Is there anyone, anywhere, who's modelled (roughly) what the House of Representatives might look like if it wasn't gerrymandered?
In other words, fair seats nationwide with a boundaries commission?
Broadly, at the moment the Democrats would do better (+20 or so, IIRC). That reflects greater gOP control of states rather than greater virtue in not gerrymandering. I believe California almost uniquely has fair independent boundary-setting - decided by a referendum, I think?
I agree with Elliot that the way the states are represented is absurd - one of those historical anomalies like the Lords. The practical effect is to benefit rural areas, which generally means the Republicans.
Thanks to both you and Sean Fear.
I sense not a landslide or hugely decisive either way.
Mr. Rentool, Labour have cited the demise of the NHS so much it's got shades of crying wolf. At this rate it'll take longer to fall than the Roman Empire.
Mr. Phil, PFI buggered the NHS, and Brown's epic recession (which included bringing forward spending to the pre-election period) made spending increases rather tricky.
Social care is a quagmire, and the Conservatives didn't exactly help with their fantastically cackhanded efforts at their last manifesto.
Is there anyone, anywhere, who's modelled (roughly) what the House of Representatives might look like if it wasn't gerrymandered?
In other words, fair seats nationwide with a boundaries commission?
In overall terms, it would quite similar to what it is now (maybe 235-200 or so). But, some of the State level results would be markedly different. Two things work against the Democrats, even without gerrymandering.
1. The increasing concentration of their voters in big cities, where they pile up useless majorities, 2. The requirement for majority/minority districts, which also produces useless majorities.
Who is requiring them to have majority (ethnic?) minority districts?
And will that even be mathematically/demographically true in 20-30 years time?
As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.
I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?
I wouldn't say most hated.
Hunts biggest problem is his limited budget, but his actual competence is not much worse than most Health Secretaries.
He's clearly a talented man, with a successful business career and was widely viewed as having done a good job on the Olympics. But I think he is very much hated.
Who do you think was a more hated health secretary?
Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.
I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.
The much more interesting question to me is whether the Dems make progress down ticket, in state senates, in Governors mansions, and in other key positions. The New Yorker article about Oklahoma was interesting, with Democrats putting up twice as many candidates as they did last time around.
The danger for the Republicans is that as the state congresses flip, then gerrymandering moves from being a Republican hobby to a Democrat one.
That seems unlikely to me for the reasons that @logical_song points out. The vast number of small, ultra conservative States in the middle of the US is always likely to give the Republicans the majority of states in which to gerrymander to their heart's content. The Dems may pick up some swing states on the coasts and maybe even the north west but they won't get a majority.
A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.
That'd be the case if the Senate was the only branch of the government. It's not.
In the House of Representatives California has 53 Representatives versus North Dakota having 1.
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and got a move on with becoming next PM/leader of the Cons.
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and moved with his buddies over to the opposition benches. Then the NHS might stand a chance.
Is this one of those Northern Powerhouse stories - a US commentator comes over and says what a sh1t hole the North is because of austerity and has everyone lining up saying how vibrant the North is, what a great place it is and what are the Yanks talking about, and then there are endless articles in the Graun about how awful the North is and it has been left behind, etc. etc...
Same with the NHS which is deemed to be on the verge of collapse at the same time as being the most wonderful institution ever.
As we've learned with May permanence in a tough role does not mean high quality exists, however even with Cameron not shuffling much it is impressive Hunt has lasted since 2012. Considering how vital an area it is, how emotional, he seems to have done ok with a department where it only ever seems to be bad news. He doesn't even seem as widely hated as I'd have thought all health secretaries woukd be.
I think he is maybe the most hated health secretary ever?
I wouldn't say most hated.
Hunts biggest problem is his limited budget, but his actual competence is not much worse than most Health Secretaries.
He's clearly a talented man, with a successful business career and was widely viewed as having done a good job on the Olympics. But I think he is very much hated.
Who do you think was a more hated health secretary?
Is there anyone, anywhere, who's modelled (roughly) what the House of Representatives might look like if it wasn't gerrymandered?
In other words, fair seats nationwide with a boundaries commission?
In overall terms, it would quite similar to what it is now (maybe 235-200 or so). But, some of the State level results would be markedly different. Two things work against the Democrats, even without gerrymandering.
1. The increasing concentration of their voters in big cities, where they pile up useless majorities, 2. The requirement for majority/minority districts, which also produces useless majorities.
