Remarkable sound and fury from BBC, Sky, Business, the London Mayor, and the elite about the leaked immigration papers and a perfect example of how far they have moved away from public opinion outside their own circles.
The policies as reported today will have massive public support, and to be fair to the BBC they did admit to it, but the best part of it today is not a word from the labour party
Labour are wanting a ban on Football clubs having betting firms sponsored on their shirts .They say this is due to gambling been addictive.
TBF gambling addiction is a major social problem in the UK. Speaking as an occasional punter on a betting site!
Yes I am an occasional punter the same.I have seen the addiction close up.My best friend as teenager started on horse racing , but because of addiction lost his job as a police officer and over the years lost his house.He is now in his fifties still gambling .His mother was an alcoholic so might be a personality issue ,. I always thought .
Some of the research guys I talk to believe that addiction is a genetically driven disease - the form it takes is just a question of social norms/happenstance
Remarkable sound and fury from BBC, Sky, Business, the London Mayor, and the elite about the leaked immigration papers and a perfect example of how far they have moved away from public opinion outside their own circles.
The policies as reported today will have massive public support, and to be fair to the BBC they did admit to it, but the best part of it today is not a word from the labour party
Labour are wanting a ban on Football clubs having betting firms sponsored on their shirts .They say this is due to gambling been addictive.
TBF gambling addiction is a major social problem in the UK. Speaking as an occasional punter on a betting site!
Yes I am an .
Some of the research guys I talk to believe that addiction is a genetically driven disease - the form it takes is just a question of social norms/happenstance
Thanks Charles foxinsox .
You may find this an interesting read. Machines, games and tinternet are not accidentally addictive. They are designed that way:
They show every intention of doubling down on the identity politics campaign next time around, hoping that enough Deplorables will stay home to swing it for them.
Do they?
I suspect that the next Democratic nominee will be a Governor, either of a swing state, like John Hickenlooper, or of a big state like Andrew Cuomo.
We all suffer a little bit too much from recency bias here. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were big noises in the last couple of years, and so there's a tendency to think that will continue. But Bernie will be too old, and Elizabeth Warren will also be in her 70s by the time of the next election.
I don't see a lot of talent among the Democrat Senatorial contingent. Chuck Schumer, anyone?
Tom Wolf, PA.
Sending The Wolf in to clean up The Donald's mess?
Remarkable sound and fury from BBC, Sky, Business, the London Mayor, and the elite about the leaked immigration papers and a perfect example of how far they have moved away from public opinion outside their own circles.
The policies as reported today will have massive public support, and to be fair to the BBC they did admit to it, but the best part of it today is not a word from the labour party
Labour are wanting a ban on Football clubs having betting firms sponsored on their shirts .They say this is due to gambling been addictive.
TBF gambling addiction is a major social problem in the UK. Speaking as an occasional punter on a betting site!
It is indeed.
Capping FOBT at £1/minute would be a great policy.
£1/minute is slow. Even a fruit machine goes more than £1/minute.
£1 per spin/game would be better.
You can surprisingly burn through a lot of money at £1 a spin. I managed to build up a huge balance at an online bookie many years ago. Ended up messing around on a slot game and lost about £400 in a couple of hours.
I'm sorry but I have little sympathy with someone who loses £400 in a couple of hours. The issue with FOBT is that you could lose that much in minutes.
I spent a week in Vegas...and was more than happy on my first night on the slot machines to walk away with a 1.5 dollar profit....
Gambling is Orrible with a capital O....OK I gamble, on the betfair exchange on politics and the odd tenner on footie and tennis...
that said gambling is fucking corrosive and fucking profoundly awful for many human beings....It preys into our worst sensibilities.....
Many years ago (50+) I used to watch some members at the golf club pour huge amounts into the bandits and while they won from time to time they not only suffered considerable loses they became wholly addicted. It was as a result of seeing their obsession that I took the decision never to gamble, and I have never gambled or been tempted to
Remarkable sound and fury from BBC, Sky, Business, the London Mayor, and the elite about the leaked immigration papers and a perfect example of how far they have moved away from public opinion outside their own circles.
The policies as reported today will have massive public support, and to be fair to the BBC they did admit to it, but the best part of it today is not a word from the labour party
Labour are wanting a ban on Football clubs having betting firms sponsored on their shirts .They say this is due to gambling been addictive.
TBF gambling addiction is a major social problem in the UK. Speaking as an occasional punter on a betting site!
It is indeed.
Capping FOBT at £1/minute would be a great policy.
£1/minute is slow. Even a fruit machine goes more than £1/minute.
£1 per spin/game would be better.
You can surprisingly burn through a lot of money at £1 a spin. I managed to build up a huge balance at an online bookie many years ago. Ended up messing around on a slot game and lost about £400 in a couple of hours.
I'm sorry but I have little sympathy with someone who loses £400 in a couple of hours. The issue with FOBT is that you could lose that much in minutes.
I spent a week in Vegas...and was more than happy on my first night on the slot machines to walk away with a 1.5 dollar profit....
Gambling is Orrible with a capital O....OK I gamble, on the betfair exchange on politics and the odd tenner on footie and tennis...
that said gambling is fucking corrosive and fucking profoundly awful for many human beings....It preys into our worst sensibilities.....
Betweenhaving a rather addictive personality, alcoholics in the family and having seen the damage possible it is sobering to see the problems get into.
An occasional flutter or drink is good fun. It becomes an addiction when the habit does you or your family physical, psychological or economic harm.
I think at least a dozen Democrats are preparing for a run... some more seriously than others.
I'm not sure there's much to loose at this stage, and if lightning doesn't strike then they'll quietly withdraw. There is a real chance of one of the barely knowns making it ... it's just a matter of knowing which one (which is frankly impossible at this stage). The midterms should throw up some clues.
In 1992, a little known Governor of a Southern State got the nod. The next time a Democrat was facing a first term Republican, it was Senator John Kerry.
What, I think, counts against both Bernie and Warren is that they are North Easterners. The Democratic Party is pretty slow, but it has noticed that those kind of candidates get whipped in Presidential elections*.
Former Governors, on the other hand, seem to do quite well and accounted for both times the Democrats managed to remove a one term Republican.
I think at least a dozen Democrats are preparing for a run... some more seriously than others.
I'm not sure there's much to loose at this stage, and if lightning doesn't strike then they'll quietly withdraw. There is a real chance of one of the barely knowns making it ... it's just a matter of knowing which one (which is frankly impossible at this stage). The midterms should throw up some clues.
In 1992, a little known Governor of a Southern State got the nod. The next time a Democrat was facing a first term Republican, it was Senator John Kerry.
What, I think, counts against both Bernie and Warren is that they are North Easterners. The Democratic Party is pretty slow, but it has noticed that Senators from New England do tend to get whipped in Presidential elections.
Former Governors, on the other hand, seem to do quite well and accounted for both times the Democrats managed to remove a one term Republican.
Labour's ban gambling firms on football shirts is just a great example of stupid policy. There is a thing called the t'interweb, they will advertise on that etc etc etc.
However, I think the FOBT should have more reasonable caps on. Getting large amounts online to UK gambling sites isn't that easy...most have fairly low-ish initial caps, are normally pretty good on stopping you going bonkers* and if you want to get those limits raised to large amounts you have to normally go through various checks and balances.
However, going into the shops and pumping those machines daily is very easy, no checks, no shits given.
* and they are very good at stopping you if you are winning...
Did anyone here engage in bonus bagging back in the day when it was profitable? I made a pretty penny from that, but as a consequence I'm not sure I'm welcome back to many online casinos
I think at least a dozen Democrats are preparing for a run... some more seriously than others.
I'm not sure there's much to loose at this stage, and if lightning doesn't strike then they'll quietly withdraw. There is a real chance of one of the barely knowns making it ... it's just a matter of knowing which one (which is frankly impossible at this stage). The midterms should throw up some clues.
In 1992, a little known Governor of a Southern State got the nod. The next time a Democrat was facing a first term Republican, it was Senator John Kerry.
What, I think, counts against both Bernie and Warren is that they are North Easterners. The Democratic Party is pretty slow, but it has noticed that those kind of candidates get whipped in Presidential elections*.
