh Lib Dems now down to 9 -2 to win Stoke Central at William Hill.
They should win as long as they play the REMAIN card [ meaning Single Market ] hard.
The same in Copeland.
Backing the double for Labour in the two elections was my favourite bet so far, @ 31-10 too.
Is that still available? With Hills?
I think people are getting a bit carried away with the idea of the Chuck Norris Lib Dems.
More than a bit. Why anyone should think the Lib Dems have a realistic chance in Copeland is beyond me. All that favours them there over Sleaford is that the seat is next door to Farron's. Surely that's not enough to get them from 4% to the win in Copeland, when they only advanced from 6% to 11% in Sleaford?
Doesn't seem terribly likely in Stoke Central, either.
Gosh Lib Dems now down to 9 -2 to win Stoke Central at William Hill.
They should win as long as they play the REMAIN card [ meaning Single Market ] hard.
The same in Copeland.
Backing the double for Labour in the two elections was my favourite bet so far, @ 31-10 too.
Is that still available? With Hills?
I think people are getting a bit carried away with the idea of the Chuck Norris Lib Dems.
More than a bit. Why anyone should think the Lib Dems have a realistic chance in Copeland is beyond me. All that favours them there over Sleaford is that the seat is next door to Farron's. Surely that's not enough to get them from 4% to the win in Copeland, when they only advanced from 6% to 11% in Sleaford?
Doesn't seem terribly likely in Stoke Central, either.
Ordinarily I'd agree, but these are the days of miracles and wonder.
It tastes like a SuperTuscan, it tastes like a £30 Barossa shiraz, it has depth, fruit, power and finish, it has been in the world's top 100 wines 5 times over, and right now you can buy it for.... £9, from Ocado
Gosh Lib Dems now down to 9 -2 to win Stoke Central at William Hill.
They should win as long as they play the REMAIN card [ meaning Single Market ] hard.
The same in Copeland.
Backing the double for Labour in the two elections was my favourite bet so far, @ 31-10 too.
Is that still available? With Hills?
I think people are getting a bit carried away with the idea of the Chuck Norris Lib Dems.
More than a bit. Why anyone should think the Lib Dems have a realistic chance in Copeland is beyond me. All that favours them there over Sleaford is that the seat is next door to Farron's. Surely that's not enough to get them from 4% to the win in Copeland, when they only advanced from 6% to 11% in Sleaford?
Doesn't seem terribly likely in Stoke Central, either.
Ordinarily I'd agree, but these are the days of miracles and wonder.
Gosh Lib Dems now down to 9 -2 to win Stoke Central at William Hill.
They should win as long as they play the REMAIN card [ meaning Single Market ] hard.
The same in Copeland.
Backing the double for Labour in the two elections was my favourite bet so far, @ 31-10 too.
Is that still available? With Hills?
I think people are getting a bit carried away with the idea of the Chuck Norris Lib Dems.
More than a bit. Why anyone should think the Lib Dems have a realistic chance in Copeland is beyond me. All that favours them there over Sleaford is that the seat is next door to Farron's. Surely that's not enough to get them from 4% to the win in Copeland, when they only advanced from 6% to 11% in Sleaford?
Doesn't seem terribly likely in Stoke Central, either.
Ordinarily I'd agree, but these are the days of miracles and wonder.
And loose affiliations of millionaires and billionaires...
It tastes like a SuperTuscan, it tastes like a £30 Barossa shiraz, it has depth, fruit, power and finish, it has been in the world's top 100 wines 5 times over, and right now you can buy it for.... £9, from Ocado
Really. BUY THIS at that price. I just got a dozen. Gorgeous wine. Open it a few hours before you drink, ideally with steak, game, funky cheeses.
Here Endeth The Sermon.
Chilean wine is IMO the best value in the world.
I agree. And I've been to the Chilean winelands to see how they do it.
It is the new Australia. They have it all: western coasts facing intriguing microclimates, lots of bright, determined wine making people, cheap land, cheapish labour, no hang-ups.
They are now making great great wine.
If I'd tasted this wine blind I would have priced it at £20-£30. Apparently Tesco recently offered it for £6!
Want to know a way to annoy a lefty ?
After giving them some nice Chilean wine say that the Chilean wine industry wouldn't exist with Pinochet and that the Pinochet family are part owners of the brand they've just been drinking.
Gosh Lib Dems now down to 9 -2 to win Stoke Central at William Hill.
They should win as long as they play the REMAIN card [ meaning Single Market ] hard.
The same in Copeland.
Backing the double for Labour in the two elections was my favourite bet so far, @ 31-10 too.
Is that still available? With Hills?
