I would disagree. Theresa May strikes me as someone who follows the rulebook without compassion or empathy. The golden rule applies.
Indeed, I would go as far to suggest that lack of empathy is the root of evil. I have never met her personally though!
To be fair, a (Labour) friend whose nephew works for her says he thinks her an excellent boss: clear, friendly and helpful. These characteristics aren't quite the same as empathy, but an inability to project good human qualities on TV is probably more of a snag than in justice it ought to be.
My impression is that she's ill at ease in the role and clings to rules and prepared statements for fear of getting into difficulty. So perhaps over-promoted rather than intrinsically robotic.
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
No sign of the next generation yet then?!
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Mr. Divvie/Mr. F, was that the BBC programme (possibly a two parter) at Wahnsee? I have vague memories of watching that and being very engaged (I wrote 'enjoyed' at first, but perhaps not the best way to describe a drama depicting the bureaucratic machinery that enabled genocide).
That's the one. I also had a memory of it being in two parts but it seems to be listed as a single film.
Mr. Divvie, possible it was broadcast in two parts but has been bolted together. The only line, ish, I can recall is Heydrich telling a bureaucrat to take his nose out of the rulebook and his hand off of his cock.
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
No sign of the next generation yet then?!
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Joe Biden, the Neil Kinnock imitator still thinking he has it.
I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said
Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'
Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man
In 2014 (the last year for which stats are available), there were just under a quarter of a million opposite-sex marriages (including mine!), against 4850 same-sex marriages. It's close to a 50/1 shot that any given marriage was between a same-sex couple.
I am acting in loco parentis at a same sex marriage of two brides shortly. Incidentally Catholic, but not with an intention to adopt to my best knowledge.
Potocol tips received gratefully. It is all a bit new to me.
I would disagree. Theresa May strikes me as someone who follows the rulebook without compassion or empathy. The golden rule applies.
Indeed, I would go as far to suggest that lack of empathy is the root of evil. I have never met her personally though!
To be fair, a (Labour) friend whose nephew works for her says he thinks her an excellent boss: clear, friendly and helpful. These characteristics aren't quite the same as empathy, but an inability to project good human qualities on TV is probably more of a snag than in justice it ought to be.
My impression is that she's ill at ease in the role and clings to rules and prepared statements for fear of getting into difficulty. So perhaps over-promoted rather than intrinsically robotic.
I think that the difference is that adoption is a legal process, and that in order to be approved there is a vetting for obvious reasons. I know, having been through it albeit 20 years ago. There was quite extensive grilling on religion, values and their place in child raising.
The role of the agency is not to second guess or further sift applications, but to place children with approved adoptive parents.
If, for example, a gay Catholic couple wanted to adopt, they would be turned away. The discrimination is because of sexuality rather than religion.
In practice, I suspect gay couples would not make a homophobic agency their first port of call!
The whole thing is ridiculous. If there is lack of supply for adoption agencies catering to same sex couples, let the market provide them.
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
No sign of the next generation yet then?!
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Think you have to add 10 years or so for realistic comparisons of health: people of 70 are probably on average as healthy as people at 60 were 50 years ago, and more representative of the electorate than then too. I'm 67 and working harder than ever with no obvious problems, and that's not unusual among my friends. We vaguely think we might cut back at 75 or so. I agree that starting as President at 79 is pushing it, but in the end age is only a rough guide - you need to look at the individual.
I think that the difference is that adoption is a legal process, and that in order to be approved there is a vetting for obvious reasons. I know, having been through it albeit 20 years ago. There was quite extensive grilling on religion, values and their place in child raising.
The role of the agency is not to second guess or further sift applications, but to place children with approved adoptive parents.
If, for example, a gay Catholic couple wanted to adopt, they would be turned away. The discrimination is because of sexuality rather than religion.
In practice, I suspect gay couples would not make a homophobic agency their first port of call!
The whole thing is ridiculous. If there is lack of supply for adoption agencies catering to same sex couples, let the market provide them.
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
No sign of the next generation yet then?!
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Think you have to add 10 years or so for realistic comparisons of health: people of 70 are probably on average as healthy as people at 60 were 50 years ago, and more representative of the electorate than then too. I'm 67 and working harder than ever with no obvious problems, and that's not unusual among my friends. We vaguely think we might cut back at 75 or so. I agree that starting as President at 79 is pushing it, but in the end age is only a rough guide - you need to look at the individual.
I'd agree with that, but I would have concerns about someone starting a four-year fixed term job at 78 or 79. Even if they're fine at the beginning, the risks of what they'll be like after four (never mind eight) years of hard work are a good deal greater than someone twenty or thirty years younger.
(Ex-)Presidents do seem much more likely to reach 90 than the general population though.
I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said
Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'
Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man
In 2014 (the last year for which stats are available), there were just under a quarter of a million opposite-sex marriages (including mine!), against 4850 same-sex marriages. It's close to a 50/1 shot that any given marriage was between a same-sex couple.
I am acting in loco parentis at a same sex marriage of two brides shortly. Incidentally Catholic, but not with an intention to adopt to my best knowledge.
Potocol tips received gratefully. It is all a bit new to me.
Behave as you would at any other wedding - if there's anything you are uncertain about the ask the couple in advance.
The potential during that process for political and constitutional upheaval is enormous. Externalising the ancient tribal conflict in the North in the past with Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, General De Chastelain and company worked because the local parties had all the time they needed to metabolise the hard compromises.