Former Governors, on the other hand, seem to do quite well and accounted for both times the Democrats managed to remove a one term Republican.
* Clinton, Kerry, Dukakis...
No, they were patrician, entitled and arrogant North Easterns with small home states and limited appeal to the rust belt.
Did anyone here engage in bonus bagging back in the day when it was profitable? I made a pretty penny from that, but as a consequence I'm not sure I'm welcome back to many online casinos
The biggest earner for me back in the day was "rakeback" on poker sites. On some of the smaller sites in order to get the liquidity they gave some pros 100% of their rake back. Even those less special could get 50-75%. There were a significant number of people who didn't beat the games, but made £100k a year in the rakeback.
I personally know one guy who lost £60k playing in the games, but made £300k in rakeback in a single year.
Did anyone here engage in bonus bagging back in the day when it was profitable? I made a pretty penny from that, but as a consequence I'm not sure I'm welcome back to many online casinos
The biggest earner for me back in the day was "rakeback" on poker sites. On some of the smaller sites in order to get the liquidity they gave some pros 100% of their rake back. Even those less special could get 50-75%. There were a significant number of people who didn't beat the games, but made £100k a year in the rakeback.
Did anyone here engage in bonus bagging back in the day when it was profitable? I made a pretty penny from that, but as a consequence I'm not sure I'm welcome back to many online casinos
The biggest earner for me back in the day was "rakeback" on poker sites. On some of the smaller sites in order to get the liquidity they gave some pros 100% of their rake back. Even those less special could get 50-75%. There were a significant number of people who didn't beat the games, but made £100k a year in the rakeback.
Bugger me
This was until really recently too. On Pokerstars (the biggest site), if you made SuperNova Elite, it was worth around £100k a year in cash plus some tournament entries. The absolute sicko's on the site often make SuperNova Elite multiple times in a year.
I am not convinced they achieved this without the use of PEDs....
Did anyone here engage in bonus bagging back in the day when it was profitable? I made a pretty penny from that, but as a consequence I'm not sure I'm welcome back to many online casinos
The biggest earner for me back in the day was "rakeback" on poker sites. On some of the smaller sites in order to get the liquidity they gave some pros 100% of their rake back. Even those less special could get 50-75%. There were a significant number of people who didn't beat the games, but made £100k a year in the rakeback.
Bugger me
This was until really recently too. On Pokerstars (the biggest site), if you made SuperNova Elite, it was worth around £100k a year in cash plus some tournament entries. The absolute sicko's on the site often make SuperNova Elite multiple times in a year.
I am not convinced they achieved this without the use of PEDs....
Did anyone here engage in bonus bagging back in the day when it was profitable? I made a pretty penny from that, but as a consequence I'm not sure I'm welcome back to many online casinos
The biggest earner for me back in the day was "rakeback" on poker sites. On some of the smaller sites in order to get the liquidity they gave some pros 100% of their rake back. Even those less special could get 50-75%. There were a significant number of people who didn't beat the games, but made £100k a year in the rakeback.
Bugger me
This was until really recently too. On Pokerstars (the biggest site), if you made SuperNova Elite, it was worth around £100k a year in cash plus some tournament entries. The absolute sicko's on the site often make SuperNova Elite multiple times in a year.
I am not convinced they achieved this without the use of PEDs....
Poker enhancing drugs, I assume?
I here Adderall is one hell of a drug for those not suffering from ADHD....
Remarkable sound and fury from BBC, Sky, Business, the London Mayor, and the elite about the leaked immigration papers and a perfect example of how far they have moved away from public opinion outside their own circles.
The policies as reported today will have massive public support, and to be fair to the BBC they did admit to it, but the best part of it today is not a word from the labour party
Labour are wanting a ban on Football clubs having betting firms sponsored on their shirts .They say this is due to gambling been addictive.
TBF gambling addiction is a major social problem in the UK. Speaking as an occasional punter on a betting site!
It is indeed.
Capping FOBT at £1/minute would be a great policy.
£1/minute is slow. Even a fruit machine goes more than £1/minute.
£1 per spin/game would be better.
You can surprisingly burn through a lot of money at £1 a spin. I managed to build up a huge balance at an online bookie many years ago. Ended up messing around on a slot game and lost about £400 in a couple of hours.
I'm sorry but I have little sympathy with someone who loses £400 in a couple of hours. The issue with FOBT is that you could lose that much in minutes.
A few hours/minutes, it does not matter, very few people could afford to lose that on a regular basis.
If you're regularly spending a few hours gambling ... or regularly spending a couple of minutes gambling ... there is a massive difference.
The EU will risk heightening tensions with the UK on Brexit by publishing five combative position papers in the coming days, including one that places the onus on Britain to solve the problem of the Irish border, according to documents leaked to the Guardian.
The Irish document shows that Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, will call on the UK to work out “solutions” that avoid the creation of a hard border and guarantee peace on the island.
The leaks come a day after the Guardian obtained a draft memo showing the British government’s position on post-Brexit EU migration, which has been denounced as “completely confused”, “economically illiterate” and “a blueprint on how to strangle London’s economy”.
The Ireland paper is one of five due to be published by the European commission in the coming days. Each is dated 6 September and was drawn up by Barnier’s article 50 taskforce in Brussels.
Together, the papers lay bare the complexity of disentangling Britain from the European Union. Each paper is focused on withdrawal day, 29 March 2019, delving into technical minefields not aired during the referendum campaign.
EU proposals include:
A demand – likely to inflame Brexiters – for the UK to legislate for the “continued protection” of special foods such as Parma ham, feta cheese, as well as French burgundy and Spanish cava. Brussels wants to ensure that more than 3,300 food and drink products are protected from British copycats after Brexit.
Ensuring that any goods in transit on Brexit day would be subject to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice. In effect, British companies and the British government would be liable to fines from Brussels for breaking EU VAT and customs rules.
A warning to the government that it must guarantee EU data protection standards on classified EU documents. If not, the EU wants these documents erased or destroyed.
Asking Britain not to discriminate against EU companies which are carrying out state-funded infrastructure projects that began before Brexit day.
Taken together, the five papers reinforce the EU’s determination to focus exclusively on the Brexit divorce issues, spurning Brexit secretary David Davis’s offer to be more “flexible and imaginative” and move to trade.
The Irish border is the biggest conundrum caused by the vote to leave the European Union, a point underscored by Brussels’ acknowledgment that the Irish document is “different from other papers”.
I think at least a dozen Democrats are preparing for a run... some more seriously than others.
I'm not sure there's much to loose at this stage, and if lightning doesn't strike then they'll quietly withdraw. There is a real chance of one of the barely knowns making it ... it's just a matter of knowing which one (which is frankly impossible at this stage). The midterms should throw up some clues.
In 1992, a little known Governor of a Southern State got the nod. The next time a Democrat was facing a first term Republican, it was Senator John Kerry.
What, I think, counts against both Bernie and Warren is that they are North Easterners. The Democratic Party is pretty slow, but it has noticed that those kind of candidates get whipped in Presidential elections*.
Former Governors, on the other hand, seem to do quite well and accounted for both times the Democrats managed to remove a one term Republican.
Clinton only got the nod in 1992 as the Democrats desperately wanted to win having been out of the Oval Office for 12 years and lost 3 consecutive elections, he considered a run in 1988 but decided against.
As for North Easterners JFK and FDR were both northeasterners and won and Obama was culturally a northeasterner even if from Illinois (Trump himself is from the northeast).
The Irish document shows that Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, will call on the UK to work out “solutions” that avoid the creation of a hard border and guarantee peace on the island.
TMay will just have to talk nicely to her friends and allies in the DUP about a compromise to keep Northern Ireland in the EU customs union and single market.
The EU will risk heightening tensions with the UK on Brexit by publishing five combative position papers in the coming days, including one that places the onus on Britain to solve the problem of the Irish border, according to documents leaked to the Guardian.
The Irish document shows that Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, will call on the UK to work out “solutions” that avoid the creation of a hard border and guarantee peace on the island.
The leaks come a day after the Guardian obtained a draft memo showing the British government’s position on post-Brexit EU migration, which has been denounced as “completely confused”, “economically illiterate” and “a blueprint on how to strangle London’s economy”.