I think people are getting a bit carried away with the idea of the Chuck Norris Lib Dems.
More than a bit. Why anyone should think the Lib Dems have a realistic chance in Copeland is beyond me. All that favours them there over Sleaford is that the seat is next door to Farron's. Surely that's not enough to get them from 4% to the win in Copeland, when they only advanced from 6% to 11% in Sleaford?
Doesn't seem terribly likely in Stoke Central, either.
Ordinarily I'd agree, but these are the days of miracles and wonder.
And loose affiliations of millionaires and billionaires...
It tastes like a SuperTuscan, it tastes like a £30 Barossa shiraz, it has depth, fruit, power and finish, it has been in the world's top 100 wines 5 times over, and right now you can buy it for.... £9, from Ocado
Really. BUY THIS at that price. I just got a dozen. Gorgeous wine. Open it a few hours before you drink, ideally with steak, game, funky cheeses.
Here Endeth The Sermon.
Chilean wine is IMO the best value in the world.
I agree. And I've been to the Chilean winelands to see how they do it.
It is the new Australia. They have it all: western coasts facing intriguing microclimates, lots of bright, determined wine making people, cheap land, cheapish labour, no hang-ups.
They are now making great great wine.
If I'd tasted this wine blind I would have priced it at £20-£30. Apparently Tesco recently offered it for £6!
Want to know a way to annoy a lefty ?
After giving them some nice Chilean wine say that the Chilean wine industry wouldn't exist with Pinochet and that the Pinochet family are part owners of the brand they've just been drinking.
To be honest, the lefties seem to be perfectly capable of annoying themselves. On my timeline it's handbags morning, noon and night.
Leaving the EU lock stock and barrel - Brexit means Brexit
It's better to resign from a job before you get fired. It's better to state that we're leaving the Single Market rather than the EU27 telling us to go fuck ourselves if we don't fully implement the Four Freedoms.
Wage caps and wage ratios alike are, under most circumstances, a terrible idea, and it only takes the length of time that people take to really consider the implications to work out why. As you imply, it would kill the Premier League stone dead for starters:
Mr Black Rock, are you trying to convert me to the Corbynite Labour cause?
Or in other words what will happen is the EU will offer some temporary fig leaf which will be spun as a concession and we'll remain in the single market.
Wage caps and wage ratios alike are, under most circumstances, a terrible idea, and it only takes the length of time that people take to really consider the implications to work out why. As you imply, it would kill the Premier League stone dead for starters:
Mr Black Rock, are you trying to convert me to the Corbynite Labour cause?
Leaving the EU lock stock and barrel - Brexit means Brexit
Looks like she meant what she said in July...
Defining moment for the Country and her political career - no more muddled thinking either
6 months and counting. Dither Dither Dither
Thought it was the end of march
Only a queen of dither with muddled thinking thrown in would require so long
Let me know when Labour can tell the difference between its arse and its elbow. That's its problem; May's Tories aren't very good, but compared to Labour they're Rolls Royce, and the country knows it.
I think she wants the GBP pain as front-loaded as possible. Buy your holiday currency sharpish ladies.
The Orwellian ability of some posters to forget what they posted last night is comic rather than chilling.
"We want hard Brexit. We have always wanted hard Brexit. Down with the Single Market!"
I'd hoped we'd join the EEA. I'm rather disappointed, and have eaten another slice of cake in protest. I might summon up the energy to climb on the outrage bus tomorrow.
Or in other words what will happen is the EU will offer some temporary fig leaf which will be spun as a concession and we'll remain in the single market.
No, the EU isn't in a position to do this. There'll be no special rules or exceptions. The UK will simply cease to be a member of the EU in 2 years and all that entails. Negotiators will be fully occupied just with preparing for this, let alone trying to negotiate any special trading arrangements.
It tastes like a SuperTuscan, it tastes like a £30 Barossa shiraz, it has depth, fruit, power and finish, it has been in the world's top 100 wines 5 times over, and right now you can buy it for.... £9, from Ocado
Really. BUY THIS at that price. I just got a dozen. Gorgeous wine. Open it a few hours before you drink, ideally with steak, game, funky cheeses.
Here Endeth The Sermon.
Chilean wine is IMO the best value in the world.
I agree. And I've been to the Chilean winelands to see how they do it.
It is the new Australia. They have it all: western coasts facing intriguing microclimates, lots of bright, determined wine making people, cheap land, cheapish labour, no hang-ups.
They are now making great great wine.
If I'd tasted this wine blind I would have priced it at £20-£30. Apparently Tesco recently offered it for £6!
Want to know a way to annoy a lefty ?