This time around the clock is ticking, and a cliff edge is getting closer. The Tories are in turmoil over the very subject that is at hand – Brexit – and they rely for their survival on the DUP, a party whose instincts are not known to be adventurous on constitutional issues.
The fact that our political class was obviously never going to be capable of delivering anything as complex as Brexit was reason enough to vote Remain on its own.
I think that the difference is that adoption is a legal process, and that in order to be approved there is a vetting for obvious reasons. I know, having been through it albeit 20 years ago. There was quite extensive grilling on religion, values and their place in child raising.
The role of the agency is not to second guess or further sift applications, but to place children with approved adoptive parents.
If, for example, a gay Catholic couple wanted to adopt, they would be turned away. The discrimination is because of sexuality rather than religion.
In practice, I suspect gay couples would not make a homophobic agency their first port of call!
The whole thing is ridiculous. If there is lack of supply for adoption agencies catering to same sex couples, let the market provide them.
In practice, newborn white babies are at a premium. Older children, particularly if significant ongoing medical issues are much harder to place. Often they languish in serial foster care arrangements for years, without the security of a permanent placement. To their credit the Catholic adoption agencies were pretty good with these.
Bur nothing like as bad as Jezza has to put up with every single day from the MMS
Disagree. Most of the Jezza stuff is criticising his policies, statements, history of behaviour. That attack on JRM basically boiled down to "he is a pretentious wanker" (it may be true, but political discourse should aim higher than that)
Er no. This JRM stuff kicked off due to his beliefs.
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
No sign of the next generation yet then?!
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Think you have to add 10 years or so for realistic comparisons of health: people of 70 are probably on average as healthy as people at 60 were 50 years ago, and more representative of the electorate than then too. I'm 67 and working harder than ever with no obvious problems, and that's not unusual among my friends. We vaguely think we might cut back at 75 or so. I agree that starting as President at 79 is pushing it, but in the end age is only a rough guide - you need to look at the individual.
I'd agree with that, but I would have concerns about someone starting a four-year fixed term job at 78 or 79. Even if they're fine at the beginning, the risks of what they'll be like after four (never mind eight) years of hard work are a good deal greater than someone twenty or thirty years younger.
(Ex-)Presidents do seem much more likely to reach 90 than the general population though.
Wow, I just looked that up and the last President to die aged less than 90 was Nixon.
Ford and Reagan died at 93, H.W. is still alive at the same age, as is Carter who’s a year younger. Clinton, W and Trump are all in their seventies (coincidentally they were all were born in 1946), only Obama is younger at 56.
I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said
Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'
Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man
In 2014 (the last year for which stats are available), there were just under a quarter of a million opposite-sex marriages (including mine!), against 4850 same-sex marriages. It's close to a 50/1 shot that any given marriage was between a same-sex couple.
I am acting in loco parentis at a same sex marriage of two brides shortly. Incidentally Catholic, but not with an intention to adopt to my best knowledge.
Potocol tips received gratefully. It is all a bit new to me.
Behave as you would at any other wedding - if there's anything you are uncertain about the ask the couple in advance.
It will be a bit different, as both are Portuguese migrants so their are foreign customs too.
Should be fun though. I shall not mention Brexit in the speech. Absolutely no jokes about deportation...
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
No sign of the next generation yet then?!
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Think you have to add 10 years or so for realistic comparisons of health: people of 70 are probably on average as healthy as people at 60 were 50 years ago, and more representative of the electorate than then too. I'm 67 and working harder than ever with no obvious problems, and that's not unusual among my friends. We vaguely think we might cut back at 75 or so. I agree that starting as President at 79 is pushing it, but in the end age is only a rough guide - you need to look at the individual.
I'd agree with that, but I would have concerns about someone starting a four-year fixed term job at 78 or 79. Even if they're fine at the beginning, the risks of what they'll be like after four (never mind eight) years of hard work are a good deal greater than someone twenty or thirty years younger.
(Ex-)Presidents do seem much more likely to reach 90 than the general population though.
Wow, I just looked that up and the last President to die aged less than 90 was Nixon.
Ford and Reagan died at 93, H.W. is still alive at the same age, as is Carter who’s a year younger. Clinton, W and Trump are all in their seventies (coincidentally they were all were born in 1946), only Obama is younger at 56.
When looking at expected mortality, one has to remember that selection requires at least some scrutiny of health issues, and that Presidents are almost all from a privileged SE background. Actuarilly they may not be very different to some similar occupations, such as judges.
"The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Britânica also known in Portugal as Aliança Inglesa, English Alliance), ratified at the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between England (succeeded by the United Kingdom) and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force – with the earliest treaty dating back to the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373."
"The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Britânica also known in Portugal as Aliança Inglesa, English Alliance), ratified at the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between England (succeeded by the United Kingdom) and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force – with the earliest treaty dating back to the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373."
I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said
Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'
Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man
In 2014 (the last year for which stats are available), there were just under a quarter of a million opposite-sex marriages (including mine!), against 4850 same-sex marriages. It's close to a 50/1 shot that any given marriage was between a same-sex couple.
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
No sign of the next generation yet then?!
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Think you have to add 10 years or so for realistic comparisons of health: people of 70 are probably on average as healthy as people at 60 were 50 years ago, and more representative of the electorate than then too. I'm 67 and working harder than ever with no obvious problems, and that's not unusual among my friends. We vaguely think we might cut back at 75 or so. I agree that starting as President at 79 is pushing it, but in the end age is only a rough guide - you need to look at the individual.