Who is requiring them to have majority (ethnic?) minority districts?
And will that even be mathematically/demographically true in 20-30 years time?
It's a requirement under the Voting Rights Act. I expect the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional, before long. Paradoxically, the Democrats are committed to retaining a piece of law that hurts them, and the Republicans are very happy to keep it on place.
Is there anyone, anywhere, who's modelled (roughly) what the House of Representatives might look like if it wasn't gerrymandered?
In other words, fair seats nationwide with a boundaries commission?
In overall terms, it would quite similar to what it is now (maybe 235-200 or so). But, some of the State level results would be markedly different. Two things work against the Democrats, even without gerrymandering.
1. The increasing concentration of their voters in big cities, where they pile up useless majorities, 2. The requirement for majority/minority districts, which also produces useless majorities.
Who is requiring them to have majority (ethnic?) minority districts?
And will that even be mathematically/demographically true in 20-30 years time?
It's a requirement under the Voting Rights Act. I expect the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional, before long. Paradoxically, the Democrats are committed to retaining a piece of law that hurts them, and the Republicans are very happy to keep it on place.
Easton's segment on polling Englishness was a bit concise. He also started south, then went more south, then more south, but I think there are more bits and pieces coming so hopefully he'll manage to discover the north before then. Lower percentages describing themselves as English the more southerly one goes is unsurprising.
I was amused by the student who specifically cited Richard the Lionheart (as a bad example). It'd be good to know if that was off his own bat or her was led that way. Using a 12th century man to try and exemplify a 21st century identity is not necessarily wise, and if he were after a positive example he could've easily cited Alfred the Great or Edward III.
Edited extra bit: only skimmed this, have other stuff to do, but the map is nice. Essentially, the further away from London you are, the more English you're likely to be/feel.
Of course, we assured on here that lower levels of English identity in the South are due to "proximity to France" and , of course, That London.
This we are assured by people who have never got off their backside to visit a city and a country they frequently cite as a forces for ill.
Ms. Anazina, which part of what I wrote do you actually disagree with? Taunting people for not having travelled as much or in the way you think they ought to is just snobbish.
Ms. Anazina, which part of what I wrote do you actually disagree with? Taunting people for not having travelled as much or in the way you think they ought to is just snobbish.
I am pointing out that you endlessly reference London, 'The French', France etc without every having been bothered to visit these places yourself. It is akin to saying "I don't like it, I haven't tried it."
Ms. Anazina, no. You're inventing an obsession then railing against the strawman you've created, not unlike ardent Remainers wibbling about the empire.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
Ms. Anazina, no. You're inventing an obsession then railing against the strawman you've created, not unlike ardent Remainers wibbling about the empire.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
The map shows the percentage identifying with an English county - not necessarily the same thing as identifing Englishness.
Is this modelling untested in the US? There is a reference to the article to it having been attempted in 2016 but no indication how it worked out.
I tend to agree with @HYUFD that this forecast is very far from a bad result for the Dems. Those expecting some sort of annihilation based on revulsion of the Donald were always going to be disappointed. The fairly disgraceful redistricting and the huge advantages of incumbency in the US was always going to make this more of a challenge than was being suggested too. November is a long way off but the Senate still looks out of range to me.
Democrat one.
A system which gives California (pop35.2m) the same number of Senators as North Dakota (pop 758k) is frankly weird. Why the US is so proud of their Constitution is an unending mystery to me.
Precisely because North Dakota has interests that are very different to California and need to be protected.
In an EU context, for example, it would give say Greece more power to stand up to Germany
Maybe the EU will move to something more like the US model eventually. The two Senate seats per state always strikes me as a strength, while the ability of the controlling party in each state to fix the Congressional district boundaries is a glaring weakness.
The US Senate is an undemocratic monstrosity. Would California's interests suddenly become more legitimate if it was a North California and a South California? There is absolutely no reason why the Great Plains should have 10 times as much representation just because it is split into a bunch of states via arbitrary borders.
hmmm
the UK which wont reform its own electoral boundaries is hardly in a position to lecture them
The unreformed boundaries in the UK are still far superior to the Senate or the House.
I don't think people truly appreciate how messed up the US has become. Much of the media is active propaganda, especially on the conservative side, lobbyist money controls the whole system, regulators are run by the industries they 'regulate', the Senate is grossly unrepresentative, and the House and state legislatures are actively rigged. Trump is a symptom of the malfunction more than he is a cure.