The Ireland paper is one of five due to be published by the European commission in the coming days. Each is dated 6 September and was drawn up by Barnier’s article 50 taskforce in Brussels.
Together, the papers lay bare the complexity of disentangling Britain from the European Union. Each paper is focused on withdrawal day, 29 March 2019, delving into technical minefields not aired during the referendum campaign.
EU proposals include:
A demand – likely to inflame Brexiters – for the UK to legislate for the “continued protection” of special foods such as Parma ham, feta cheese, as well as French burgundy and Spanish cava. Brussels wants to ensure that more than 3,300 food and drink products are protected from British copycats after Brexit.
Ensuring that any goods in transit on Brexit day would be subject to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice. In effect, British companies and the British government would be liable to fines from Brussels for breaking EU VAT and customs rules.
A warning to the government that it must guarantee EU data protection standards on classified EU documents. If not, the EU wants these documents erased or destroyed.
Asking Britain not to discriminate against EU companies which are carrying out state-funded infrastructure projects that began before Brexit day.
Taken together, the five papers reinforce the EU’s determination to focus exclusively on the Brexit divorce issues, spurning Brexit secretary David Davis’s offer to be more “flexible and imaginative” and move to trade.
The Irish border is the biggest conundrum caused by the vote to leave the European Union, a point underscored by Brussels’ acknowledgment that the Irish document is “different from other papers”.
They show every intention of doubling down on the identity politics campaign next time around, hoping that enough Deplorables will stay home to swing it for them.
Do they?
I suspect that the next Democratic nominee will be a Governor, either of a swing state, like John Hickenlooper, or of a big state like Andrew Cuomo.
We all suffer a little bit too much from recency bias here. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were big noises in the last couple of years, and so there's a tendency to think that will continue. But Bernie will be too old, and Elizabeth Warren will also be in her 70s by the time of the next election.
I don't see a lot of talent among the Democrat Senatorial contingent. Chuck Schumer, anyone?
It will be a populist left liberal either Sanders or Warren, probably the latter
After Hillary's defeat there is zero chance the Democrats will pick another centrist in 2020 and with polls showing Sanders and Warren beating Trump and the Democrats likely to pick up at least the House next year most will think 'why should we?'
Sanders and Warren comfortably lead the field in most early 2020 Democratic primary polls. Biden is ahead in a few but behind Sanders and Warren combined
While I agree it's likely to be someone from the populist wing of the Democratic party, you seem to forget how old Sanders and Warren will be. Both will be in their 70s, and Bernie will be pushing 80. The odds on either (or both) having some kind of medical issue is not insubstantial.
I also wouldn't forget "events". There is a little bit more than two years until the start of the next Democratic Primary season, and that's a lot of time for someone to shine. My money would be on a Governor, because after Trump demonstrating an ability to make government work is going to be a premium skill.
Trump will also be well in his 70s in 2020, Berlusconi may well be PM/Kingmaker of Italy next year in his 80s
A demand – likely to inflame Brexiters – for the UK to legislate for the “continued protection” of special foods such as Parma ham, feta cheese, as well as French burgundy and Spanish cava. Brussels wants to ensure that more than 3,300 food and drink products are protected from British copycats after Brexit. [snip]
Taken together, the five papers reinforce the EU’s determination to focus exclusively on the Brexit divorce issues, spurning Brexit secretary David Davis’s offer to be more “flexible and imaginative” and move to trade.
I'm not quite sure why Brexiteers should be inflamed by the suggestion that Parma ham should be Parma ham; surely one of the uncontroversially excellent achievements of the EU has been its success in preventing shysters from passing off rubbish as authentic products.
However, this is nothing to do with the divorce, is it? It's about the ongoing relationship. If our EU friends want continued recognition of EU-defined terms to be enshrined in UK law, that's great. We no doubt want reciprocal protection for Farmhouse Cheddar and Stilton. All part of the trade deal discussion.
I've just had a read through the leaked home office papers in full, on immigration. I recommend it, because they are quite an interesting read. From my own perspective, I have an EU spouse and although it seems like it is possible to apply for UK citizenship, we've decided not too because the application process is too vague and risky, and it would cost £2000+. We don't have that kind of money lying around. Given all the horror stories, we've decided to just wait and see what happens. In that regard, the paper actually provides reassurance, it simply indicates that not much will change, you just need to register with the authorities within 2 years of Brexit and that is pretty much that, you then get settled status, and as long as you don't commit a serious crime your right to remain here would be protected under UK law. Subject, of course, to future change.
I am not sure how much of this is dependent on a deal being struck with the EU on citizens rights. That is a bit of a worry. What if they don't strike a deal? Could get very messy.
The most interesting statistic in the paper is that net migration did not change from 1975 to the late 1990's. Consequently, immigration simply wasn't an issue at all for that time. Since then it has been increasing substantially. The EU rules on immigration are from another lifetime. The world is a totally different place to what it was in 1995. I voted Remain but totally understand this element of Brexit: if you can't control your borders then you ultimately lose control of the country you live in.
A warning to the government that it must guarantee EU data protection standards on classified EU documents. If not, the EU wants these documents erased or destroyed.
A demand – likely to inflame Brexiters – for the UK to legislate for the “continued protection” of special foods such as Parma ham, feta cheese, as well as French burgundy and Spanish cava. Brussels wants to ensure that more than 3,300 food and drink products are protected from British copycats after Brexit. [snip]
Taken together, the five papers reinforce the EU’s determination to focus exclusively on the Brexit divorce issues, spurning Brexit secretary David Davis’s offer to be more “flexible and imaginative” and move to trade.
I'm not quite sure why Brexiteers should be inflamed by the suggestion that Parma ham should be Parma ham; surely one of the uncontroversially excellent achievements of the EU has been its success in preventing shysters from passing off rubbish as authentic products.
However, this is nothing to do with the divorce, is it? It's about the ongoing relationship. If our EU friends want continued recognition of EU-defined terms to be enshrined in UK law, that's great. We no doubt want reciprocal protection for Farmhouse Cheddar and Stilton. All part of the trade deal discussion.
That has to be a trade issue - maybe they are seeing sense
I think at least a dozen Democrats are preparing for a run... some more seriously than others.
I'm not sure there's much to loose at this stage, and if lightning doesn't strike then they'll quietly withdraw. There is a real chance of one of the barely knowns making it ... it's just a matter of knowing which one (which is frankly impossible at this stage). The midterms should throw up some clues.
In 1992, a little known Governor of a Southern State got the nod. The next time a Democrat was facing a first term Republican, it was Senator John Kerry.
What, I think, counts against both Bernie and Warren is that they are North Easterners. The Democratic Party is pretty slow, but it has noticed that those kind of candidates get whipped in Presidential elections*.
Former Governors, on the other hand, seem to do quite well and accounted for both times the Democrats managed to remove a one term Republican.
Clinton only got the nod in 1992 as the Democrats desperately wanted to win having been out of the Oval Office for 12 years and lost 3 consecutive elections, he considered a run in 1988 but decided against.
As for North Easterners JFK and FDR were both northeasterners and won and Obama was culturally a northeasterner even if from Illinois (Trump himself is from the northeast).
Dukakis of course was a governor and lost
Let me tell you a secret: primary polls less than a year from the last US Presidential election have essentially zero predictive power. They measure name recognition.
Do you think that in the middle of 1973 that Governor Carter was favourite for the Democratic nomination? And in early 1985, the favourite for the Democratic nomination would certainly not have been Michael Dukakis. Four years later, Bill Clinton would have been far from the favourite candidate.
Looking more recently, in the immediate aftermath of Kerry's defeat to Bush, the favourites for the 2008 Democratic nomination would have been Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, not the recently elected Senator for Illinois.
They show every intention of doubling down on the identity politics campaign next time around, hoping that enough Deplorables will stay home to swing it for them.
Do they?
I suspect that the next Democratic nominee will be a Governor, either of a swing state, like John Hickenlooper, or of a big state like Andrew Cuomo.
We all suffer a little bit too much from recency bias here. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were big noises in the last couple of years, and so there's a tendency to think that will continue. But Bernie will be too old, and Elizabeth Warren will also be in her 70s by the time of the next election.