After giving them some nice Chilean wine say that the Chilean wine industry wouldn't exist with Pinochet and that the Pinochet family are part owners of the brand they've just been drinking.
The Chileans understand this. They are very very ambivalent about Pinochet. He's not the Hitler figure we perceive in the West. They realise without him they could be Venezuela.
The reason why Pinochet is hated by Western lefties is that he was successful. He was best compared to the leaders of South Korea, Taiwan etc rather than the standard Latin American dictators.
Latin America did not lack for military strong men and other dictators oppressing their people but who were given a free pass by leftwingers in the West.
who overthrew the democratically elected Peruvian government and installed himself as head of a military junta followed by the jailing of political opponents, the closure of newspapers and a massive military build-up.
This looks very much like a smokescreen, to enable/convince some soft Brexit-leaning voters to blame our departure on the EU being unreasonable, rather than the PM. In point of fact, given that May has already stated quite categorically that the "authority of EU law in Britain will end" - i.e. the UK will be removed from the jurisdiction of the ECJ - it's impossible to see how we could've remained fully engaged anyway.
It's simple logic, really, and has been obvious for months - hence the fact that the pound lost seven cents against the dollar in the period after the October 2nd conference speech, but is only off about one cent since the Sophy Ridge interview last Sunday. The markets know that this is coming, and have already priced it in.
(The pound will probably take another tumble this coming week now, just to spite me...)
Not what I wanted, not what the country voted for - and delivered by a PM without a mandate. The once Great Britain withdraws from the world and takes the Japanese option.
Or maybe it's going to be like Cuba since the 60's.
I recon our young smart people will just emigrate.
This is just stating directly what she's hinted at in every speech from the beginning. I still think it's fundamentally a negotiation bluff, and the market reaction will be very interesting to watch.
Not what I wanted, not what the country voted for - and delivered by a PM without a mandate.
The once Great Britain withdraws from the world.
We've gone all Japan.
Or maybe it's going to be like cuba since the 60's. Our young smart people will emigrate.
What a load of rubbish - the EU is not the rest of the world
We've seen evidence on this very thread of the EU's ability to open up trade with the wider world. Look at the price difference between here and the USA on that bottle of Shiraz. £9 or $30.
This is just stating directly what she's hinted at in every speech from the beginning. I still think it's fundamentally a negotiation bluff, and the market reaction will be very interesting to watch.
I think it's positioning as the article implies. We'd love to stay in the Single Market (the 'Have Cake, Eat Cake' gambit), but if FoM is truly non-negotiable, then we're prepared to, and will, leave it ('with heavy hearts due to EU27 intransigence').
This is just stating directly what she's hinted at in every speech from the beginning. I still think it's fundamentally a negotiation bluff, and the market reaction will be very interesting to watch.
I think it's positioning as the article implies. We'd love to stay in the Single Market (the 'Have Cake, Eat Cake' gambit), but if FoM is truly non-negotiable, then we're prepared to, and will, leave it ('with heavy hearts due to EU27 intransigence').
Indeed, the complete opposite of that muppet Cameron's negotiation 'tactics'.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-4120378/City-braced-turmoil-swings-pound-Theresa-s-single-market-exit.html
Their figures may have wobbled up and down in the intervening period, but the share ultimately achieved at the election itself is lower than at the critical point.
Further information here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/11/moment-when-labours-poll-rating-gets-lot-lot-worse
As for insanely rich madman Musk walking in Neil Armstrong's footsteps: nah. He wants to go to Mars, and sees the Moon as a distraction. Jeff Bezos is the insanely rich madman who wants to go to the Moon.
I'm so glad to be living through a bit if a resurgence in space. I remember trying to get as much information as possible on the DCX Clipper twenty years ago, and being devastated when it went kaboom and the project was cancelled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/820359250887274496
As with many other initiatives that aim for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, this has really serious negative consequences. Unless you are going to imprison the entire population within our borders like Cuba, these wage policies will do nothing to punish the wealthy, or stop people earning what Mr Corbyn considers to be an excessive wage, or whatever the Hell they are meant to achieve.
The market sets wage levels for high earners, and if they can't get the going rate in Britain they'll just emigrate and get it elsewhere. They get what they want anyway, the Treasury loses all their taxes, the country cuts its nose off to spite its face. It's ludicrous.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/820358492078960640
http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/committees/cmis5/Elections/tabid/63/ctl/ViewCandidates/mid/386/ID/135/Default.aspx
[1] It's more fun than the weekday version. The weekday version has Kelvin McKenzie, Jane Moore and Rod Liddle, each doing their impression of an arse sucking a lemon. The Saturday version has Clarkson and The Lovely Lorraine Kelly and is much less Saw
I can add another example. In the Summer and Autumn of 1973 there were several polls giving Labour a lower vote share than actually achieved at the February 1974 election. Perhaps the article refers to 'Averages' - I have yet to read it.
