Nothing wrong with my link - very interesting statement
Hello, my name is Dr Christine Blanshard and I’m the Medical Director here at Salisbury District Hospital. I am joined by Lorna Wilkinson our Director of Nursing. I want to give you an update on the progress of the two remaining inpatients that we are treating here at the Hospital – Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I will not be taking questions following this statement. Following the incident on March 4, Salisbury District Hospital received three people who required inpatient care – Sergei and Yulia Skripal and DS Nick Bailey, who was discharged on March 22. All three had been exposed to a nerve agent – a highly toxic chemical which aims to prevent the nervous system from functioning. In the four weeks since the incident in the city centre, both have received round the clock care from our clinicians, who’ve been able to draw in advice and support from world leading experts in this field. We’ve been keeping you updated on the condition of Yulia and Sergei, whilst respecting the right to privacy to which they – and all our patients – are entitled. While I won’t go into great detail about the treatment we’ve been providing, I will say that nerve agents work by attaching themselves to a particular enzyme in the body which then stops the nerves from working properly. This results in symptoms such as sickness, hallucinations and confusion. Our job in treating the patients has been to stabilise them– ensuring that the patients could breathe and that blood could continue to circulate. We then needed to use a variety of different drugs to support the patients until they could create more enzymes to replace those affected by the poisoning. We also used specialised decontamination techniques to remove any residual toxins. Both patients have responded exceptionally well to the treatment we’ve been providing. But equally, both patients are at different stages in their recovery. Yulia has now been discharged from Salisbury District Hospital. Yulia has asked for privacy from the media and I want to reiterate that request. I also want to take this opportunity to wish Yulia well. This is not the end of her treatment, but marks a significant milestone. Her father has also made good progress. On Friday I announced that he was no longer in a critical condition. Although he is recovering more slowly than Yulia, we hope that he too will be able to leave hospital in due course..
Edit to fit in single post - thanks to staff at end.
So the only casualties of the whole attack with super deadly bond villain toxins a million times stronger than sarin were a couple of cats and a guinea pig. Thank god for that.
Right, this is very boring. Let's talk about some important stuff. The odds on this year's turnip harvest hitting record levels are...
Not really, but now I've got your attention, Malcolm, I'm going to annoy you by talking about cricket. The County Championship starts this week and the odds are - interesting.
First of all, Essex are favourite to retain the title at around 4/1. Not ridiculous - they have a good pace and spin attack and impressive depth to their batting. In a division that doesn't have a standout side, they look strong. Lancashire, at around 5/1, also look pretty good although Surrey, bereft of Sangakkara and with an untried captain, are best avoided at 6/1. They might well be fighting for sixth come the end of the season.
The one that might offer value though is Hampshire at 9/1. With Abbot, Edwards and Steyn leading their bowling and Crane to add some spin, plus Amla and Vince, they look a strong side. Whether they will win is another question but on paper they have a squad to match Surrey.
Similarly although Porter and Harmer deserve their status as favourites for most wickets, for me Abbott is the value at 10/1. He's not someone most batsmen will have played against and he is a superb bowler. For batting, Ballance is the justified favourite at 9/1.
Division 2 to follow.
As an Essex member I hope you and the bookies are right, but one feature of last years side was the lack of injuries. Can we do as well this year. Also the Test selectors ignored us, with the exception of Cook and, briefly, Westley. Will that be the case again. The result of those two features was a very settled squad.
I think Cook will be available for selection this year. His time as an England player, magnificent as it has been, is up.
I would agree with that. And I should have discussed him as a favourite for most runs too.
The risk is that he might hang up his boots and head for the commentary box, especially if his eyesight is going.
Doubt if he'll go into full-time commentary given he's got a farm to run on the side. He might even fancy the Essex captaincy. You never know.
Ryan ten Doeschate’s nailed on for that. For a couple of years anyway, and I agree about the farm. I don’t think that, once he’s done with cricket, we’ll see much of Cook in public. Apart from Befordshire Country Fair, if there is one.
The UKs prosperity in the 21dt Century depends on the security of global trade and its sea lanes, and broader global stability. So that’s the basis on which our foreign policy is pivoting.
We opened a new naval base (and oiling station) in Bahrain only last week.
Interesting so I can see a role for naval power and air power but I'm less convinced about an army and tanks.
As Dura Ace mentioned earlier, it's time to ask the hard questions and seek the comprehensive reform of the armed forces that every other institution has had to go through since the 1980s.
I agree we need a fir-for-purpose armed forces and what you suggest is probably the direction we should be heading but it requires a different "Armed Forces" to what we currently have and it's not a question of spending more but spending better and smarter.
One thing Dura Ace was right on was our treatment of veterans and that's an area I think most would agree could use some additional funding.
Nothing wrong with my link - very interesting statement
Hello, my name is Dr Christine Blanshard and I’m the Medical Director here at Salisbury District Hospital. I am joined by Lorna Wilkinson our Director of Nursing. I want to give you an update on the progress of the two remaining inpatients that we are treating here at the Hospital – Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I will not be taking questions following this statement. Following the incident on March 4, Salisbury District Hospital received three people who required inpatient care – Sergei and Yulia Skripal and DS Nick Bailey, who was discharged on March 22. All three had been exposed to a nerve agent – a highly toxic chemical which aims to prevent the unced that he was no longer in a critical condition. Although he is recovering more slowly than Yulia, we hope that he too will be able to leave hospital in due course..
Edit to fit in single post - thanks to staff at end.
So the only casualties of the whole attack with super deadly bond villain toxins a million times stronger than sarin were a couple of cats and a guinea pig. Thank god for that.
Why do Corbynites hate animals ? Why don't they just go foxhunting ?