I don't see a lot of talent among the Democrat Senatorial contingent. Chuck Schumer, anyone?
It will be a populist left liberal either Sanders or Warren, probably the latter
After Hillary's defeat there is zero chance the Democrats will pick another centrist in 2020 and with polls showing Sanders and Warren beating Trump and the Democrats likely to pick up at least the House next year most will think 'why should we?'
Sanders and Warren comfortably lead the field in most early 2020 Democratic primary polls. Biden is ahead in a few but behind Sanders and Warren combined
While I agree it's likely to be someone from the populist wing of the Democratic party, you seem to forget how old Sanders and Warren will be. Both will be in their 70s, and Bernie will be pushing 80. The odds on either (or both) having some kind of medical issue is not insubstantial.
I also wouldn't forget "events". There is a little bit more than two years until the start of the next Democratic Primary season, and that's a lot of time for someone to shine. My money would be on a Governor, because after Trump demonstrating an ability to make government work is going to be a premium skill.
Trump will also be well in his 70s in 2020, Berlusconi may well be PM/Kingmaker of Italy next year in his 80s
No way will Matteo Salvini allow Berlusconi to take the PM role. Re Trump, who knows?
A demand – likely to inflame Brexiters – for the UK to legislate for the “continued protection” of special foods such as Parma ham, feta cheese, as well as French burgundy and Spanish cava. Brussels wants to ensure that more than 3,300 food and drink products are protected from British copycats after Brexit. [snip]
Taken together, the five papers reinforce the EU’s determination to focus exclusively on the Brexit divorce issues, spurning Brexit secretary David Davis’s offer to be more “flexible and imaginative” and move to trade.
I'm not quite sure why Brexiteers should be inflamed by the suggestion that Parma ham should be Parma ham; surely one of the uncontroversially excellent achievements of the EU has been its success in preventing shysters from passing off rubbish as authentic products.
However, this is nothing to do with the divorce, is it? It's about the ongoing relationship. If our EU friends want continued recognition of EU-defined terms to be enshrined in UK law, that's great. We no doubt want reciprocal protection for Farmhouse Cheddar and Stilton. All part of the trade deal discussion.
If a product is authentic but made slightly outside a boundary then why should it not be named what it authentically is?
Stilton is a good example. The cheese made in the village of Stilton that the cheese was named after now can't be sold as Stilton because the village is now in the wrong county! Does that make sense?
If a product is authentic but made slightly outside a boundary then why should it not be named what it authentically is?
Stilton is a good example. The cheese made in the village of Stilton that the cheese was named after now can't be sold as Stilton because the village is now in the wrong county! Does that make sense?
The details of regulations can be changed, frequently are, and are determined locally. The key point is that you don't get some dreadful factory-made Danish Blue passed off as Stilton. Hurrah for that! It's basically just making old-fashioned passing-off illegal.
In fact, we could do with more of it. Product descriptions should be accurate. My number one gripe in this field is supermarkets passing off bullet-hard unripe peaches as 'Perfectly ripe'. Jail is too good for them (and for the peaches).
Did anyone here engage in bonus bagging back in the day when it was profitable? I made a pretty penny from that, but as a consequence I'm not sure I'm welcome back to many online casinos
Yes. It was extremely profitable. Some of the bonuses were rediculous with non-existent play through requirements.
I used a private forum where lots of "interesting" techniques were discussed. It was fun whilst it lasted.
While Saturday afternoon in Glasgow was lovely, got soaked four days in a row in different places!
Sunday - boat ride on Loch Lomond, then in Glasgow Monday - Edinburgh Tuesday - South Queensferry, but luckily was much sunnier during a boat trip in the Forth later in the day Wednesday - Ayr
Anyway, rail routes added to my "collection":
Carlisle to Glasgow Central Glasgow Charing Cross to Balloch Glasgow Subway (started at St Enoch) Glasgow Charing Cross to Edinburgh (via Airdrie) Edinburgh Tram (York Place to Airport) Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street (via Falkirk High). Glasgow Central to Ayr
May and Rudd, both staunch Remainers in the referendum, have reservations about the new immigration policy, not that surprising
I think you mean Green and Rudd.
If Theresa May's deputy won't support her policies, then just who will?
Can you state your evidence that Theresa May supports the Guardian's leaked document
Did you not see her at PMQs when Ian Blackford raised the subject.
She backs that leaked document.
Yes and she backs controlled immigration as does most of the population but to say she supports the contents of a leaked 82 page document is, with respect, nonsense
They show every intention of doubling down on the identity politics campaign next time around, hoping that enough Deplorables will stay home to swing it for them.
Do they?
I suspect that the next Democratic nominee will be a Governor, either of a swing state, like John Hickenlooper, or of a big state like Andrew Cuomo.
We all suffer a little bit too much from recency bias here. Bernie and Elizabeth Warren were big noises in the last couple of years, and so there's a tendency to think that will continue. But Bernie will be too old, and Elizabeth Warren will also be in her 70s by the time of the next election.
I don't see a lot of talent among the Democrat Senatorial contingent. Chuck Schumer, anyone?
It will be a populist left liberal either Sanders or Warren, probably the latter
After Hillary's defeat there is zero chance the Democrats will pick another centrist in 2020 and with polls showing Sanders and Warren beating Trump and the Democrats likely to pick up at least the House next year most will think 'why should we?'
Sanders and Warren comfortably lead the field in most early 2020 Democratic primary polls. Biden is ahead in a few but behind Sanders and Warren combined
While I agree it's likely to be someone from the populist wing of the Democratic party, you seem to forget how old Sanders and Warren will be. Both will be in their 70s, and Bernie will be pushing 80. The odds on either (or both) having some kind of medical issue is not insubstantial.
I also wouldn't forget "events". There is a little bit more than two years until the start of the next Democratic Primary season, and that's a lot of time for someone to shine. My money would be on a Governor, because after Trump demonstrating an ability to make government work is going to be a premium skill.
Trump will also be well in his 70s in 2020, Berlusconi may well be PM/Kingmaker of Italy next year in his 80s
No way will Matteo Salvini allow Berlusconi to take the PM role. Re Trump, who knows?
Perhaps but neither he nor Grillo can likely become PM without Berlusconi's support
May and Rudd, both staunch Remainers in the referendum, have reservations about the new immigration policy, not that surprising
I think you mean Green and Rudd.
If Theresa May's deputy won't support her policies, then just who will?
Damian Green is wetter than a lettuce, his reservations are no surprise but 17 million voted Leave in large part to reduce immigration whether we like it or not
I think at least a dozen Democrats are preparing for a run... some more seriously than others.
I'm not sure there's much to loose at this stage, and if lightning doesn't strike then they'll quietly withdraw. There is a real chance of one of the barely knowns making it ... it's just a matter of knowing which one (which is frankly impossible at this stage). The midterms should throw up some clues.
In 1992, a little known Governor of a Southern State got the nod. The next time a Democrat was facing a first term Republican, it was Senator John Kerry.
What, I think, counts against both Bernie and Warren is that they are North Easterners. The Democratic Party is pretty slow, but it has noticed that those kind of candidates get whipped in Presidential elections*.
Former Governors, on the other hand, seem to do quite well and accounted for both times the Democrats managed to remove a one term Republican.
Clinton only got the nod in 1992 as the Democrats desperately wanted to win having been out of the Oval Office for 12 years and lost 3 consecutive elections, he considered a run in 1988 but decided against.
As for North Easterners JFK and FDR were both northeasterners and won and Obama was culturally a northeasterner even if from Illinois (Trump himself is from the northeast).
Dukakis of course was a governor and lost
Let me tell you a secret: primary polls less than a year from the last US Presidential election have essentially zero predictive power. They measure name recognition.
Do you think that in the middle of 1973 that Governor Carter was favourite for the Democratic nomination? And in early 1985, the favourite for the Democratic nomination would certainly not have been Michael Dukakis. Four years later, Bill Clinton would have been far from the favourite candidate.
Looking more recently, in the immediate aftermath of Kerry's defeat to Bush, the favourites for the 2008 Democratic nomination would have been Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, not the recently elected Senator for Illinois.