I'd agree with that, but I would have concerns about someone starting a four-year fixed term job at 78 or 79. Even if they're fine at the beginning, the risks of what they'll be like after four (never mind eight) years of hard work are a good deal greater than someone twenty or thirty years younger.
(Ex-)Presidents do seem much more likely to reach 90 than the general population though.
Wow, I just looked that up and the last President to die aged less than 90 was Nixon.
Ford and Reagan died at 93, H.W. is still alive at the same age, as is Carter who’s a year younger. Clinton, W and Trump are all in their seventies (coincidentally they were all were born in 1946), only Obama is younger at 56.
Bur nothing like as bad as Jezza has to put up with every single day from the MMS
Disagree. Most of the Jezza stuff is criticising his policies, statements, history of behaviour. That attack on JRM basically boiled down to "he is a pretentious wanker" (it may be true, but political discourse should aim higher than that)
Er no. This JRM stuff kicked off due to his beliefs.
No it didn't, it's been going much longer than that.
What this all shows is that good old English snobbery is alive and well, it has simply turned sharply left. Whenever a bien penseur sets finger to keyboard, here and elsewhere, the underlying thought is the same: we wouldn't be in this fix if the ghastly unspeakable degreeless common proles hadn't been given the vote, and had the presumption and audacity to use it.
I note the author of the Guardian piece simply doesn't understand a well-known and easily comprehensible line of Pope. It is also a touchstone of stupidity and laziness to equate JRM with Johnson because they both went to Eton (this obsession with right and wrong schools is another piece of snobbery which has glided effortlessly leftwards). Here is JRM being serious, and being listened to with respect by a QT audience. Compare and contrast their reception of him and of Burgon:v they clearly regard one of the two of them as a pillock, and it isn't JRM.
F1: from BBC gossip, seems Bottas is willing to 'help' Hamilton. Not unexpected, but in a tight race could make a small but critical difference.
That’s what happens when you behave like a gentleman in Hungary.
Unless somehow Valtteri can take a hatful of points from both Lewis and Seb in Singapore next weekend, it’s a two way fight for the title now. Bottas has had a great season, and proved that Mercedes were right to give him the drive.
"The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Britânica also known in Portugal as Aliança Inglesa, English Alliance), ratified at the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between England (succeeded by the United Kingdom) and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force – with the earliest treaty dating back to the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373."
And yet Portugal were neutral in WW2.
That was not to Britain's disadvantage. Had the UK pressured Portugal to join the Allies (which might have been difficult anyway), it would have very probably have pushed Spain directly into active hostility. Portugal as an ally would have been useful. Spain as an enemy would have more than offset it though.
Bur nothing like as bad as Jezza has to put up with every single day from the MMS
Disagree. Most of the Jezza stuff is criticising his policies, statements, history of behaviour. That attack on JRM basically boiled down to "he is a pretentious wanker" (it may be true, but political discourse should aim higher than that)
Er no. This JRM stuff kicked off due to his beliefs.
Generally yes - but I was referring to the specific Marina Hyde article which is an unpleasant personal attack. Worse still it's not even funny.
"The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Britânica also known in Portugal as Aliança Inglesa, English Alliance), ratified at the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between England (succeeded by the United Kingdom) and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force – with the earliest treaty dating back to the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373."
And yet Portugal were neutral in WW2.
My great uncle was based in Lisbon in the war.
They were neutral because there was no way the UK could have prevented the Germans occupying the country, but it was very helpful to us to have a friendly mainland European country in a strategic location.
"The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Britânica also known in Portugal as Aliança Inglesa, English Alliance), ratified at the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between England (succeeded by the United Kingdom) and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force – with the earliest treaty dating back to the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373."
And yet Portugal were neutral in WW2.
My great uncle was based in Lisbon in the war.
They were neutral because there was no way the UK could have prevented the Germans occupying the country, but it was very helpful to us to have a friendly mainland European country in a strategic location.
We also had an airbase in the Azores that significantly helped in the Battle of the Atlantic.
"The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Britânica also known in Portugal as Aliança Inglesa, English Alliance), ratified at the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between England (succeeded by the United Kingdom) and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force – with the earliest treaty dating back to the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373."
And yet Portugal were neutral in WW2.
My great uncle was based in Lisbon in the war.
They were neutral because there was no way the UK could have prevented the Germans occupying the country, but it was very helpful to us to have a friendly mainland European country in a strategic location.
I suspect (just as with much more strategically important Gibraltar) having to move forces through neutral Spain would have been much more of a deterrent to Germany.
Bur nothing like as bad as Jezza has to put up with every single day from the MMS
Disagree. Most of the Jezza stuff is criticising his policies, statements, history of behaviour. That attack on JRM basically boiled down to "he is a pretentious wanker" (it may be true, but political discourse should aim higher than that)
Er no. This JRM stuff kicked off due to his beliefs.
No it didn't, it's been going much longer than that.
What this all shows is that good old English snobbery is alive and well, it has simply turned sharply left. Whenever a bien penseur sets finger to keyboard, here and elsewhere, the underlying thought is the same: we wouldn't be in this fix if the ghastly unspeakable degreeless common proles hadn't been given the vote, and had the presumption and audacity to use it.
I note the author of the Guardian piece simply doesn't understand a well-known and easily comprehensible line of Pope. It is also a touchstone of stupidity and laziness to equate JRM with Johnson because they both went to Eton (this obsession with right and wrong schools is another piece of snobbery which has glided effortlessly leftwards). Here is JRM being serious, and being listened to with respect by a QT audience. Compare and contrast their reception of him and of Burgon:v they clearly regard one of the two of them as a pillock, and it isn't JRM.