A side note: When I was young, I was tutored in maths by the ex-head of maths at Rugby. He told me that back in the 70s/80s when there was talk of the Labour Party banning/closing all private schools, the French political machine (left, right and middle) had quietly sprung into action. They promised that (a) a cast iron law protecting private schools in France (b) charitable status enshrined in law. The only requirement - that French be the prime language of the school. As he put it - "They saw the chance to capture the leadership of Britain, and turn them into Frenchmen at heart."
Apparently some the leading private schools in this country still own land/properties they bought in case this would actually happen.
I don't think either are winnable, but second place is doable. I wouldn't divert too much effort from the council elections.
I can report that Brexit has resulted in at least one couple not speaking (she a Brexiteer, he a Remoaner who considers the Freddo price increase an unequivocal evidence that it's all a disaster).
Nevertheless no remorse shown by all other Brexiteers present. The real surprise was my Mum (who used to be Labour through and through) stating that Theresa May is her favourite politician. It may be early evidence of senility, but she seems terribly taken with her ("so much better than The Snatcher").
The author of the NS article is a modern history professor who knows plenty about psephology.
In a decade or so, youngsters will find it hard to believe us when we say you used to go around London and not see armed police
This is entirely down to the threat of terrorism. However much we like to pretend that we won't let these people change our society, it's happening and it will keep on happening. Damn 'em.
A much more persuasive analysis was alluded to in one of Keiren Pedley's Podcasts late last year, and made the point that - looking at the period since 1945 - whenever a party has enjoyed a really commanding poll lead, it has failed to be confirmed at the subsequent General Election.This applied to Labour's big leads leading up to the elections of 1966 and October 1974. It even applies to the Thatcher landslide of 1983 in that the Tory lead of just over 15% was significantly less than predicted by both the final polls and from the previous summer. As discussed above, the big lead the Tories had from mid-1987 to early 1989 was not reflected in the 1992 result. Again both Blair landslides fell well short of midterm poll predictions, and the big Labour leads of 2002 and 2003 narrowed to an advantage of just 3% at the 2005 election.
So I really don't believe that O'Hara's New Statesman article rings true at all - but people have to judge the evidence for themselves and hopefully reach an objective conclusion!
I think people are getting a bit carried away with the idea of the Chuck Norris Lib Dems.
Doesn't seem terribly likely in Stoke Central, either.
After giving them some nice Chilean wine say that the Chilean wine industry wouldn't exist with Pinochet and that the Pinochet family are part owners of the brand they've just been drinking.
Definitive proof of how weak her position within the Party is...
However can anyone really say they did not expect this having listened to Theresa May since she became PM
I think she wants the GBP pain as front-loaded as possible. Buy your holiday currency sharpish ladies.
"We want hard Brexit. We have always wanted hard Brexit. Down with the Single Market!"
I mean we have all the best cards
This is why i voted BREXIT
BREXIT has started
Latin America did not lack for military strong men and other dictators oppressing their people but who were given a free pass by leftwingers in the West.
For example this general
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Velasco_Alvarado
who overthrew the democratically elected Peruvian government and installed himself as head of a military junta followed by the jailing of political opponents, the closure of newspapers and a massive military build-up.
Now what about those two bye elections in leave areas. Does this change the betting
This looks very much like a smokescreen, to enable/convince some soft Brexit-leaning voters to blame our departure on the EU being unreasonable, rather than the PM. In point of fact, given that May has already stated quite categorically that the "authority of EU law in Britain will end" - i.e. the UK will be removed from the jurisdiction of the ECJ - it's impossible to see how we could've remained fully engaged anyway.
It's simple logic, really, and has been obvious for months - hence the fact that the pound lost seven cents against the dollar in the period after the October 2nd conference speech, but is only off about one cent since the Sophy Ridge interview last Sunday. The markets know that this is coming, and have already priced it in.
(The pound will probably take another tumble this coming week now, just to spite me...)
REMAIN 48%
Discuss.
Or maybe it's going to be like Cuba since the 60's.
I recon our young smart people will just emigrate.
Bullshit, but she needs to keep the headbangers onside
Paying them with some of the £350 million per week no doubt.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/nhs-recruit-hundreds-gps-poland-lithuania-greece/amp/?client=ms-android-sonymobile
Non-EU = 165 (or 166 including the UK!)
2017 not so much but barricade them borders
Pause.
I wish I hadn't just thought of that...