They accurately predicted Hillary would win the 2016 Democratic nomination and Romney the 2012 Republican nomination and George W Bush and Al Gore the 2000 nominations even that early but nonetheless of even more importance they show the desire within the base for a populist left liberal candidate.
Carter was running after 8 years of his party in opposition
While Saturday afternoon in Glasgow was lovely, got soaked four days in a row in different places!
Sunday - boat ride on Loch Lomond, then in Glasgow Monday - Edinburgh Tuesday - South Queensferry, but luckily was much sunnier during a boat trip in the Forth later in the day Wednesday - Ayr
Anyway, rail routes added to my "collection":
Carlisle to Glasgow Central Glasgow Charing Cross to Balloch Glasgow Subway (started at St Enoch) Glasgow Charing Cross to Edinburgh (via Airdrie) Edinburgh Tram (York Place to Airport) Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street (via Falkirk High). Glasgow Central to Ayr
Can I ask what you actually do on these journeys - look out of window, read book, plan further journeys, post on pb, or just close eyes and bliss out at the general traininess of the experience?
Can I ask what you actually do on these journeys - look out of window, read book, plan further journeys, post on pb, or just close eyes and bliss out at the general traininess of the experience?
Comes up with gems such as this:
"Comrades, this is your Leadership Candidate. It is an honour to speak to you today, and I am honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our motherland's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The Conservative Party. For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations! Well, they will tremble again — at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!
"Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential. They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Havana, where the sun is warm, and so is the... Comradeship!
While Saturday afternoon in Glasgow was lovely, got soaked four days in a row in different places!
Sunday - boat ride on Loch Lomond, then in Glasgow Monday - Edinburgh Tuesday - South Queensferry, but luckily was much sunnier during a boat trip in the Forth later in the day Wednesday - Ayr
Anyway, rail routes added to my "collection":
Carlisle to Glasgow Central Glasgow Charing Cross to Balloch Glasgow Subway (started at St Enoch) Glasgow Charing Cross to Edinburgh (via Airdrie) Edinburgh Tram (York Place to Airport) Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street (via Falkirk High). Glasgow Central to Ayr
Sunil, have you done the Swanage branch? They've just reconnected it to the main Waterloo-Weymouth line again, at Wareham, this summer....
A demand – likely to inflame Brexiters – for the UK to legislate for the “continued protection” of special foods such as Parma ham, feta cheese, as well as French burgundy and Spanish cava. Brussels wants to ensure that more than 3,300 food and drink products are protected from British copycats after Brexit. [snip]
Taken together, the five papers reinforce the EU’s determination to focus exclusively on the Brexit divorce issues, spurning Brexit secretary David Davis’s offer to be more “flexible and imaginative” and move to trade.
I'm not quite sure why Brexiteers should be inflamed by the suggestion that Parma ham should be Parma ham; surely one of the uncontroversially excellent achievements of the EU has been its success in preventing shysters from passing off rubbish as authentic products.
However, this is nothing to do with the divorce, is it? It's about the ongoing relationship. If our EU friends want continued recognition of EU-defined terms to be enshrined in UK law, that's great. We no doubt want reciprocal protection for Farmhouse Cheddar and Stilton. All part of the trade deal discussion.
If a product is authentic but made slightly outside a boundary then why should it not be named what it authentically is?
Stilton is a good example. The cheese made in the village of Stilton that the cheese was named after now can't be sold as Stilton because the village is now in the wrong county! Does that make sense?
I believe that Stilton has always been made in East Leics and Rutland. Quenby Hall in Hungarton may well be the first producer.
It was marketed at the village of Stilton as that village is about the half way point on the Great North Road between York and London, so picking up a lot of passing trade.
Quenby Hall Stilton is rather lovely, but I think has now ceased production.
I am thinking that fundamentalist Catholicism is a bit too much like fundamentalist Islam, but that it is much more permissable to criticise the Catholics.
A demand – likely to inflame Brexiters – for the UK to legislate for the “continued protection” of special foods such as Parma ham, feta cheese, as well as French burgundy and Spanish cava. Brussels wants to ensure that more than 3,300 food and drink products are protected from British copycats after Brexit. [snip]
Taken together, the five papers reinforce the EU’s determination to focus exclusively on the Brexit divorce issues, spurning Brexit secretary David Davis’s offer to be more “flexible and imaginative” and move to trade.
I'm not quite sure why Brexiteers should be inflamed by the suggestion that Parma ham should be Parma ham; surely one of the uncontroversially excellent achievements of the EU has been its success in preventing shysters from passing off rubbish as authentic products.
However, this is nothing to do with the divorce, is it? It's about the ongoing relationship. If our EU friends want continued recognition of EU-defined terms to be enshrined in UK law, that's great. We no doubt want reciprocal protection for Farmhouse Cheddar and Stilton. All part of the trade deal discussion.
Cherry-picking is the phrase you're looking for, I believe.
I am thinking that fundamentalist Catholicism is a bit too much like fundamentalist Islam, but that it is much more permissable to criticise the Catholics.
No, it isn't - in response to the first part of your sentence, which is why the second half is correct. Catholics don't generally go round threatening to behead those who attack them. Nor did the founder of Christianity. "Turning the other cheek" was the advice, something Islam would be well advised to copy, frankly.
Catholics believe that life starts at conception and that abortion is, therefore, the deliberate taking of life, which is contrary to one of the 10 Commandments. So it is perfectly normal Catholic teaching to say that, given your starting premise, abortion should not be permitted. If the foetus is a human being with a soul, why should the mode of its conception justify its killing?
Of course, if you don't accept the starting premise, then this all seems very odd. And the argument moves onto when the destruction of the foetus should be permitted in the interests of the mother.
But whatever your view or religion or none, two verities surely remain:-
1. At some point the foetus becomes capable of life and maybe also capable of pain and at some point between conception and birth we, as a society, decide that abortion is no longer permissible. So even those who are not Catholics accept there is no umlimited right to destroy a life or a potential life.
2. Balancing the rights of a woman and the unborn child is a difficult task, weighted with moral seriousness, at whatever point in the spectrum between conception and birth we are. The removal of a foetus is more serious - morally - than the removal of a tooth or kidney or mole. Trite phrases like "It's my body" are just that, trite, when you are contemplating action against another growing life/potential life inside you. Do it if you must but don't diminish the importance of what you are doing.
And, finally, tolerance does not just mean tolerating views we agree with. A person can believe that abortion is wrong but is just as entitled to be PM as anyone else provide they are willing to abide by the views of the majority. Otherwise we are developing a fundamentally intolerant society where only one "received" opinion is permitted in public life.
That is, to me, far more dangerous than one MP expressing the standard social teaching of his faith.
I am thinking that fundamentalist Catholicism is a bit too much like fundamentalist Islam, but that it is much more permissable to criticise the Catholics.
Makese sense. Catholics tend not to blow you and children up if you criticise them.
A well-put post. Just worth pointing out that not everybody in society accepts that there should be limits on abortion before birth (that the woman's rights to bodily autonomy should be a trump card)... and that some medical ethicists argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. ...
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the foetus and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
Two considerations need to be added.
First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.
I suspect traditional Catholics would not be alone in feeling uncomfortable (at the very least) with such opinions - and within our lifetime it's certainly something one can imagine being implemented in the more "progressive countries" - but it shows just how divergent opinions about ethics and morality can be, particularly in a largely post-religious society.
Incidentally, another area of difference is in approaches to adoption: the authors of that article argue strongly that "adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people" and so a fit healthy child whose parents do not want, or are unable to (e.g. for legal or economic reasons) to keep them should be terminated rather than sent for adoption, with no strict upper age limit as it depends on their stage of development - moral status only being conferred once a psychologist has established the infant has developed "personhood". Whereas Catholics, among others, see a great social value in adoption.
(Something else @Cyclefree mentioned concerned sensation of pain being commonly used as an indication that the embryo has developed so far that abortion has become medically questionable. The authors have a response to that too.
An infant or embryo may have the ability to feel pain, but this only confers the right not to have pain inflicted. The deprivation of life, on the other hand, is only to be considered harmful to a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her so presumably even infants a couple of years old but who lack self-awareness are fair game. If they have mere "potential" personhood, then their moral status is the same as an embryo. And if social services get involved with a young family or the cash runs out, it seems there is a case that terminating the children may be better than sending them for adoption, since it may be less traumatic: those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible.)