Indeed, the poshest and snobbiest voters in my experience now tend to be Remainer Liberal Democrats not Leaver Tories, Labour voters on council estates are often politer
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
No sign of the next generation yet then?!
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Think you have to add 10 years or so for realistic comparisons of health: people of 70 are probably on average as healthy as people at 60 were 50 years ago, and more representative of the electorate than then too. I'm 67 and working harder than ever with no obvious problems, and that's not unusual among my friends. We vaguely think we might cut back at 75 or so. I agree that starting as President at 79 is pushing it, but in the end age is only a rough guide - you need to look at the individual.
I'd agree with that, but I would have concerns about someone starting a four-year fixed term job at 78 or 79. Even if they're fine at the beginning, the risks of what they'll be like after four (never mind eight) years of hard work are a good deal greater than someone twenty or thirty years younger.
(Ex-)Presidents do seem much more likely to reach 90 than the general population though.
Wow, I just looked that up and the last President to die aged less than 90 was Nixon.
Ford and Reagan died at 93, H.W. is still alive at the same age, as is Carter who’s a year younger. Clinton, W and Trump are all in their seventies (coincidentally they were all were born in 1946), only Obama is younger at 56.
When looking at expected mortality, one has to remember that selection requires at least some scrutiny of health issues, and that Presidents are almost all from a privileged SE background. Actuarilly they may not be very different to some similar occupations, such as judges.
Indeed so, but it’s surprising (to me, who isn’t a doctor!) to see such longevity across what is a small sample of people who have held a very stressful position, albeit one that provides excellent healthcare benefits.
Mr. Z, cheers for that link. I do think Boris comparisons are overblown. Mogg's altogether more intelligent.
Mr. Sandpit, I agree. I think I wrote at the time that, even from a mercenary perspective, it made sense to let Bottas past, because now it will pay back many times (from a single seed planted there shall be much fruit, and so forth).
Bur nothing like as bad as Jezza has to put up with every single day from the MMS
Disagree. Most of the Jezza stuff is criticising his policies, statements, history of behaviour. That attack on JRM basically boiled down to "he is a pretentious wanker" (it may be true, but political discourse should aim higher than that)
Er no. This JRM stuff kicked off due to his beliefs.
Generally yes - but I was referring to the specific Marina Hyde article which is an unpleasant personal attack. Worse still it's not even funny.
Oh come on, I'm no fan of Jezza, but it's hardly been just about his policies, there was the scruffy bloke with no tie for a start. In fact, if the Tories had focused in on the implausibility of his policies rather This of course comes after a decade of Brown being mocked for being grumpy and socially awkward and Ed Miliband being a North London geek.
Hyde was also making a legitimate point, albeit in her own caustic way, which is that Rees-Mogg is the most extreme example of a long line of chancers who've found out that making caricatures of themselves and making a virtue of their own ridiculousness has elevated them in a way that wouldn't otherwise have been possible. This goes for the left and right. It isn't true of Corbyn, who'd probably be giving incoherent speeches on the future of socialism to a tin of baked beans in his flat anyway, but it is true of a lot of his backers who've found you get a lot more attention in fighting a culture war than behaving rationally. Her point was how far we've fallen if we're now celebrating someone who teenagers could see through as a contrarian attention seeker.
"The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Britânica also known in Portugal as Aliança Inglesa, English Alliance), ratified at the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between England (succeeded by the United Kingdom) and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force – with the earliest treaty dating back to the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373."
And yet Portugal were neutral in WW2.
My great uncle was based in Lisbon in the war.
They were neutral because there was no way the UK could have prevented the Germans occupying the country, but it was very helpful to us to have a friendly mainland European country in a strategic location.
I suspect (just as with much more strategically important Gibraltar) having to move forces through neutral Spain would have been much more of a deterrent to Germany.
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
No sign of the next generation yet then?!
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Think you have to add 10 years or so for realistic comparisons of health: people of 70 are probably on average as healthy as people at 60 were 50 years ago, and more representative of the electorate than then too. I'm 67 and working harder than ever with no obvious problems, and that's not unusual among my friends. We vaguely think we might cut back at 75 or so. I agree that starting as President at 79 is pushing it, but in the end age is only a rough guide - you need to look at the individual.
My gut feeling is Biden will run, if he is still healthy in 3 or 4 years time.
But DYOR, as my record this year has been woeful :-)
Indeed so, but it’s surprising (to me, who isn’t a doctor!) to see such longevity across what is a small sample of people who have held a very stressful position, albeit one that provides excellent healthcare benefits.
The higher the job status, the longer you are likely to live. It isn't stress, it is stress without control that kills.
Bur nothing like as bad as Jezza has to put up with every single day from the MMS
Disagree. Most of the Jezza stuff is criticising his policies, statements, history of behaviour. That attack on JRM basically boiled down to "he is a pretentious wanker" (it may be true, but political discourse should aim higher than that)
Er no. This JRM stuff kicked off due to his beliefs.
No it didn't, it's been going much longer than that.
What this all shows is that good old English snobbery is alive and well, it has simply turned sharply left. Whenever a bien penseur sets finger to keyboard, here and elsewhere, the underlying thought is the same: we wouldn't be in this fix if the ghastly unspeakable degreeless common proles hadn't been given the vote, and had the presumption and audacity to use it.