It is a terrible thing for the future of democracy worldwide that the most visible example of it is such a perverted version.
A symptom of voters caring more about partisan matters than about the honesty and integrity of their representatives. A dangerous place to be.
Ms. Anazina, no. You're inventing an obsession then railing against the strawman you've created, not unlike ardent Remainers wibbling about the empire.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
The map shows the percentage identifying with an English county or region - not necessarily the same thing as identifing Englishness.
Ms. Anazina, no. You're inventing an obsession then railing against the strawman you've created, not unlike ardent Remainers wibbling about the empire.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
The map shows the percentage identifying with an English county or region - not necessarily the same thing as identifing Englishness.
Ms. Anazina, no. You're inventing an obsession then railing against the strawman you've created, not unlike ardent Remainers wibbling about the empire.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
The map shows the percentage identifying with an English county or region - not necessarily the same thing as identifing Englishness.
So Londoners aren't proudly Londoners?
The map annotation doesn't mention "or region".
Tweet under it does "This map shows where people most strongly identify with a region or county. It's clear throughout the data that Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumbria and Cornwall identify very powerfully on this measure #englishquestion"
Is there anyone, anywhere, who's modelled (roughly) what the House of Representatives might look like if it wasn't gerrymandered?
In other words, fair seats nationwide with a boundaries commission?
In overall terms, it would quite similar to what it is now (maybe 235-200 or so). But, some of the State level results would be markedly different. Two things work against the Democrats, even without gerrymandering.
1. The increasing concentration of their voters in big cities, where they pile up useless majorities, 2. The requirement for majority/minority districts, which also produces useless majorities.
Who is requiring them to have majority (ethnic?) minority districts?
And will that even be mathematically/demographically true in 20-30 years time?
It's a requirement under the Voting Rights Act. I expect the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional, before long. Paradoxically, the Democrats are committed to retaining a piece of law that hurts them, and the Republicans are very happy to keep it on place.
Thanks.
IMHO, there was a fair argument for majority/minority districts, in the aftermath of Jim Crow, and when the South voted overwhelmingly Democratic. But, now, they just concentrate black voters into overwhelmingly Democratic seats, while ensuring the white vote is distributed far more efficiently to the benefit of the Republicans. They boost the number of minority Representatives, while diluting the influence of minority voters.
Ouch on the prelimnary finding about the "stay put" policy at Grenfell.
I am super-cautious to criticise the LFB based upon hindsight but I am at the same time very interested to understand the thinking, as it took place, of the evolution of the strategy that meant that no one thought it necessary to change it.
As they say, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy, but to torture the analogy, in the military there is an extensive scenario analysis list to determine the what ifs, or actions on and I am interested to understand whether such processes/scenarios had been trained for, etc.
Ms. Anazina, no. You're inventing an obsession then railing against the strawman you've created, not unlike ardent Remainers wibbling about the empire.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
The map shows the percentage identifying with an English county or region - not necessarily the same thing as identifing Englishness.
So Londoners aren't proudly Londoners?
The map annotation doesn't mention "or region".
Tweet under it does "This map shows where people most strongly identify with a region or county. It's clear throughout the data that Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumbria and Cornwall identify very powerfully on this measure #englishquestion"
Presumably Londoners weren't asked if they identified with a county, though?
There's a question "How strongly, if at all, do you identify yourself as being... From a county in England?" and another one "From a region or part of England?" I'd assume the map is based, as stated, on the County question.
In any event, Morris was wrong to deduce from the map that people feel less English the closer one is to London. (He might be right in assuming it but the map doesn't prove it.)
Ms. Anazina, no. You're inventing an obsession then railing against the strawman you've created, not unlike ardent Remainers wibbling about the empire.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
What a sad world if would be if we could not poke fun at our neighbours, internal and external. Doing so in good spirited fashion, as most do, is much improved on how we all used to behave with our closest neighbours! Thesedays we still want to beat the French, and they us, but only in the sense of friendly competition, and a bit of ribbing is a good thing.
Mr. Pointer, in my defence, that's a bloody weird thing to ask, when the news report was just yes/no [unsure if there was a third option] on whether someone felt proud to be English.
As an aside, I dislike the term 'pride' when it's associated with something one's done nothing to earn. I certainly don't feel ashamed to be English, and I like being English, but I wouldn't go out of my way to describe myself as proud (in a forced yes/no, I'd say yes).
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, quite, but some terribly delicate killjoys are dead set against anyone enjoying good-natured mockery.