No, it isn't - in response to the first part of your sentence, which is why the second half is correct. Catholics don't generally go round threatening to behead those who attack them. Nor did the founder of Christianity. "Turning the other cheek" was the advice, something Islam would be well advised to copy, frankly. snipped - apologies if I have got this wrong
Miss Cyclefree, this is why I continue to visit PB.COM. As amusing (or boring) as it is with the spats between the left and right, Brexiteers and Remainers etc. etc, we see comments of intellectual thought and persuasion such as you have posted above.
I watched the interview and I have to say it was, like so many interviews. The interviewers were more interested in skewering the interviewee than actually hearing what his answers were to their questions.
No doubt there will be headlines such as "JRM wants to take away women's rights to have an abortion" but he didn't say that. He simply stated his beliefs but pointed out that on matters such as this, Parliament would have a free vote and he also thought that, whilst his moral conscience would vote one way he fully expected to lose.
Personally I don't have a strong belief on this particular issue. However, I do object strongly to the entrapment of our politicians, of whatever stripe (and if I could underline that I would), by the media as it does not serve the purpose of a news channel
They accurately predicted Hillary would win the 2016 Democratic nomination and Romney the 2012 Republican nomination and George W Bush and Al Gore the 2000 nominations even that early but nonetheless of even more importance they show the desire within the base for a populist left liberal candidate.
Carter was running after 8 years of his party in opposition
When sitting Vice Presidents stand, they almost always get the nomination, whether for the Republicans or the Democrats, on this we both agree.
Looking at the Democrats, the favourite from four years before won the nomination in 2016. And that's about it. But let's run the numbers shall we:
2016: yes (Clinton) 2008: no (Obama) 2004: no (Kerry) 1992: no (Clinton) 1988: no (Dukakis) 1984: possibly (Mondale) 1976: no (Carter)
Now, could Elizabeth Warren end up as the Democratic nominee? Of course she could. She should probably even be favourite. But she shouldn't be more than a 20% chance or so. And Bernie should be about 5% given he'll be pushing 80.
They accurately predicted Hillary would win the 2016 Democratic nomination and Romney the 2012 Republican nomination and George W Bush and Al Gore the 2000 nominations even that early but nonetheless of even more importance they show the desire within the base for a populist left liberal candidate.
Carter was running after 8 years of his party in opposition
When sitting Vice Presidents stand, they almost always get the nomination, whether for the Republicans or the Democrats, on this we both agree.
Looking at the Democrats, the favourite from four years before won the nomination in 2016. And that's about it. In the last eight times when there has not been a sitting VP or President, there is exactly once that the favourite has won.
Now, could Elizabeth Warren end up as the Democratic nominee? Of course she could. She should probably even be favourite. But she probably shouldn't be more than a 20% chance or so. And Bernie should be about 5% given he'll be pushing 80.
Don't know if you saw my responses on US bread last night, but Wegman's sourdough is passable, and if you are near San Francisco, you have Tartine, with truly excellent bread
They accurately predicted Hillary would win the 2016 Democratic nomination and Romney the 2012 Republican nomination and George W Bush and Al Gore the 2000 nominations even that early but nonetheless of even more importance they show the desire within the base for a populist left liberal candidate.
Carter was running after 8 years of his party in opposition
When sitting Vice Presidents stand, they almost always get the nomination, whether for the Republicans or the Democrats, on this we both agree.
Looking at the Democrats, the favourite from four years before won the nomination in 2016. And that's about it. In the last eight times when there has not been a sitting VP or President, there is exactly once that the favourite has won.
Now, could Elizabeth Warren end up as the Democratic nominee? Of course she could. She should probably even be favourite. But she probably shouldn't be more than a 20% chance or so. And Bernie should be about 5% given he'll be pushing 80.
Don't know if you saw my responses on US bread last night, but Wegman's sourdough is passable, and if you are near San Francisco, you have Tartine, with truly excellent bread
Remarkable sound and fury from BBC, Sky, Business, the London Mayor, and the elite about the leaked immigration papers and a perfect example of how far they have moved away from public opinion outside their own circles.
The policies as reported today will have massive public support, and to be fair to the BBC they did admit to it, but the best part of it today is not a word from the labour party
Labour are wanting a ban on Football clubs having betting firms sponsored on their shirts .They say this is due to gambling been addictive.
TBF gambling addiction is a major social problem in the UK. Speaking as an occasional punter on a betting site!
It is indeed.
Capping FOBT at £1/minute would be a great policy.
£1/minute is slow. Even a fruit machine goes more than £1/minute.
£1 per spin/game would be better.
You can surprisingly burn through a lot of money at £1 a spin. I managed to build up a huge balance at an online bookie many years ago. Ended up messing around on a slot game and lost about £400 in a couple of hours.
I'm sorry but I have little sympathy with someone who loses £400 in a couple of hours. The issue with FOBT is that you could lose that much in minutes.
I spent a week in Vegas...and was more than happy on my first night on the slot machines to walk away with a 1.5 dollar profit....
Gambling is Orrible with a capital O....OK I gamble, on the betfair exchange on politics and the odd tenner on footie and tennis...
that said gambling is fucking corrosive and fucking profoundly awful for many human beings....It preys into our worst sensibilities.....
Many years ago (50+) I used to watch some members at the golf club pour huge amounts into the bandits and while they won from time to time they not only suffered considerable loses they became wholly addicted. It was as a result of seeing their obsession that I took the decision never to gamble, and I have never gambled or been tempted to
As a student 20 tears ago I worked the bar in a golf club with the high-jackpot machine in the corner. Let’s just say that watching the machine 12 hours a day and noting the payouts was a useful indicator when it came to deciding when to play it
I suppose we shall soon find out how trade with Germany will go - Nissan announcing it intends to source in the UK, Aston Martin sourcing stuff from Japan, new missile development and fighter plane development UK in discussion with Japan too...
The UK hasn't designed and built a new military fast jet without European or US collaboration for 45 years. Japan hasn't done it ever. A new UK/Japanese combat aircraft is a Gundam fantasy.
Aston Martin's new models (DB11, new Vantage) are dependent on Mercedes for powertrains and electronics. They have pivoted toward European suppliers not away.
I suppose we shall soon find out how trade with Germany will go - Nissan announcing it intends to source in the UK, Aston Martin sourcing stuff from Japan, new missile development and fighter plane development UK in discussion with Japan too...
The UK hasn't designed and built a new military fast jet without European or US collaboration for 45 years. Japan hasn't done it ever. A new UK/Japanese combat aircraft is a Gundam fantasy.
Aston Martin's new models (DB11, new Vantage) are dependent on Mercedes for powertrains and electronics. They have pivoted toward European suppliers not away.
I suppose we shall soon find out how trade with Germany will go - Nissan announcing it intends to source in the UK, Aston Martin sourcing stuff from Japan, new missile development and fighter plane development UK in discussion with Japan too...
The UK hasn't designed and built a new military fast jet without European or US collaboration for 45 years. Japan hasn't done it ever. A new UK/Japanese combat aircraft is a Gundam fantasy.
Aston Martin's new models (DB11, new Vantage) are dependent on Mercedes for powertrains and electronics. They have pivoted toward European suppliers not away.
I suppose we shall soon find out how trade with Germany will go - Nissan announcing it intends to source in the UK, Aston Martin sourcing stuff from Japan, new missile development and fighter plane development UK in discussion with Japan too...
The UK hasn't designed and built a new military fast jet without European or US collaboration for 45 years. Japan hasn't done it ever. A new UK/Japanese combat aircraft is a Gundam fantasy.
Aston Martin's new models (DB11, new Vantage) are dependent on Mercedes for powertrains and electronics. They have pivoted toward European suppliers not away.
taranis
A single, unarmed UAS prototype that's flown round in circles in Australia for 25 minutes doesn't really count.
Taranis had been folded into the FOAS program with the Dassault Neuron so that's now an Anglo-French project. Not that it's ever going to produce anything worthwhile...