I note the author of the Guardian piece simply doesn't understand a well-known and easily comprehensible line of Pope. It is also a touchstone of stupidity and laziness to equate JRM with Johnson because they both went to Eton (this obsession with right and wrong schools is another piece of snobbery which has glided effortlessly leftwards). Here is JRM being serious, and being listened to with respect by a QT audience. Compare and contrast their reception of him and of Burgon:v they clearly regard one of the two of them as a pillock, and it isn't JRM.
It has been a delight to hear the same arguments being made against the wrong people having the vote that were made in the 19th century. And I mean it sincerely, because it's a good thing to have to debate things from first principles.
Mr. P, it takes a special sort of logic to jointly consider the public worthless dupes and Remain voters and Leave voters all at once. And to consider Brexiteers as somehow external to the electorate rather than a majority of it. And to consider all those who voted to leave to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
It's reminiscent of Continuity Remain Guardianistas writing about the nostalgia for empire when nobody who voted to leave ever mentioned it.
Indeed so, but it’s surprising (to me, who isn’t a doctor!) to see such longevity across what is a small sample of people who have held a very stressful position, albeit one that provides excellent healthcare benefits.
The higher the job status, the longer you are likely to live. It isn't stress, it is stress without control that kills.
I wonder how true is the suggestion that senior politicians appear to age faster than usual, or is it simply that they are well photographed over a long period of time so it’s easy to make comparisons?
Seems some UK companies also use these services, but no news on how we check whether our data has been stolen (US customers can, but this piece makes clear that doesn't work).
Indeed so, but it’s surprising (to me, who isn’t a doctor!) to see such longevity across what is a small sample of people who have held a very stressful position, albeit one that provides excellent healthcare benefits.
The higher the job status, the longer you are likely to live. It isn't stress, it is stress without control that kills.
I wonder how true is the suggestion that senior politicians appear to age faster than usual, or is it simply that they are well photographed over a long period of time so it’s easy to make comparisons?
I had neither heard of that, nor noticed it myself. Your hypothesis seems very likely to be right.
Seems some UK companies also use these services, but no news on how we check whether our data has been stolen (US customers can, but this piece makes clear that doesn't work).
This is going to be a game-changing data breach, it’s absolutely massive.
There’s an awful lot of very sensitive information on everyone held by these data agencies, and people have no choice about using them or not.
While it was good for the Lib Dems to gain 4 seats, they slipped further behind in most of the seats they lost in 2015. It's striking how far behind they are in most seats they held until 2010 or 2015.
JRM is for Conservatives with IDS nostalgia. Along with sharing a tendency to acronyms, both men massage the comfort zone of people who don't get on with the world.
Root should come on as an opener with Cook today. Give him a shot at that record in 50s for consecutive Tests.
Good idea, with the target at only 107.
What bowling from Anderson though 7/42 is astonishing.
Stokes 6/22 then 60 with the bat and then Anderson goes and does that ...
Sadly they didn’t go with Root. Cook and Stoneman making very short work of the runs though, 23 in the first three overs!
Root's historic 50 not on the cards now.
Still think Stokes should get the prize - those early wickets set England up to win, then he pulled the team out of the abyss with his 60. Without that, Jimmy's 7-fer would be nice but not decisive.
Seems some UK companies also use these services, but no news on how we check whether our data has been stolen (US customers can, but this piece makes clear that doesn't work).
This is going to be a game-changing data breach, it’s absolutely massive.
There’s an awful lot of very sensitive information on everyone held by these data agencies, and people have no choice about using them or not.
UK Customers supposedly include British Telecom and British Gas. I suspect they have a credit file on most people in the UK...
One of the few genuinely funny female writers. For me she can do no wrong
That would be Marina Elizabeth Catherine Dudley-Williams daughter of Sir Alastair Edgcumbe James Dudley-Williams and Diana Elizabeth Jane Duncan, talking about being authentic ?
Seems some UK companies also use these services, but no news on how we check whether our data has been stolen (US customers can, but this piece makes clear that doesn't work).
This is going to be a game-changing data breach, it’s absolutely massive.
There’s an awful lot of very sensitive information on everyone held by these data agencies, and people have no choice about using them or not.
UK Customers supposedly include British Telecom and British Gas. I suspect they have a credit file on most people in the UK...
Ironically, those who had their equifax credit file hacked are now less desirable customers for credit companies, given their increased fraud risk.
One of the few genuinely funny female writers. For me she can do no wrong
That would be Marina Elizabeth Catherine Dudley-Williams daughter of Sir Alastair Edgcumbe James Dudley-Williams and Diana Elizabeth Jane Duncan, talking about being authentic ?
"I am only called Marina Hyde because my real name was too long to fit across a single column in the Sun, where I started out"
The rain’s made it to Goodwood, which won’t make the historic racing cars too happy. Fingers crossed it stays dry at Lord’s for long enough to let England knock off another 40-odd runs!
Looking at the tv pictures of the Remain supporters marching in London. 1,000 at most.
Not quite the 50,000 the eurofanatics are boasting about.
As a rule of thumb, one should divide the claimed attendance by 10. Though in fairness to the Remainers, I've attended eurosceptic rallies back in the day where attendance was in the hundreds.
While it was good for the Lib Dems to gain 4 seats, they slipped further behind in most of the seats they lost in 2015. It's striking how far behind they are in most seats they held until 2010 or 2015.
The LibDems went BACKWARDS in vote share nationwide, which is quite astonishing. My prediction was 12-14 seats off about 12% of the vote share. So: I got the first half of my prediction right, and the second half wildly wrong.
Right now, they are invisible.