Ms. Anazina, no. You're inventing an obsession then railing against the strawman you've created, not unlike ardent Remainers wibbling about the empire.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
The map shows the percentage identifying with an English county or region - not necessarily the same thing as identifing Englishness.
So Londoners aren't proudly Londoners?
The map annotation doesn't mention "or region".
Tweet under it does "This map shows where people most strongly identify with a region or county. It's clear throughout the data that Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumbria and Cornwall identify very powerfully on this measure #englishquestion"
Presumably Londoners weren't asked if they identified with a county, though?
There's a question "How strongly, if at all, do you identify yourself as being... From a county in England?" and another one "From a region or part of England?" I'd assume the map is based, as stated, on the County question.
In any event, Morris was wrong to deduce from the map that people feel less English the closer one is to London. (He might be right in assuming it but the map doesn't prove it.)
Indeed. Does seem strange that the beeb used that map in their article that was all about englishness though
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
In all my 10 years in Germany, I don't think anyone ever said the word "Inselaffe" within my earshot. It is regarded as a pretty offensive insult, and it is certainly not a word that anyone would use in polite company, even in jest. Granted, your company may not have been quite as refined as mine :-)
Mr. Pointer, in my defence, that's a bloody weird thing to ask, when the news report was just yes/no [unsure if there was a third option] on whether someone felt proud to be English.
As an aside, I dislike the term 'pride' when it's associated with something one's done nothing to earn. I certainly don't feel ashamed to be English, and I like being English, but I wouldn't go out of my way to describe myself as proud (in a forced yes/no, I'd say yes).
No defence needed - the BBC article is typically muddled. I bet it gave the people at YouGov cause for some eye-rolling.
If asked, I would say yes to an afinity with my adopted county (Dorset), the south-west region, England, Britain and Europe. Do I feel more English than British or European? No, about the same for all three I'd say.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
"Richard Nixon and his legal team would have been interested in the arguments espoused by the Trump legal team"
I'm not sure they would. Nixon resigned because he would almost certainly have otherwise have been impeached, against which there is no presidential power to pardon. And that's the constitutional backstop. It doesn't really matter whether or not a president can pardon himself. If one ever tried to do so, Congress could (and very likely would) kick him out.
Ouch on the prelimnary finding about the "stay put" policy at Grenfell.
I am super-cautious to criticise the LFB based upon hindsight but I am at the same time very interested to understand the thinking, as it took place, of the evolution of the strategy that meant that no one thought it necessary to change it.
As they say, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy, but to torture the analogy, in the military there is an extensive scenario analysis list to determine the what ifs, or actions on and I am interested to understand whether such processes/scenarios had been trained for, etc.
The old 'If I knew then what I know now' - while individual firemen toiled heroically under appalling circumstances, it seems pretty clear that their leadership were not quick enough to recognise the perils of 'stay put' in a fire that was clearly out of control and advancing up the outside of the building - much simpler to 'bash Tories' and blame 'cuts'.......rather than admit that there are indeed lessons to be learned.
Ouch on the prelimnary finding about the "stay put" policy at Grenfell.
I am super-cautious to criticise the LFB based upon hindsight but I am at the same time very interested to understand the thinking, as it took place, of the evolution of the strategy that meant that no one thought it necessary to change it.
As they say, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy, but to torture the analogy, in the military there is an extensive scenario analysis list to determine the what ifs, or actions on and I am interested to understand whether such processes/scenarios had been trained for, etc.
The old 'If I knew then what I know now' - while individual firemen toiled heroically under appalling circumstances, it seems pretty clear that their leadership were not quick enough to recognise the perils of 'stay put' in a fire that was clearly out of control and advancing up the outside of the building - much simpler to 'bash Tories' and blame 'cuts'.......rather than admit that there are indeed lessons to be learned.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and got a move on with becoming next PM/leader of the Cons.
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and moved with his buddies over to the opposition benches. Then the NHS might stand a chance.
Is this one of those Northern Powerhouse stories - a US commentator comes over and says what a sh1t hole the North is because of austerity and has everyone lining up saying how vibrant the North is, what a great place it is and what are the Yanks talking about, and then there are endless articles in the Graun about how awful the North is and it has been left behind, etc. etc...
Same with the NHS which is deemed to be on the verge of collapse at the same time as being the most wonderful institution ever.
You know exactly how the NHS can be a great institution and on the verge of collapse. Why the feigned confusion?