Dura_Ace - its no good blinking at it, no more piloted fast jets, the autonomous ai drone is the way things are going.
I'm not blinking at it and UAS is the way forward. Although I do recall being told at the start of my military career in the 80s that we'd see the end of manned aircraft before we retired and that never happened.
I was pointing out that your counter-example of Taranis does not demonstrate any autochthonous British capability in military aircraft production as a) it's a single prototype that doesn't really do anything and b) it's now part of a European collaboration as going it alone was too hard and expensive.
I don't think there is much value in european cooperation in aircraft now. the french withdraw as soon as enough of the design has been done to make their own way. the germans always promise to take so many deliveries so they can get a high workshare but then renege. the eurofighter has been plauged with german opposition to further development. the a400m much the same.
I don't think there is much value in european cooperation in aircraft now. the french withdraw as soon as enough of the design has been done to make their own way. the germans always promise to take so many deliveries so they can get a high workshare but then renege. the eurofighter has been plauged with german opposition to further development. the a400m much the same.
The co-operation makes sense in theory, economies of scale are useful for something so complex. In practice though, everyone wants something slightly different, and the project ends up being late and over budget as well as bogged down in the politics of it all. Not that buying off the shelf is often any better (hello F35B!), these modern planes are just too complicated to design and produce.
Talking of mil jets, the BAE/RAF marketing team have ten red Hawks doing a tour of the sandpit countries next week trying to drum up some business. I might have to dust off the zoom lens and go take a look!
I think the conventional wisdom may be wrong. I believe that North Korea may have the capability today to successfully conduct a nuclear attack on the United States. I believe that the conventional wisdom may be based on a fundamental mistake of logic: Just because North Korea has not yet demonstrated a capability does not mean it does not have it.
Dura_Ace - its no good blinking at it, no more piloted fast jets, the autonomous ai drone is the way things are going.
I'm not blinking at it and UAS is the way forward. Although I do recall being told at the start of my military career in the 80s that we'd see the end of manned aircraft before we retired and that never happened.
I was pointing out that your counter-example of Taranis does not demonstrate any autochthonous British capability in military aircraft production as a) it's a single prototype that doesn't really do anything and b) it's now part of a European collaboration as going it alone was too hard and expensive.
Universities who pay their vice-chancellors more than £150,000 a year could be fined if they are unable to justify “exceptional” salaries to the regulatory authority, the government is to say....
Among the measures being introduced is a requirement that any university that pays its vice-chancellor in excess of £150,000 a year should have to justify that salary as part of their condition of registration. If an institution is unable to so, the OfS could impose a fine.
They (ECA) are an Anglo-Dutch company, run by a former Dutch F15 pilot. They have raised a ridiculous amount of cash, and have been flying tests in Wales.
Universities who pay their vice-chancellors more than £150,000 a year could be fined if they are unable to justify “exceptional” salaries to the regulatory authority, the government is to say....
Among the measures being introduced is a requirement that any university that pays its vice-chancellor in excess of £150,000 a year should have to justify that salary as part of their condition of registration. If an institution is unable to so, the OfS could impose a fine.
They accurately predicted Hillary would win the 2016 Democratic nomination and Romney the 2012 Republican nomination and George W Bush and Al Gore the 2000 nominations even that early but nonetheless of even more importance they show the desire within the base for a populist left liberal candidate.
Carter was running after 8 years of his party in opposition
When sitting Vice Presidents stand, they almost always get the nomination, whether for the Republicans or the Democrats, on this we both agree.
Looking at the Democrats, the favourite from four years before won the nomination in 2016. And that's about it. But let's run the numbers shall we:
2016: yes (Clinton) 2008: no (Obama) 2004: no (Kerry) 1992: no (Clinton) 1988: no (Dukakis) 1984: possibly (Mondale) 1976: no (Carter)
Now, could Elizabeth Warren end up as the Democratic nominee? Of course she could. She should probably even be favourite. But she shouldn't be more than a 20% chance or so. And Bernie should be about 5% given he'll be pushing 80.
On current polls the favourite is Bernie Sanders rather than Elizabeth Warren which may help her on the outsider score
Kerry in 2004 was certainly in the mix early on pre 2004 and especially once Gore said he would not run again as Sanders may well do too
Comments
http://adamalterauthor.com/irresistible/
An occasional flutter or drink is good fun. It becomes an addiction when the habit does you or your family physical, psychological or economic harm.
As such, I ration my bets.
What, I think, counts against both Bernie and Warren is that they are North Easterners. The Democratic Party is pretty slow, but it has noticed that those kind of candidates get whipped in Presidential elections*.
Former Governors, on the other hand, seem to do quite well and accounted for both times the Democrats managed to remove a one term Republican.
* Clinton, Kerry, Dukakis...
However, I think the FOBT should have more reasonable caps on. Getting large amounts online to UK gambling sites isn't that easy...most have fairly low-ish initial caps, are normally pretty good on stopping you going bonkers* and if you want to get those limits raised to large amounts you have to normally go through various checks and balances.
However, going into the shops and pumping those machines daily is very easy, no checks, no shits given.
* and they are very good at stopping you if you are winning...
I personally know one guy who lost £60k playing in the games, but made £300k in rakeback in a single year.
I am not convinced they achieved this without the use of PEDs....
All plastic should be banned throughout the UK within 5 years
The Irish document shows that Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, will call on the UK to work out “solutions” that avoid the creation of a hard border and guarantee peace on the island.
The leaks come a day after the Guardian obtained a draft memo showing the British government’s position on post-Brexit EU migration, which has been denounced as “completely confused”, “economically illiterate” and “a blueprint on how to strangle London’s economy”.
The Ireland paper is one of five due to be published by the European commission in the coming days. Each is dated 6 September and was drawn up by Barnier’s article 50 taskforce in Brussels.
Together, the papers lay bare the complexity of disentangling Britain from the European Union. Each paper is focused on withdrawal day, 29 March 2019, delving into technical minefields not aired during the referendum campaign.
EU proposals include:
A demand – likely to inflame Brexiters – for the UK to legislate for the “continued protection” of special foods such as Parma ham, feta cheese, as well as French burgundy and Spanish cava. Brussels wants to ensure that more than 3,300 food and drink products are protected from British copycats after Brexit.
Ensuring that any goods in transit on Brexit day would be subject to the jurisdiction of the
European court of justice. In effect, British companies and the British government would be liable to fines from Brussels for breaking EU VAT and customs rules.
A warning to the government that it must guarantee EU data protection standards on classified EU documents. If not, the EU wants these documents erased or destroyed.
Asking Britain not to discriminate against EU companies which are carrying out state-funded infrastructure projects that began before Brexit day.
Taken together, the five papers reinforce the EU’s determination to focus exclusively on the Brexit divorce issues, spurning Brexit secretary David Davis’s offer to be more “flexible and imaginative” and move to trade.
The Irish border is the biggest conundrum caused by the vote to leave the European Union, a point underscored by Brussels’ acknowledgment that the Irish document is “different from other papers”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/06/britain-must-solve-problem-of-irish-border-post-brexit-say-leaked-eu-papers
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2017/sanders_still_democrats_choice_for_2020_but_it_s_close
Clinton only got the nod in 1992 as the Democrats desperately wanted to win having been out of the Oval Office for 12 years and lost 3 consecutive elections, he considered a run in 1988 but decided against.
As for North Easterners JFK and FDR were both northeasterners and won and Obama was culturally a northeasterner even if from Illinois (Trump himself is from the northeast).
Dukakis of course was a governor and lost
Having said that their requests do not seem too much of a problem but the trade impasse will have to be broken to get to the financial settlement
Isn't a Golden Shower a type of rose?
No liquid involved
However, this is nothing to do with the divorce, is it? It's about the ongoing relationship. If our EU friends want continued recognition of EU-defined terms to be enshrined in UK law, that's great. We no doubt want reciprocal protection for Farmhouse Cheddar and Stilton. All part of the trade deal discussion.
I'm worried...
If Theresa May's deputy won't support her policies, then just who will?