Which is astonishing when you consider that the Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn and the Conservative Party has an uninspiring leader, and is wrapped up in Brexit.
Now. I'm not one of these people* that say that this means that the LibDems are dead forever, or anything like that. But they do really need to their act together. Vince Cable was a major error. Too old. Too hectoring. Too annoying. Neither loved by those to the Left of the LibDems, nor those to the Right.
If I were them, though, I wouldn't worry too much about the fact they went backwards in a bunch of seats. They didn't win OxWAb in 2010. They won it in 2017. They didn't win Richmond Park in 2010, and they came within a few tens of votes in 2017. The LibDems did prove themselves capable of outperforming their 2010 results in a bunch of seats. With the right leader, I think they could reasonably expect to be in the teens, vote share-wise, and to get 20-odd seats next time around. Certain? Certainly not. But there is a bus sized opportunity in British politics. It just needs someone capable to drive the party there.
* You know, the kind of people on this site who make absolutely certain predictions about the future, as if there was no doubt about how it would play out at all.
There were tweets yesterday from a printer suspected of printing referendum material surrounded by Guardia Civil. Seems all a bit 'sledgehammer, meet nut' stuff.
There were tweets yesterday from a printer suspected of printing referendum material surrounded by Guardia Civil. Seems all a bit 'sledgehammer, meet nut' stuff.
While it was good for the Lib Dems to gain 4 seats, they slipped further behind in most of the seats they lost in 2015. It's striking how far behind they are in most seats they held until 2010 or 2015.
The LibDems went BACKWARDS in vote share nationwide, which is quite astonishing. My prediction was 12-14 seats off about 12% of the vote share. So: I got the first half of my prediction right, and the second half wildly wrong.
Right now, they are invisible.
Which is astonishing when you consider that the Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn and the Conservative Party has an uninspiring leader, and is wrapped up in Brexit.
Now. I'm not one of these people* that say that this means that the LibDems are dead forever, or anything like that. But they do really need to their act together. Vince Cable was a major error. Too old. Too hectoring. Too annoying. Neither loved by those to the Left of the LibDems, nor those to the Right.
If I were them, though, I wouldn't worry too much about the fact they went backwards in a bunch of seats. They didn't win OxWAb in 2010. They won it in 2017. They didn't win Richmond Park in 2010, and they came within a few tens of votes in 2017. The LibDems did prove themselves capable of outperforming their 2010 results in a bunch of seats. With the right leader, I think they could reasonably expect to be in the teens, vote share-wise, and to get 20-odd seats next time around. Certain? Certainly not. But there is a bus sized opportunity in British politics. It just needs someone capable to drive the party there.
* You know, the kind of people on this site who make absolutely certain predictions about the future, as if there was no doubt about how it would play out at all.
I can remember when the election was called and some of us thought Hornsey & Wood Green was a good opportunity for the Lib Dems, and others were tipping them in Vauxhall!
While it was good for the Lib Dems to gain 4 seats, they slipped further behind in most of the seats they lost in 2015. It's striking how far behind they are in most seats they held until 2010 or 2015.
The LibDems went BACKWARDS in vote share nationwide, which is quite astonishing. My prediction was 12-14 seats off about 12% of the vote share. So: I got the first half of my prediction right, and the second half wildly wrong.
Right now, they are invisible.
Which is astonishing when you consider that the Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn and the Conservative Party has an uninspiring leader, and is wrapped up in Brexit.
Now. I'm not one of these people* that say that this means that the LibDems are dead forever, or anything like that. But they do really need to their act together. Vince Cable was a major error. Too old. Too hectoring. Too annoying. Neither loved by those to the Left of the LibDems, nor those to the Right.
If I were them, though, I wouldn't worry too much about the fact they went backwards in a bunch of seats. They didn't win OxWAb in 2010. They won it in 2017. They didn't win Richmond Park in 2010, and they came within a few tens of votes in 2017. The LibDems did prove themselves capable of outperforming their 2010 results in a bunch of seats. With the right leader, I think they could reasonably expect to be in the teens, vote share-wise, and to get 20-odd seats next time around. Certain? Certainly not. But there is a bus sized opportunity in British politics. It just needs someone capable to drive the party there.
* You know, the kind of people on this site who make absolutely certain predictions about the future, as if there was no doubt about how it would play out at all.
I can remember when the election was called and some of us thought Hornsey & Wood Green was a good opportunity for the Lib Dems, and others were tipping them in Vauxhall!
Vauxhall was bizarre. At least with H&WG there was a reason to think the LibDems might do ok: i.e. the Labour Party going backwards on 2015 and the LibDems doing better. (Although in the end, the exact opposite of that happened.)
Why aren't you in London marching and protesting for the EU?
@Otto_English: Brexiteers are very angry about the march. Which is weird if you think about it. They won. They should accept it. Move on. #PeoplesMarch4EU
While it was good for the Lib Dems to gain 4 seats, they slipped further behind in most of the seats they lost in 2015. It's striking how far behind they are in most seats they held until 2010 or 2015.
The LibDems went BACKWARDS in vote share nationwide, which is quite astonishing. My prediction was 12-14 seats off about 12% of the vote share. So: I got the first half of my prediction right, and the second half wildly wrong.
Right now, they are invisible.
Which is astonishing when you consider that the Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn and the Conservative Party has an uninspiring leader, and is wrapped up in Brexit.
Now. I'm not one of these people* that say that this means that the LibDems are dead forever, or anything like that. But they do really need to their act together. Vince Cable was a major error. Too old. Too hectoring. Too annoying. Neither loved by those to the Left of the LibDems, nor those to the Right.