Nothing wrong with my link - very interesting statement
Hello, my name is Dr Christine Blanshard and I’m the Medical Director here at Salisbury District Hospital. I am joined by Lorna Wilkinson our Director of Nursing. I want to give you an update on the progress of the two remaining inpatients that we are treating here at the Hospital – Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I will not be taking questions following this statement. Following the incident on March 4, Salisbury District Hospital received three people who required inpatient care – Sergei and Yulia Skripal and DS Nick Bailey, who was discharged on March 22. All three had been exposed to a nerve agent – a highly toxic chemical which aims to prevent the nervous system from functioning. In the four weeks since the incident in the city centre, both have received round the clock care from our clinicians, who’ve been able to draw in advice and support from world leading experts in this field. We’ve been keeping you updated on the condition of Yulia and Sergei, whilst respecting the right to privacy to which they – and all our patients – are entitled. While I won’t go into great detail about the treatment we’ve been providing, I will say that nerve agents work by attaching themselves to a particular enzyme in the body which then stops the nerves from working properly. This results in symptoms such as sickness, hallucinations and confusion. Our job in treating the patients has been to stabilise them– ensuring that the patients could breathe and that blood could continue to circulate. We then needed to use a variety of different drugs to support the patients until they could create more enzymes to replace those affected by the poisoning. We also used specialised decontamination techniques to remove any residual toxins. Both patients have responded exceptionally well to the treatment we’ve been providing. But equally, both patients are at different stages in their recovery. Yulia has now been discharged from Salisbury District Hospital. Yulia has asked for privacy from the media and I want to reiterate that request. I also want to take this opportunity to wish Yulia well. This is not the end of her treatment, but marks a significant milestone. Her father has also made good progress. On Friday I announced that he was no longer in a critical condition. Although he is recovering more slowly than Yulia, we hope that he too will be able to leave hospital in due course..
Edit to fit in single post - thanks to staff at end.
Very interesting statement and underlines what I've thought since the attack. The resources and skills of a developed western state can successfully treat chemical agents if caught soon enough.
Nothing wrong with my link - very interesting statement
H I want to give you an update on the progress of the two remaining inpatients that we are treating here at the Hospital – Sergei and Yulia Skripal. I will not be taking questions following this statement. Following the incident on March 4, Salisbury District Hospital received three people who required inpatient care – Sergei and Yulia Skripal and DS Nick Bailey, who was discharged on March 22. All three had been exposed to a nerve agent – a highly toxic chemical which aims to prevent the nervous system from functioning. In the four weeks since the incident in the city centre, both have received round the clock care from our clinicians, who’ve been able to draw in advice and support from world leading experts in this field. We’ve been keeping you updated on the condition of Yulia and Sergei, whilst respecting the right to privacy to which they – and all our patients – are entitled. While I won’t go into great detail about the treatment we’ve been providing, I will say that nerve agents work by attaching themselves to a particular enzyme in the body which then stops the nerves from working properly. This results in symptoms such as sickness, hallucinations and confusion. Our job in treating the patients has been to stabilise them– ensuring that the patients could breathe and that blood could continue to circulate. We then needed to use a variety of different drugs to support the patients until they could create more enzymes to replace those affected by the poisoning. We also used specialised decontamination techniques to remove any residual toxins. Both patients have responded exceptionally well to the treatment we’ve been providing. But equally, both patients are at different stages in their recovery. Yulia has now been discharged from Salisbury District Hospital. Yulia has asked for privacy from the media and I want to reiterate that request. I also want to take this opportunity to wish Yulia well. This is not the end of her treatment, but marks a significant milestone. Her father has also made good progress. On Friday I announced that he was no longer in a critical condition. Although he is recovering more slowly than Yulia, we hope that he too will be able to leave hospital in due course..
Edit to fit in single post - thanks to staff at end.
Very interesting statement and underlines what I've thought since the attack. The resources and skills of a developed western state can successfully treat chemical agents if caught soon enough.
So the only casualties of the whole attack with super deadly bond villain toxins a million times stronger than sarin were a couple of cats and a guinea pig. Thank god for that.
This is a tribute to the brilliance of the NHS and the staff therein.
The UKs prosperity in the 21dt Century depends on the security of global trade and its sea lanes, and broader global stability. So that’s the basis on which our foreign policy is pivoting.
We opened a new naval base (and oiling station) in Bahrain only last week.
Interesting so I can see a role for naval power and air power but I'm less convinced about an army and tanks.
As Dura Ace mentioned earlier, it's time to ask the hard questions and seek the comprehensive reform of the armed forces that every other institution has had to go through since the 1980s.
I agree we need a fir-for-purpose armed forces and what you suggest is probably the direction we should be heading but it requires a different "Armed Forces" to what we currently have and it's not a question of spending more but spending better and smarter.
One thing Dura Ace was right on was our treatment of veterans and that's an area I think most would agree could use some additional funding.
Interestingly, while I agree that a civil society should look after its elderly and injured, I have never entirely grasped why forces veterans should be favoured over, say, lumberjacks and miners, rescue teams and other professionals with dangerous jobs. I should say I am open to the argument, I just don't fully understand the logic.
You have to wonder, given in the last six weeks they have taken a one way flight into Cloud Cuckoo land that even a Ludendorff or a JWisemann ('moderate leftist') would blench at, whether the top bods in the Kremlin are actually smoking something.
Given they control the world's largest nuclear weapon, this is a distinctly worrying thought.
The UKs prosperity in the 21dt Century depends on the security of global trade and its sea lanes, and broader global stability. So that’s the basis on which our foreign policy is pivoting.
We opened a new naval base (and oiling station) in Bahrain only last week.
Interesting so I can see a role for naval power and air power but I'm less convinced about an army and tanks.
As Dura Ace mentioned earlier, it's time to ask the hard questions and seek the comprehensive reform of the armed forces that every other institution has had to go through since the 1980s.
I agree we need a fir-for-purpose armed forces and what you suggest is probably the direction we should be heading but it requires a different "Armed Forces" to what we currently have and it's not a question of spending more but spending better and smarter.
One thing Dura Ace was right on was our treatment of veterans and that's an area I think most would agree could use some additional funding.
Interestingly, while I agree that a civil society should look after its elderly and injured, I have never entirely grasped why forces veterans should be favoured over, say, lumberjacks and miners, rescue teams and other professionals with dangerous jobs. I should say I am open to the argument, I just don't fully understand the logic.
Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.
I think I'm right in saying the last party to increase a majority after seeing it reduced at the previous election were the Liberals under Palmerston in 1865.
The problem with this line of thinking is this (from xkcd):
Yes, although there are very strong natural reasons for that pattern. For a governing party to gain seats at an election, having lost them at the previous one, requires it to take place in at least the second election after taking office - usually eight or more years into their term. by that point, a party's initial manifesto will, in the main, either have been implemented or junked and it will have begun to look less radical and more managerial and even tired. In addition to which, failures which occur can no longer be blamed on its predecessor. To gain a second wind under such circumstances is extremely hard.
But, while it's a very strong rule of thumb that a party, having begun to lose seats at general elections, will go on losing them until in opposition, it's always subject to circumstances and an extraordinary circumstance could override the natural dynamics.
Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.
I think I'm right in saying the last party to increase a majority after seeing it reduced at the previous election were the Liberals under Palmerston in 1865.
It might have happened between the two 1910 elections too, depending on how you count Lib-Lab candidates - though (1) even squeezing that definition, you'd only have a tiny gain, and (2) two elections in a year doesn't really count as an electoral cycle - particularly when the second one delivers more-or-less a carbon copy of the first.
Well it doesn't seem to be a hindrance, especially on BT Sports. They would appreciate a really big name to compete with Sky.
Won’t happen.
The next England match BT Sports will cover is 3 and a half years away.
Hopefully they will have catch up by then. Its absence has been a real nuisance. But I do expect them to pick up a chunk of domestic cricket as well as their international offerings.
Sky have the rights to all domestic and international matches in England until the end of 2024.
Plus long term deals with most Test nations for their home matches.
Very sad. Killing the game.
indeed I used to be an avid follower until it went exclusively on Sky and since then I have barely watched a ball. A massive mistake by the cricket authorities if they want interest in their game to continue
I sort of agree (but pay for Sky and BT Sport too) but why is that any different to football? People say that Sky are killing cricket but not football. Why? Actually, Sky isn't that costly – list price is £40/pcm or so but customers with decent status on Sky or Virgin get it for less than that simply by threatening to cancel the service.
I joined Sky the day they launched and am now deemed a VIP customer (overv15 years) and they replaced my box with Sky Q with multiroom free and as they own the boxes I do not need separate breakdown cover saving £100 ish per year. I was paying £78 per month but negotiated it down to £64 per month recently.
Sky Q also gives access to your tablets and of course premier league football is available in Ultra 4.
Sky are generally negotiable and are best by miles for sport
I have a similar story with Virgin, with whom I have cable TV and broadband. They replaced all three of our boxes free of charge with the new V6 (which is excellent and, unlike SkyQ, comes with a 1TB of storage on each box!). When I threatened to quit the sport recently (the plan was the reinstate when the cricket returns in the summer – the football Premier League being a foregone conclusion) they made it cheaper for me to keep all the sports channels than to get rid of them! Once you have been with these services for a while they are so fearful of losing you to their chief competitor (Sky/Virgin) they bend over backwards to keep you happy. And the cable broadband on both Sky and Virgin is very, very good – much better than most corporate services. I often work at home because the internet is faster!
Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.
I think I'm right in saying the last party to increase a majority after seeing it reduced at the previous election were the Liberals under Palmerston in 1865.
The problem with this line of thinking is this (from xkcd):
Yes, although there are very strong natural reasons for that pattern. For a governing party to gain seats at an election, having lost them at the previous one, requires it to take place in at least the second election after taking office - usually eight or more years into their term. by that point, a party's initial manifesto will, in the main, either have been implemented or junked and it will have begun to look less radical and more managerial and even tired. In addition to which, failures which occur can no longer be blamed on its predecessor. To gain a second wind under such circumstances is extremely hard.
But, while it's a very strong rule of thumb that a party, having begun to lose seats at general elections, will go on losing them until in opposition, it's always subject to circumstances and an extraordinary circumstance could override the natural dynamics.
So few rules of thumb and historical precedents have applied in recent times I have all but abandoned them as a way of filtering my thoughts.
You have to wonder, given in the last six weeks they have taken a one way flight into Cloud Cuckoo land that even a Ludendorff or a JWisemann ('moderate leftist') would blench at, whether the top bods in the Kremlin are actually smoking something.
Given they control the world's largest nuclear weapon, this is a distinctly worrying thought.
It makes me think of 1984 and "we have always been at war with Eastasia".
This is the Russian Ministry of Truth line and that is all that will be fed to their public. We don't live under a socialist one party state dictatorship with control over the media able to rewrite fiction as fact so we know its bulls**t but that doesn't bother the Russians. The truth is flexible. The truth is whatever Putin says it is.
Yes, although there are very strong natural reasons for that pattern. For a governing party to gain seats at an election, having lost them at the previous one, requires it to take place in at least the second election after taking office - usually eight or more years into their term. by that point, a party's initial manifesto will, in the main, either have been implemented or junked and it will have begun to look less radical and more managerial and even tired. In addition to which, failures which occur can no longer be blamed on its predecessor. To gain a second wind under such circumstances is extremely hard.
But, while it's a very strong rule of thumb that a party, having begun to lose seats at general elections, will go on losing them until in opposition, it's always subject to circumstances and an extraordinary circumstance could override the natural dynamics.
Instinct (which has proven so reliable in the past!) is telling me that the next election will be decided not by switching voters but whose supporters are more motivated to vote. If turnout is down and Labour hold on to more of their voters than the Tories, then regardless of their headline voteshare they seem likely to take power.
From that point of view there are swings and roundabouts to both sides in replacing leaders. Corbyn motivates the Tory base, but also the Labour one. He sets a floor and a ceiling. If he retires (as I still fully expect him to, incidentally) then the Tories lose that firewall, but will a new Labour leader motivate the Labour base to the same degree? I have to say looking at the possible candidates it seems unlikely.