I've just had a read through the leaked home office papers in full, on immigration. I recommend it, because they are quite an interesting read. From my own perspective, I have an EU spouse and although it seems like it is possible to apply for UK citizenship, we've decided not too because the application process is too vague and risky, and it would cost £2000+. We don't have that kind of money lying around. Given all the horror stories, we've decided to just wait and see what happens. In that regard, the paper actually provides reassurance, it simply indicates that not much will change, you just need to register with the authorities within 2 years of Brexit and that is pretty much that, you then get settled status, and as long as you don't commit a serious crime your right to remain here would be protected under UK law. Subject, of course, to future change.
I am not sure how much of this is dependent on a deal being struck with the EU on citizens rights. That is a bit of a worry. What if they don't strike a deal? Could get very messy.
The most interesting statistic in the paper is that net migration did not change from 1975 to the late 1990's. Consequently, immigration simply wasn't an issue at all for that time. Since then it has been increasing substantially. The EU rules on immigration are from another lifetime. The world is a totally different place to what it was in 1995. I voted Remain but totally understand this element of Brexit: if you can't control your borders then you ultimately lose control of the country you live in.
LOL! Wonder what they're trying to hide?
Do you think that in the middle of 1973 that Governor Carter was favourite for the Democratic nomination? And in early 1985, the favourite for the Democratic nomination would certainly not have been Michael Dukakis. Four years later, Bill Clinton would have been far from the favourite candidate.
Looking more recently, in the immediate aftermath of Kerry's defeat to Bush, the favourites for the 2008 Democratic nomination would have been Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, not the recently elected Senator for Illinois.
Time to take the Nobel prize back from her
Stilton is a good example. The cheese made in the village of Stilton that the cheese was named after now can't be sold as Stilton because the village is now in the wrong county! Does that make sense?
She backs that leaked document.
In fact, we could do with more of it. Product descriptions should be accurate. My number one gripe in this field is supermarkets passing off bullet-hard unripe peaches as 'Perfectly ripe'. Jail is too good for them (and for the peaches).
I used a private forum where lots of "interesting" techniques were discussed. It was fun whilst it lasted.
While Saturday afternoon in Glasgow was lovely, got soaked four days in a row in different places!
Sunday - boat ride on Loch Lomond, then in Glasgow
Monday - Edinburgh
Tuesday - South Queensferry, but luckily was much sunnier during a boat trip in the Forth later in the day
Wednesday - Ayr
Anyway, rail routes added to my "collection":
Carlisle to Glasgow Central
Glasgow Charing Cross to Balloch
Glasgow Subway (started at St Enoch)
Glasgow Charing Cross to Edinburgh (via Airdrie)
Edinburgh Tram (York Place to Airport)
Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street (via Falkirk High).
Glasgow Central to Ayr
Carter was running after 8 years of his party in opposition
"Comrades, this is your Leadership Candidate. It is an honour to speak to you today, and I am honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our motherland's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The Conservative Party. For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations! Well, they will tremble again — at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!
"Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential. They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Havana, where the sun is warm, and so is the... Comradeship!
"A great day, Comrades! We sail into history!"
It was marketed at the village of Stilton as that village is about the half way point on the Great North Road between York and London, so picking up a lot of passing trade.
Quenby Hall Stilton is rather lovely, but I think has now ceased production.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6WC_BVZ4Q
https://twitter.com/NHC_Atlantic/status/905513042116521989
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
Catholics believe that life starts at conception and that abortion is, therefore, the deliberate taking of life, which is contrary to one of the 10 Commandments. So it is perfectly normal Catholic teaching to say that, given your starting premise, abortion should not be permitted. If the foetus is a human being with a soul, why should the mode of its conception justify its killing?
Of course, if you don't accept the starting premise, then this all seems very odd. And the argument moves onto when the destruction of the foetus should be permitted in the interests of the mother.
But whatever your view or religion or none, two verities surely remain:-
1. At some point the foetus becomes capable of life and maybe also capable of pain and at some point between conception and birth we, as a society, decide that abortion is no longer permissible. So even those who are not Catholics accept there is no umlimited right to destroy a life or a potential life.
2. Balancing the rights of a woman and the unborn child is a difficult task, weighted with moral seriousness, at whatever point in the spectrum between conception and birth we are. The removal of a foetus is more serious - morally - than the removal of a tooth or kidney or mole. Trite phrases like "It's my body" are just that, trite, when you are contemplating action against another growing life/potential life inside you. Do it if you must but don't diminish the importance of what you are doing.
And, finally, tolerance does not just mean tolerating views we agree with. A person can believe that abortion is wrong but is just as entitled to be PM as anyone else provide they are willing to abide by the views of the majority. Otherwise we are developing a fundamentally intolerant society where only one "received" opinion is permitted in public life.
That is, to me, far more dangerous than one MP expressing the standard social teaching of his faith.
A well-put post. Just worth pointing out that not everybody in society accepts that there should be limits on abortion before birth (that the woman's rights to bodily autonomy should be a trump card)... and that some medical ethicists argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. ...
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the foetus and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
Two considerations need to be added.
First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.
Giubilini, A. and Minerva, F., 2013. After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?. Journal of medical ethics, 39(5), pp.261-263.
I suspect traditional Catholics would not be alone in feeling uncomfortable (at the very least) with such opinions - and within our lifetime it's certainly something one can imagine being implemented in the more "progressive countries" - but it shows just how divergent opinions about ethics and morality can be, particularly in a largely post-religious society.
An infant or embryo may have the ability to feel pain, but this only confers the right not to have pain inflicted. The deprivation of life, on the other hand, is only to be considered harmful to a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her so presumably even infants a couple of years old but who lack self-awareness are fair game. If they have mere "potential" personhood, then their moral status is the same as an embryo. And if social services get involved with a young family or the cash runs out, it seems there is a case that terminating the children may be better than sending them for adoption, since it may be less traumatic: those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible.)
Looking at the Democrats, the favourite from four years before won the nomination in 2016. And that's about it. But let's run the numbers shall we:
2016: yes (Clinton)
2008: no (Obama)
2004: no (Kerry)
1992: no (Clinton)
1988: no (Dukakis)
1984: possibly (Mondale)
1976: no (Carter)
Now, could Elizabeth Warren end up as the Democratic nominee? Of course she could. She should probably even be favourite. But she shouldn't be more than a 20% chance or so. And Bernie should be about 5% given he'll be pushing 80.
http://www.tartinebakery.com
Unfortunately (from a bread perspective), I'm in LA rather than San Fran. I will source Wegman's.
Aston Martin's new models (DB11, new Vantage) are dependent on Mercedes for powertrains and electronics. They have pivoted toward European suppliers not away.
Taranis had been folded into the FOAS program with the Dassault Neuron so that's now an Anglo-French project. Not that it's ever going to produce anything worthwhile...
I was pointing out that your counter-example of Taranis does not demonstrate any autochthonous British capability in military aircraft production as a) it's a single prototype that doesn't really do anything and b) it's now part of a European collaboration as going it alone was too hard and expensive.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/905362048669888512
Talking of mil jets, the BAE/RAF marketing team have ten red Hawks doing a tour of the sandpit countries next week trying to drum up some business. I might have to dust off the zoom lens and go take a look!
I think the conventional wisdom may be wrong. I believe that North Korea may have the capability today to successfully conduct a nuclear attack on the United States. I believe that the conventional wisdom may be based on a fundamental mistake of logic: Just because North Korea has not yet demonstrated a capability does not mean it does not have it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/north-korea-may-already-be-able-to-launch-a-nuclear-attack-on-the-us/2017/09/06/ce375080-9325-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.2a75a0f89dff
Universities who pay their vice-chancellors more than £150,000 a year could be fined if they are unable to justify “exceptional” salaries to the regulatory authority, the government is to say....
Among the measures being introduced is a requirement that any university that pays its vice-chancellor in excess of £150,000 a year should have to justify that salary as part of their condition of registration. If an institution is unable to so, the OfS could impose a fine.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/sep/07/minister-to-threaten-universities-with-fines-for-excessive-salaries?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews#link_time=1504741089
They (ECA) are an Anglo-Dutch company, run by a former Dutch F15 pilot. They have raised a ridiculous amount of cash, and have been flying tests in Wales.
Kerry in 2004 was certainly in the mix early on pre 2004 and especially once Gore said he would not run again as Sanders may well do too