If I were them, though, I wouldn't worry too much about the fact they went backwards in a bunch of seats. They didn't win OxWAb in 2010. They won it in 2017. They didn't win Richmond Park in 2010, and they came within a few tens of votes in 2017. The LibDems did prove themselves capable of outperforming their 2010 results in a bunch of seats. With the right leader, I think they could reasonably expect to be in the teens, vote share-wise, and to get 20-odd seats next time around. Certain? Certainly not. But there is a bus sized opportunity in British politics. It just needs someone capable to drive the party there.
* You know, the kind of people on this site who make absolutely certain predictions about the future, as if there was no doubt about how it would play out at all.
The Lib Dems have put all their eggs in one basket by going big on stopping Brexit. Once we actually leave the EU, the Lib Dems would have spent years banging on about stopping Brexit and failed to sufficiently promote any other policies. It is entirely conceivable that their next centrepiece policy will be rejoining the EU.
While it was good for the Lib Dems to gain 4 seats, they slipped further behind in most of the seats they lost in 2015. It's striking how far behind they are in most seats they held until 2010 or 2015.
The LibDems went BACKWARDS in vote share nationwide, which is quite astonishing. My prediction was 12-14 seats off about 12% of the vote share. So: I got the first half of my prediction right, and the second half wildly wrong.
Right now, they are invisible.
Which is astonishing when you consider that the Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn and the Conservative Party has an uninspiring leader, and is wrapped up in Brexit.
Now. I'm not one of these people* that say that this means that the LibDems are dead forever, or anything like that. But they do really need to their act together. Vince Cable was a major error. Too old. Too hectoring. Too annoying. Neither loved by those to the Left of the LibDems, nor those to the Right.
If I were them, though, I wouldn't worry too much about the fact they went backwards in a bunch of seats. They didn't win OxWAb in 2010. They won it in 2017. They didn't win Richmond Park in 2010, and they came within a few tens of votes in 2017. The LibDems did prove themselves capable of outperforming their 2010 results in a bunch of seats. With the right leader, I think they could reasonably expect to be in the teens, vote share-wise, and to get 20-odd seats next time around. Certain? Certainly not. But there is a bus sized opportunity in British politics. It just needs someone capable to drive the party there.
* You know, the kind of people on this site who make absolutely certain predictions about the future, as if there was no doubt about how it would play out at all.
I think if the next general election is Boris v Corbyn in say 2019/20 the LDs could take a few votes from both. Overall I would expect little movement from Tory to Labour or Labour to Tory expect maybe a handful of Labour leavers but some Remainer Tories who stayed with May reluctantly could switch to the LDs and some voters who voted for Corbyn in the mistaken hope that he was the best way of reversing Brexit could do so too.
In particular Corbyn could attract pro EU centrist/centre left voters who might be attracted by someone like Chuka Ummuna but have big reservations about Corbyn
Is this William Glenn getting his groove down at the 'March for the EU'? http s://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/906467352736354305
He looks as though he's having more fun than idiots who can find nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon than post on a politics website ...
Ahem.
Well that wasn't necessarily a criticism but I am actually filling in my application form to get on the list for the District elections next year having already had my haircut and been shopping so not being completely unproductive today
She can be very good - I usually read her articles. This one missed the mark.
Maybe you prefer this one?
Tuesday Up to London, where one appears to be the flavour of the month.
Yes! I, Jacob Rees-Mogg, proud alumnus of Eton, owner of a cat called Pat and famed inventor of the quadruple-breasted suit, am suddenly tipped for high office. And so, today, one has a clandestine briefing with two influential backbenchers on the right to discuss a future leadership challenge.
“This is serious,” says one of the MPs. “You could be the next Boris.”
“It actually doesn’t sound very serious,” says the other one, “when you put it like that.”
“Or the next Andrea Leadsom,” says the first.
“I haven’t thought this through,” says the second, and leaves.
Comments
My impression is that she's ill at ease in the role and clings to rules and prepared statements for fear of getting into difficulty. So perhaps over-promoted rather than intrinsically robotic.
Biden will be 78 at Inauguration Day in 2021, Warren will be 71, Sanders will be 79 i.e. either Biden or Sanders, on their first day in office, would be the oldest person ever to hold the post.
Something is very wrong with US politics.
Potocol tips received gratefully. It is all a bit new to me.
(Ex-)Presidents do seem much more likely to reach 90 than the general population though.
Ford and Reagan died at 93, H.W. is still alive at the same age, as is Carter who’s a year younger. Clinton, W and Trump are all in their seventies (coincidentally they were all were born in 1946), only Obama is younger at 56.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
Should be fun though. I shall not mention Brexit in the speech. Absolutely no jokes about deportation...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance
"The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance (or Aliança Luso-Britânica also known in Portugal as Aliança Inglesa, English Alliance), ratified at the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, between England (succeeded by the United Kingdom) and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force – with the earliest treaty dating back to the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty of 1373."
(I'll get me coat...)
What this all shows is that good old English snobbery is alive and well, it has simply turned sharply left. Whenever a bien penseur sets finger to keyboard, here and elsewhere, the underlying thought is the same: we wouldn't be in this fix if the ghastly unspeakable degreeless common proles hadn't been given the vote, and had the presumption and audacity to use it.