Similarly, let's assume May goes (again, I expect her to). None of the others exude quite the same level of boring competence she does when she wishes. Boris is a far better campaigner, but he isn't popular with large chunks of the party and he would definitely get the Labour base out even if the party were to be led by a card-carrying Nazi. That said, I think we need to see who the next FS and Chancellor are before making predictions about the next leader.
I think we will probably see one party in the mid-30s and the other around 40. The question is which will be which.
Mr. Thompson, but we do have idiots in the media (and leading the Opposition). Can still scarcely believe how atrocious ITV's lead story was when the deleted tweet and Boris cocking up was followed up by Paul Brand saying that it takes just one chink in the armour, one hole to sink a ship.
So if Boris' misspeaks that means the whole case is wrong? A mistaken tweet outweighs three victims, intelligence sources, and Porton Down?
It was the most incomprehensibly stupid piece of reporting I've seen since the last time I watched Channel 4 News, which featured Jon Snow bleating about the 'Soviet-style censorship' of a D-notice that stopped him broadcasting that Prince Harry was on the front line in Afghanistan.
Edited extra bit: They [ITV] didn't even mention during that story (though they had the previous day) that it was never Porton Down's job to identify the source of the substance, only the composition of the substance. Horrendously bad reporting.
You have to wonder, given in the last six weeks they have taken a one way flight into Cloud Cuckoo land that even a Ludendorff or a JWisemann ('moderate leftist') would blench at, whether the top bods in the Kremlin are actually smoking something.
Given they control the world's largest nuclear weapon, this is a distinctly worrying thought.
Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.
I think I'm right in saying the last party to increase a majority after seeing it reduced at the previous election were the Liberals under Palmerston in 1865.
It might have happened between the two 1910 elections too, depending on how you count Lib-Lab candidates - though (1) even squeezing that definition, you'd only have a tiny gain, and (2) two elections in a year doesn't really count as an electoral cycle - particularly when the second one delivers more-or-less a carbon copy of the first.
Lib Lab didn't have a majority though (and were actually net unchanged). It was the Irish vote that gave Asquith an overall majority. So I suppose their gain of one seat did technically increase the government's majority, but it seems a bit technical.
On Syria, the UK may fit in with whatever the US proposes or much less likely in consortium with France. I don't get the impression Trump is pushing for a coalition of the willing or investing capital in international diplomacy.
You have to wonder, given in the last six weeks they have taken a one way flight into Cloud Cuckoo land that even a Ludendorff or a JWisemann ('moderate leftist') would blench at, whether the top bods in the Kremlin are actually smoking something.
Given they control the world's largest nuclear weapon, this is a distinctly worrying thought.
I joined Sky the day they launched and am now deemed a VIP customer (overv15 years) and they replaced my box with Sky Q with multiroom free and as they own the boxes I do not need separate breakdown cover saving £100 ish per year. I was paying £78 per month but negotiated it down to £64 per month recently.
Sky Q also gives access to your tablets and of course premier league football is available in Ultra 4.
Sky are generally negotiable and are best by miles for sport .........................................................................................................
I have a similar story with Virgin, with whom I have cable TV and broadband. They replaced all three of our boxes free of charge with the new V6 (which is excellent and, unlike SkyQ, comes with a 1TB of storage on each box!). When I threatened to quit the sport recently (the plan was the reinstate when the cricket returns in the summer – the football Premier League being a foregone conclusion) they made it cheaper for me to keep all the sports channels than to get rid of them! Once you have been with these services for a while they are so fearful of losing you to their chief competitor (Sky/Virgin) they bend over backwards to keep you happy. And the cable broadband on both Sky and Virgin is very, very good – much better than most corporate services. I often work at home because the internet is faster!
The competition is growing and of course at the end of next year Sky and BT sports are going to offer football over both platforms and Sky has just entered an agreement with Netflix.
And on a small point Sky installed their 2 TB Q box
Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.
I think I'm right in saying the last party to increase a majority after seeing it reduced at the previous election were the Liberals under Palmerston in 1865.
The problem with this line of thinking is this (from xkcd):
Yes, although there are very strong natural reasons for that pattern. For a governing party to gain seats at an election, having lost them at the previous one, requires it to take place in at least the second election after taking office - usually eight or more years into their term. by that point, a party's initial manifesto will, in the main, either have been implemented or junked and it will have begun to look less radical and more managerial and even tired. In addition to which, failures which occur can no longer be blamed on its predecessor. To gain a second wind under such circumstances is extremely hard.
But, while it's a very strong rule of thumb that a party, having begun to lose seats at general elections, will go on losing them until in opposition, it's always subject to circumstances and an extraordinary circumstance could override the natural dynamics.
Oh, indeed, but as soon as we start to consider the pattern and weigh up the circumstances, we're well ahead of those who pull out the precedent from the past and cite it without considering it further.
Kahnemann's System 2 thinking versus System 1 thinking - the best of us default to rules of thumb under almost all normal circumstances, often without realising we're doing it. Whereas every election has special circumstances, so we need to weigh up why these patterns have happened and what the circumstances are this time that affect that pattern. Bearing in mind that we've seen many such patterns fall in shards at our feet over just the past three years: ("The Lib Dems always get a big incumbency boost in their target seats; they won't drop below 30 or so"; "The Tories can't get a majority these days; especially not after being in government for five years"; "Hard left candidates always get hammered; Labour are in for a historic shoe-ing", etc).
I have to pretend to be a Man City fan tonight as I take my seat at the Etihad.
Ha ha, good luck and remember not to cheer too loudly for the wrong team!
Good luck. I did that once entering Old Trafford as a home fan for a League Cup game while wearing a Liverpool shirt under my coat.
I made the mistake of opening my coat up as it was warm before entering the grounds and the guy checking the tickets spotted my shirt. He told me to button up the jacket and keep it buttoned up and said that I would have no reason to cheer ...
You have to wonder, given in the last six weeks they have taken a one way flight into Cloud Cuckoo land that even a Ludendorff or a JWisemann ('moderate leftist') would blench at, whether the top bods in the Kremlin are actually smoking something.