I note the author of the Guardian piece simply doesn't understand a well-known and easily comprehensible line of Pope. It is also a touchstone of stupidity and laziness to equate JRM with Johnson because they both went to Eton (this obsession with right and wrong schools is another piece of snobbery which has glided effortlessly leftwards). Here is JRM being serious, and being listened to with respect by a QT audience. Compare and contrast their reception of him and of Burgon:v they clearly regard one of the two of them as a pillock, and it isn't JRM.
Sorry forgot link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCEpSWQsRPE
Unless somehow Valtteri can take a hatful of points from both Lewis and Seb in Singapore next weekend, it’s a two way fight for the title now. Bottas has had a great season, and proved that Mercedes were right to give him the drive.
They were neutral because there was no way the UK could have prevented the Germans occupying the country, but it was very helpful to us to have a friendly mainland European country in a strategic location.
Mr. Sandpit, I agree. I think I wrote at the time that, even from a mercenary perspective, it made sense to let Bottas past, because now it will pay back many times (from a single seed planted there shall be much fruit, and so forth).
Hyde was also making a legitimate point, albeit in her own caustic way, which is that Rees-Mogg is the most extreme example of a long line of chancers who've found out that making caricatures of themselves and making a virtue of their own ridiculousness has elevated them in a way that wouldn't otherwise have been possible. This goes for the left and right. It isn't true of Corbyn, who'd probably be giving incoherent speeches on the future of socialism to a tin of baked beans in his flat anyway, but it is true of a lot of his backers who've found you get a lot more attention in fighting a culture war than behaving rationally. Her point was how far we've fallen if we're now celebrating someone who teenagers could see through as a contrarian attention seeker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Division
But DYOR, as my record this year has been woeful :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study
https://twitter.com/excelpope/status/906443557464100864
It's reminiscent of Continuity Remain Guardianistas writing about the nostalgia for empire when nobody who voted to leave ever mentioned it.
Edited extra bit: anyway, must be off.
I wonder how true is the suggestion that senior politicians appear to age faster than usual, or is it simply that they are well photographed over a long period of time so it’s easy to make comparisons?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/your-money/identity-theft/equifaxs-instructions-are-confusing-heres-what-to-do-now.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Seems some UK companies also use these services, but no news on how we check whether our data has been stolen (US customers can, but this piece makes clear that doesn't work).
There’s an awful lot of very sensitive information on everyone held by these data agencies, and people have no choice about using them or not.
While it was good for the Lib Dems to gain 4 seats, they slipped further behind in most of the seats they lost in 2015. It's striking how far behind they are in most seats they held until 2010 or 2015.
What bowling from Anderson though 7/42 is astonishing.
https://twitter.com/gebelque/status/906465891889623040
Still think Stokes should get the prize - those early wickets set England up to win, then he pulled the team out of the abyss with his 60. Without that, Jimmy's 7-fer would be nice but not decisive.
Will failing to buy Virgil van Dijk be the stupidest decision in the transfer period?
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2017/apr/27/orlando-bloom-gypsy-traveller-radio-1-nick-grimshaw
Mr. Divvie, any more info in the Spanish inquisition of newspapers?
Hmm, It is rather "personal". Still...
Right now, they are invisible.
Which is astonishing when you consider that the Labour Party is led by Jeremy Corbyn and the Conservative Party has an uninspiring leader, and is wrapped up in Brexit.
Now. I'm not one of these people* that say that this means that the LibDems are dead forever, or anything like that. But they do really need to their act together. Vince Cable was a major error. Too old. Too hectoring. Too annoying. Neither loved by those to the Left of the LibDems, nor those to the Right.
If I were them, though, I wouldn't worry too much about the fact they went backwards in a bunch of seats. They didn't win OxWAb in 2010. They won it in 2017. They didn't win Richmond Park in 2010, and they came within a few tens of votes in 2017. The LibDems did prove themselves capable of outperforming their 2010 results in a bunch of seats. With the right leader, I think they could reasonably expect to be in the teens, vote share-wise, and to get 20-odd seats next time around. Certain? Certainly not. But there is a bus sized opportunity in British politics. It just needs someone capable to drive the party there.
* You know, the kind of people on this site who make absolutely certain predictions about the future, as if there was no doubt about how it would play out at all.
https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/906467352736354305
https://twitter.com/catalannews/status/906464821486518272
There were tweets yesterday from a printer suspected of printing referendum material surrounded by Guardia Civil. Seems all a bit 'sledgehammer, meet nut' stuff.
Mr. Divvie, cheers. I can only hope the staff aren't subjected to a comfy chair.
For anyone who is interested in cars and cannot get down to West Sussex, the Goodwood Revival is being livestreamed all weekend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUJIIaFG404
#PeoplesMarch4EU
Ahem.
Either he is marching for the EU... Or more likely he's going to the reopening of Manchester Arena to watch Rick Astley
#nevergonnagiveEUup
In particular Corbyn could attract pro EU centrist/centre left voters who might be attracted by someone like Chuka Ummuna but have big reservations about Corbyn
Tuesday
Up to London, where one appears to be the flavour of the month.
Yes! I, Jacob Rees-Mogg, proud alumnus of Eton, owner of a cat called Pat and famed inventor of the quadruple-breasted suit, am suddenly tipped for high office. And so, today, one has a clandestine briefing with two influential backbenchers on the right to discuss a future leadership challenge.
“This is serious,” says one of the MPs. “You could be the next Boris.”
“It actually doesn’t sound very serious,” says the other one, “when you put it like that.”
“Or the next Andrea Leadsom,” says the first.
“I haven’t thought this through,” says the second, and leaves.
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/906421178516066304