Given they control the world's largest nuclear weapon, this is a distinctly worrying thought.
Many of the top Nazis were on crystal meth.
Yes, but given that a pervasive sense of multiple paranoia was a necessary condition to be a Nazi in the first place, in their case crystal meth probably made them more rational and world-aware.
Sky has the bigger single unit but the slave devices have no storage – whereas on Virgin all the boxes are 1TB and operate as a network. Not that I'm criticising Sky Q – it's a superb system, better in many respects to Virgin.
Very rare for sitting governments to improve their standing. Especially after - in terms of vote share - already having done so once.
I think I'm right in saying the last party to increase a majority after seeing it reduced at the previous election were the Liberals under Palmerston in 1865.
The problem with this line of thinking is this (from xkcd):
Yes, although there are very strong natural reasons for that pattern. For a governing party to gain seats at an election, having lost them at the previous one, requires it to take place in at least the second election after taking office - usually eight or more years into their term. by that point, a party's initial manifesto will, in the main, either have been implemented or junked and it will have begun to look less radical and more managerial and even tired. In addition to which, failures which occur can no longer be blamed on its predecessor. To gain a second wind under such circumstances is extremely hard.
But, while it's a very strong rule of thumb that a party, having begun to lose seats at general elections, will go on losing them until in opposition, it's always subject to circumstances and an extraordinary circumstance could override the natural dynamics.
So few rules of thumb and historical precedents have applied in recent times I have all but abandoned them as a way of filtering my thoughts.
You're suffering from checkout syndrome. You're remembering the exceptions when the other queue moved faster but not the time when yours did. Rules of thumb always need to be taken in context but overall, they've served well. Indeed, one decent rule of thumb is that large systemic change doesn't happen often but when it does, it clusters.
Mr. Smithson, one concern people have about F1 is that the move to pay TV is leading to declining audiences and, correspondingly, less sponsor interest.
Yep, it’s a big problem for many sports. With F1, the issue is that the TV money goes to the promoter, whereas the sponsorship goes mainly to the teams, so the teams lose out from the new arrangements.
The Sky F1 programming is a fantastic product, a model of how to cover a multi-day sporting event. Shame that very few people watch it.
The UKs prosperity in the 21dt Century depends on the security of global trade and its sea lanes, and broader global stability. So that’s the basis on which our foreign policy is pivoting.
We opened a new naval base (and oiling station) in Bahrain only last week.
Interesting so I can see a role for naval power and air power but I'm less convinced about an army and tanks.
As Dura Ace mentioned earlier, it's time to ask the hard questions and seek the comprehensive reform of the armed forces that every other institution has had to go through since the 1980s.
I agree we need a fir-for-purpose armed forces and what you suggest is probably the direction we should be heading but it requires a different "Armed Forces" to what we currently have and it's not a question of spending more but spending better and smarter.
One thing Dura Ace was right on was our treatment of veterans and that's an area I think most would agree could use some additional funding.
Interestingly, while I agree that a civil society should look after its elderly and injured, I have never entirely grasped why forces veterans should be favoured over, say, lumberjacks and miners, rescue teams and other professionals with dangerous jobs. I should say I am open to the argument, I just don't fully understand the logic.
Agreed, they all volunteer for it , just a career choice like everyone else makes.
Sky has the bigger single unit but the slave devices have no storage – whereas on Virgin all the boxes are 1TB and operate as a network. Not that I'm criticising Sky Q – it's a superb system, better in many respects to Virgin.
Not too sure of the tech detail but the 2TB Q box seems to have the storage and the on line multi box allows recording and viewing to and from the main box. It is remarkably good and I was told Sky Q is now the default system for all new subscribers and eventually all customers will have Sky Q and of course it will soon be accessed only through the internet dispensing with the external dishes
You have to wonder, given in the last six weeks they have taken a one way flight into Cloud Cuckoo land that even a Ludendorff or a JWisemann ('moderate leftist') would blench at, whether the top bods in the Kremlin are actually smoking something.
Given they control the world's largest nuclear weapon, this is a distinctly worrying thought.
It makes me think of 1984 and "we have always been at war with Eastasia".
This is the Russian Ministry of Truth line and that is all that will be fed to their public. We don't live under a socialist one party state dictatorship with control over the media able to rewrite fiction as fact so we know its bulls**t but that doesn't bother the Russians. The truth is flexible. The truth is whatever Putin says it is.
Dr Ydoethur will correct me i’m sure, but wasn’t the ‘traditional’ European set up, before WWI anyway, Britain plus some at least of the German States vs France and Russia?
Mr. Gin, I agree with Blair. Seeking parliamentary approval for military action is dumb and unnecessary. It only happened when some dodgy son of a bitch (I forget his name) wanted to get explicit approval from others to bind them to his decision which, it turned out, wasn't 100% kosher.
The UKs prosperity in the 21dt Century depends on the security of global trade and its sea lanes, and broader global stability. So that’s the basis on which our foreign policy is pivoting.
We opened a new naval base (and oiling station) in Bahrain only last week.
Interesting so I can see a role for naval power and air power but I'm less convinced about an army and tanks.
As Dura Ace mentioned earlier, it's time to ask the hard questions and seek the comprehensive reform of the armed forces that every other institution has had to go through since the 1980s.
I agree we need a fir-for-purpose armed forces and what you suggest is probably the direction we should be heading but it requires a different "Armed Forces" to what we currently have and it's not a question of spending more but spending better and smarter.
One thing Dura Ace was right on was our treatment of veterans and that's an area I think most would agree could use some additional funding.
Interestingly, while I agree that a civil society should look after its elderly and injured, I have never entirely grasped why forces veterans should be favoured over, say, lumberjacks and miners, rescue teams and other professionals with dangerous jobs. I should say I am open to the argument, I just don't fully understand the logic.
I mean steeplejacks
No, you were right first time; I bet there's 100 x the "tree surgeons" with life changing industrial industries as there are steeplejacks.
Sky has the bigger single unit but the slave devices have no storage – whereas on Virgin all the boxes are 1TB and operate as a network. Not that I'm criticising Sky Q – it's a superb system, better in many respects to Virgin.
Not too sure of the tech detail but the 2TB Q box seems to have the storage and the on line multi box allows recording and viewing to and from the main box. It is remarkably good and I was told Sky Q is now the default system for all new subscribers and eventually all customers will have Sky Q and of course it will soon be accessed only through the internet dispensing with the external dishes
And that is when our rural North Yorkshire, community built, Gigabit, real fibre-to-the-home broadband with unlimited use for £30 per month will come into its own.
I'm reminded of this article from last year; when everyone was certain a chemical attack had taken place despite the fact they knew it hadn't.
The Assad regime is awful, the Putin regime is awful, but so is the Turkish regime we're arming to kill Kurds and the Hungarian regime the Foreign Secretary just congratulated for winning reelection. We shouldn't obfuscate the awfulness with lies or hyperbole, it just leads to the average voter not trusting politicians in the future. Someone else mentioned earlier that the best chance Corbyn may have is May taking us into another unnecessary war in the Middle East. If I was a Tory I wouldn't be sabre rattling right now.
The UKs prosperity in the 21dt Century depends on the security of global trade and its sea lanes, and broader global stability. So that’s the basis on which our foreign policy is pivoting.
We opened a new naval base (and oiling station) in Bahrain only last week.
Interesting so I can see a role for naval power and air power but I'm less convinced about an army and tanks.
As Dura Ace mentioned earlier, it's time to ask the hard questions and seek the comprehensive reform of the armed forces that every other institution has had to go through since the 1980s.
I agree we need a fir-for-purpose armed forces and what you suggest is probably the direction we should be heading but it requires a different "Armed Forces" to what we currently have and it's not a question of spending more but spending better and smarter.
One thing Dura Ace was right on was our treatment of veterans and that's an area I think most would agree could use some additional funding.
Interestingly, while I agree that a civil society should look after its elderly and injured, I have never entirely grasped why forces veterans should be favoured over, say, lumberjacks and miners, rescue teams and other professionals with dangerous jobs. I should say I am open to the argument, I just don't fully understand the logic.
Agreed, they all volunteer for it , just a career choice like everyone else makes.
Well: non-forces people can possibly sue someone and/or claim on some form of insurance if things go wrong, because when they get injured or dead that is an unwanted by-product of doing the job, whereas being bombed or shot is part of the job description for the forces. I doubt you can get any form of insurance against IED damage as a soldier in Afghanistan.
And the forces work for the state, not for private employers.
Interestingly, while I agree that a civil society should look after its elderly and injured, I have never entirely grasped why forces veterans should be favoured over, say, lumberjacks and miners, rescue teams and other professionals with dangerous jobs. I should say I am open to the argument, I just don't fully understand the logic.
I don't think it's a question of being favoured over - it's a question of being particularly vulnerable to certain problems and thus needing particular support.
Since Guido now appears to be a regular go to destination for PBers, I hope everyone is going to stop whining about other media outlets such as the Canary, WoS, RT etc.
Wasn't Paul Staines quite keen on linking up with the BNP at one point? Of course that was when it was led by the much more reasonable John Tyndall.
'It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons'
Worth going to war with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads? (The thing is obviously a jihadist fraud anyway, you'd have to be 'thick as mince' to think otherwise)
Would you please provide a shred of evidence for that assertion ?
You have to wonder, given in the last six weeks they have taken a one way flight into Cloud Cuckoo land that even a Ludendorff or a JWisemann ('moderate leftist') would blench at, whether the top bods in the Kremlin are actually smoking something.
Given they control the world's largest nuclear weapon, this is a distinctly worrying thought.
It makes me think of 1984 and "we have always been at war with Eastasia".
This is the Russian Ministry of Truth line and that is all that will be fed to their public. We don't live under a socialist one party state dictatorship with control over the media able to rewrite fiction as fact so we know its bulls**t but that doesn't bother the Russians. The truth is flexible. The truth is whatever Putin says it is.
Dr Ydoethur will correct me i’m sure, but wasn’t the ‘traditional’ European set up, before WWI anyway, Britain plus some at least of the German States vs France and Russia?
It depends on when you are talking about!
From 1907 it was Britain, France and Russia against the German states.
Generally our rivalry was with France - Russia not so much (indeed Russia was crucial in securing the overthrow of Napoleon in 1814). Simple geography was of course the reason for that. When we did launch a major land war against Russia in the 1850s France was our ally. Later skirmishes tended to be over India or the Balkans (Berlin Congress in 1878 springs to mind) and were generally diplomatic rather than military. I don't think (although I could be wrong) that we launched another land war against Russia until 1918.
Although we did occasionally have alliances of convenience with Prussia or Austria it was usually the Netherlands (in the Middle Ages, in the form of Burgundy) or more importantly in the eighteenth century Hanover as a result of the personal union of the crowns there that served our interests until we went imperial. Then, of course, other factors came into play as well, particularly things like the preservation of the Ottoman empire.
'It’s worth going to war if it limits future use of chemical weapons'
Worth going to war with Russia, which has thousands of nuclear warheads? (The thing is obviously a jihadist fraud anyway, you'd have to be 'thick as mince' to think otherwise)
I get the impression that behind the bravado even the PB Tory chickenhawks are slightly nervous about May's defining place in history being to spark nuclear war to save a bunch of genocidal al-Qaeda linked jihadists (that to the Conservatives' eternal shame they have been aiding and arming, in an extension of their historic love affair with Salafi extremists).
You do realise that the government has access to far more evidence than you do? You’ve probably read a few tweets and that’s about it.
‘Obviously’ a jihadist fraud, it is not.
No, I have a lot of knowledge of the Syria situation thanks, going back many years. I'm not denying the government has 'more access to evidence' than I do. I'm suggesting they know it is nonsense too, just like all the other times they have used lies and half-truths to intervene against 'enemies' where they were desperate to anyway.
Syria is where NATO & GCC's destruction of the remaining independent countries in the Middle East has been rudely halted, and the US MIC and its poodles over here see that as an existential threat. Unfortunately for the rest of us, it looks like they are willing to risk our existence over it too. Of course, if the public knew they were willing to risk world war to save their jihadi army, there'd be uproar, hence the endless propaganda.
You are defending a regime which has gone to war with its own population; has destroyed completely the second major city in the country; has effectively exiled a third of the entire population; bombs and gases civilians. And, of course, their Russian enablers.
Luke is on the anti-Corbyn-but-loyalist wing. He is being seriously objective here.
"Of course we now know, based on the defeat in 2015, that the electoral cycle means the Labour Party must do a lot better now than it was doing in the mid-term of the 2010-2015 parliament in order to win in 2022."
I have to pretend to be a Man City fan tonight as I take my seat at the Etihad.
Ha ha, good luck and remember not to cheer too loudly for the wrong team!
Good luck. I did that once entering Old Trafford as a home fan for a League Cup game while wearing a Liverpool shirt under my coat.
I made the mistake of opening my coat up as it was warm before entering the grounds and the guy checking the tickets spotted my shirt. He told me to button up the jacket and keep it buttoned up and said that I would have no reason to cheer ...
... he was right. We lost 1-0.
I did something similar wearing a Liverpool shirt in Barcelona. Luckily that one finished 0-0 and I bought a couple of beers for the guys who were sitting either side of me!
Luke is on the anti-Corbyn-but-loyalist wing. He is being seriously objective here.
"Of course we now know, based on the defeat in 2015, that the electoral cycle means the Labour Party must do a lot better now than it was doing in the mid-term of the 2010-2015 parliament in order to win in 2022."
We really don't 'know' this at all.
We don't *know* it but the evidence from past local election rounds points strongly in that direction. Labour shouldn't rely on a campaign miracle in 2022 any more than the Tories should have done in 1997.
I have to pretend to be a Man City fan tonight as I take my seat at the Etihad.
Ha ha, good luck and remember not to cheer too loudly for the wrong team!
Good luck. I did that once entering Old Trafford as a home fan for a League Cup game while wearing a Liverpool shirt under my coat.
I made the mistake of opening my coat up as it was warm before entering the grounds and the guy checking the tickets spotted my shirt. He told me to button up the jacket and keep it buttoned up and said that I would have no reason to cheer ...
... he was right. We lost 1-0.
Little did you realise he was talking about the next decade.
Nothing wrong with my link - very interesting statement
... In the four weeks since the incident in the city centre, both have received round the clock care from our clinicians, who’ve been able to draw in advice and support from world leading experts in this field. We’ve been keeping you updated on the condition of Yulia and Sergei, whilst respecting the right to privacy to which they – and all our patients – are entitled. While I won’t go into great detail about the treatment we’ve been providing, I will say that nerve agents work by attaching themselves to a particular enzyme in the body which then stops the nerves from working properly. This results in symptoms such as sickness, hallucinations and confusion. Our job in treating the patients has been to stabilise them– ensuring that the patients could breathe and that blood could continue to circulate. We then needed to use a variety of different drugs to support the patients until they could create more enzymes to replace those affected by the poisoning. We also used specialised decontamination techniques to remove any residual toxins. Both patients have responded exceptionally well to the treatment we’ve been providing. But equally, both patients are at different stages in their recovery. Yulia has now been discharged from Salisbury District Hospital. Yulia has asked for privacy from the media and I want to reiterate that request. I also want to take this opportunity to wish Yulia well. This is not the end of her treatment, but marks a significant milestone. Her father has also made good progress. On Friday I announced that he was no longer in a critical condition. Although he is recovering more slowly than Yulia, we hope that he too will be able to leave hospital in due course..
Edit to fit in single post - thanks to staff at end.
So the only casualties of the whole attack with super deadly bond villain toxins a million times stronger than sarin were a couple of cats and a guinea pig. Thank god for that.
As the Russian scientist who developed these poisons (your obsession with Bond is more than a little bizarre...) have said, their effect is determined by dosage and delivery method. Your argument rather neatly ignores how long Andrei Zheleznyakov survived after accidental exposure to one of the novichoks.
As has been pointed out to you a dozen or more times, Russian assassins have hardly proved infallible in the past. It is only Kremlin sock puppets like yourselves who spread such myths.
Comments
As Dura Ace mentioned earlier, it's time to ask the hard questions and seek the comprehensive reform of the armed forces that every other institution has had to go through since the 1980s.
I agree we need a fir-for-purpose armed forces and what you suggest is probably the direction we should be heading but it requires a different "Armed Forces" to what we currently have and it's not a question of spending more but spending better and smarter.
One thing Dura Ace was right on was our treatment of veterans and that's an area I think most would agree could use some additional funding.
Why do you hate the NHS?
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/10/whisper-it-gavin-williamson-is-actually-doing-pretty-well-at
Given they control the world's largest nuclear weapon, this is a distinctly worrying thought.
But, while it's a very strong rule of thumb that a party, having begun to lose seats at general elections, will go on losing them until in opposition, it's always subject to circumstances and an extraordinary circumstance could override the natural dynamics.
This is the Russian Ministry of Truth line and that is all that will be fed to their public. We don't live under a socialist one party state dictatorship with control over the media able to rewrite fiction as fact so we know its bulls**t but that doesn't bother the Russians. The truth is flexible. The truth is whatever Putin says it is.
From that point of view there are swings and roundabouts to both sides in replacing leaders. Corbyn motivates the Tory base, but also the Labour one. He sets a floor and a ceiling. If he retires (as I still fully expect him to, incidentally) then the Tories lose that firewall, but will a new Labour leader motivate the Labour base to the same degree? I have to say looking at the possible candidates it seems unlikely.
Similarly, let's assume May goes (again, I expect her to). None of the others exude quite the same level of boring competence she does when she wishes. Boris is a far better campaigner, but he isn't popular with large chunks of the party and he would definitely get the Labour base out even if the party were to be led by a card-carrying Nazi. That said, I think we need to see who the next FS and Chancellor are before making predictions about the next leader.
I think we will probably see one party in the mid-30s and the other around 40. The question is which will be which.
And that doesn't even begin to cover events...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eedH28a4Fus
So if Boris' misspeaks that means the whole case is wrong? A mistaken tweet outweighs three victims, intelligence sources, and Porton Down?
It was the most incomprehensibly stupid piece of reporting I've seen since the last time I watched Channel 4 News, which featured Jon Snow bleating about the 'Soviet-style censorship' of a D-notice that stopped him broadcasting that Prince Harry was on the front line in Afghanistan.
Edited extra bit: They [ITV] didn't even mention during that story (though they had the previous day) that it was never Porton Down's job to identify the source of the substance, only the composition of the substance. Horrendously bad reporting.
https://order-order.com/2018/04/10/nick-griffin-endorses-corbyn/
We won't be driving this.
He was on morphine...
I joined Sky the day they launched and am now deemed a VIP customer (overv15 years) and they replaced my box with Sky Q with multiroom free and as they own the boxes I do not need separate breakdown cover saving £100 ish per year. I was paying £78 per month but negotiated it down to £64 per month recently.
Sky Q also gives access to your tablets and of course premier league football is available in Ultra 4.
Sky are generally negotiable and are best by miles for sport
.........................................................................................................
I have a similar story with Virgin, with whom I have cable TV and broadband. They replaced all three of our boxes free of charge with the new V6 (which is excellent and, unlike SkyQ, comes with a 1TB of storage on each box!). When I threatened to quit the sport recently (the plan was the reinstate when the cricket returns in the summer – the football Premier League being a foregone conclusion) they made it cheaper for me to keep all the sports channels than to get rid of them! Once you have been with these services for a while they are so fearful of losing you to their chief competitor (Sky/Virgin) they bend over backwards to keep you happy. And the cable broadband on both Sky and Virgin is very, very good – much better than most corporate services. I often work at home because the internet is faster!
............................................................................................................
The competition is growing and of course at the end of next year Sky and BT sports are going to offer football over both platforms and Sky has just entered an agreement with Netflix.
And on a small point Sky installed their 2 TB Q box
His name was Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.
Kahnemann's System 2 thinking versus System 1 thinking - the best of us default to rules of thumb under almost all normal circumstances, often without realising we're doing it. Whereas every election has special circumstances, so we need to weigh up why these patterns have happened and what the circumstances are this time that affect that pattern. Bearing in mind that we've seen many such patterns fall in shards at our feet over just the past three years:
("The Lib Dems always get a big incumbency boost in their target seats; they won't drop below 30 or so"; "The Tories can't get a majority these days; especially not after being in government for five years"; "Hard left candidates always get hammered; Labour are in for a historic shoe-ing", etc).
I made the mistake of opening my coat up as it was warm before entering the grounds and the guy checking the tickets spotted my shirt. He told me to button up the jacket and keep it buttoned up and said that I would have no reason to cheer ...
... he was right. We lost 1-0.
Sky has the bigger single unit but the slave devices have no storage – whereas on Virgin all the boxes are 1TB and operate as a network. Not that I'm criticising Sky Q – it's a superb system, better in many respects to Virgin.
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/983640768874246144
When will these people learn to STFU?
The Sky F1 programming is a fantastic product, a model of how to cover a multi-day sporting event. Shame that very few people watch it.
This after recently saying he wants Parliament to overturn the democratic will of the British people in the referendum.
The man is turning into an unhinged despot!
Mr. Gin, I agree with Blair. Seeking parliamentary approval for military action is dumb and unnecessary. It only happened when some dodgy son of a bitch (I forget his name) wanted to get explicit approval from others to bind them to his decision which, it turned out, wasn't 100% kosher.
I'm reminded of this article from last year; when everyone was certain a chemical attack had taken place despite the fact they knew it hadn't.
The Assad regime is awful, the Putin regime is awful, but so is the Turkish regime we're arming to kill Kurds and the Hungarian regime the Foreign Secretary just congratulated for winning reelection. We shouldn't obfuscate the awfulness with lies or hyperbole, it just leads to the average voter not trusting politicians in the future. Someone else mentioned earlier that the best chance Corbyn may have is May taking us into another unnecessary war in the Middle East. If I was a Tory I wouldn't be sabre rattling right now.
https://labourlist.org/2018/04/luke-akehurst-what-would-good-local-election-results-look-like/
Luke is on the anti-Corbyn-but-loyalist wing. He is being seriously objective here.
And the forces work for the state, not for private employers.
Wasn't Paul Staines quite keen on linking up with the BNP at one point? Of course that was when it was led by the much more reasonable John Tyndall.
Doesn't sound that ambitious at all - managing expectations.
NEW THREAD
From 1907 it was Britain, France and Russia against the German states.
Generally our rivalry was with France - Russia not so much (indeed Russia was crucial in securing the overthrow of Napoleon in 1814). Simple geography was of course the reason for that. When we did launch a major land war against Russia in the 1850s France was our ally. Later skirmishes tended to be over India or the Balkans (Berlin Congress in 1878 springs to mind) and were generally diplomatic rather than military. I don't think (although I could be wrong) that we launched another land war against Russia until 1918.
Although we did occasionally have alliances of convenience with Prussia or Austria it was usually the Netherlands (in the Middle Ages, in the form of Burgundy) or more importantly in the eighteenth century Hanover as a result of the personal union of the crowns there that served our interests until we went imperial. Then, of course, other factors came into play as well, particularly things like the preservation of the Ottoman empire.
(PS You just called me 'Dr. the Dr.!')
And, of course, their Russian enablers.
We really don't 'know' this at all.
Your argument rather neatly ignores how long Andrei Zheleznyakov survived after accidental exposure to one of the novichoks.
As has been pointed out to you a dozen or more times, Russian assassins have hardly proved infallible in the past. It is only Kremlin sock puppets like yourselves who spread such myths.