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and got a move on with becoming next PM/leader of the Cons.
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and moved with his buddies over to the opposition benches. Then the NHS might stand a chance.
Is this one of those Northern Powerhouse stories - a US commentator comes over and says what a sh1t hole the North is because of austerity and has everyone lining up saying how vibrant the North is, what a great place it is and what are the Yanks talking about, and then there are endless articles in the Graun about how awful the North is and it has been left behind, etc. etc...
Same with the NHS which is deemed to be on the verge of collapse at the same time as being the most wonderful institution ever.
You know exactly how the NHS can be a great institution and on the verge of collapse. Why the feigned confusion?
I presume you believe it to have been on the verge of collapse since 7th May 2010?
Mr. Pointer, in my defence, that's a bloody weird thing to ask, when the news report was just yes/no [unsure if there was a third option] on whether someone felt proud to be English.
As an aside, I dislike the term 'pride' when it's associated with something one's done nothing to earn. I certainly don't feel ashamed to be English, and I like being English, but I wouldn't go out of my way to describe myself as proud (in a forced yes/no, I'd say yes).
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, quite, but some terribly delicate killjoys are dead set against anyone enjoying good-natured mockery.
The survey doesn't say 'Englishness', but asks about people's identification with their county. (Not country)
It isn't surprising that county identity is stronger in the larger more historic counties like Yorkshire or Cornwall (or indeed parts of Kent, looking at the map) than the likes of Middlesex or Hertfordshire.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
I would say the last WC was probably one of the best I can remember for the high quality exciting games with stunning goals. The likes of Columbia were excellent.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
In all my 10 years in Germany, I don't think anyone ever said the word "Inselaffe" within my earshot. It is regarded as a pretty offensive insult, and it is certainly not a word that anyone would use in polite company, even in jest. Granted, your company may not have been quite as refined as mine :-)
I’ve either too much time on my hands, or I want some displacement activity from what I ought to do, so I looked up Inselaffe on Wikipedia.
Insel + Affe (literally, "island-monkey") (pejorative, regional) A British person. (Predominantly in areas of the former British Occupation Zone)
Where a lot of my age group did their National Service! Hmmm.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
I would say the last WC was probably one of the best I can remember for the high quality exciting games with stunning goals. The likes of Columbia were excellent.
I think this WC isn't going to be as good as last time. The Brazilian fans were part of what made 2014 such a great tournament. It does represent an opportunity for England though, with such a young squad and no pressure they could get the QF and really surprise everyone.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
I would say the last WC was probably one of the best I can remember for the high quality exciting games with stunning goals. The likes of Columbia were excellent.
I think this WC isn't going to be as good as last time. The Brazilian fans were part of what made 2014 such a great tournament. It does represent an opportunity for England though, with such a young squad and no pressure they could get the QF and really surprise everyone.
If Trump can pardon himself, and if he cannot possibly obstruct justice (even though Clinton was impeached on that charge), can he also crown himself? Perhaps he should stage a Twitter-era version of Napoleon's self-coronation? The Catholic majority on the Supreme Court may provide some of the right symbolism.
Suggested tweet: "Today I grabbed Old Europe by the p****. A great man becomes greater!"
At least I now understand the meaning of his orange mane.
One possibility is that he resigns in a tantrum. The guy is such a spoilt brat it's almost unreal.
Meanwhile in Blighty the midprices for the next Tory leader are
Mr. Pointer, in my defence, that's a bloody weird thing to ask, when the news report was just yes/no [unsure if there was a third option] on whether someone felt proud to be English.
As an aside, I dislike the term 'pride' when it's associated with something one's done nothing to earn. I certainly don't feel ashamed to be English, and I like being English, but I wouldn't go out of my way to describe myself as proud (in a forced yes/no, I'd say yes).
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, quite, but some terribly delicate killjoys are dead set against anyone enjoying good-natured mockery.
It's remarkable how one-sided this view is, among Leavers.
Calling French people 'Frogs' is fine.
Calling you a 'Little Englander' isn't okay.
Funny old world.
(P.S. my post wasn't actually about being anyone being offended, it was aimed at your acute geographical myopia – you reference London and France as if you know anything about them, which is a brave move indeed because, by your own admission, you have never once visited either)
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
In all my 10 years in Germany, I don't think anyone ever said the word "Inselaffe" within my earshot. It is regarded as a pretty offensive insult, and it is certainly not a word that anyone would use in polite company, even in jest. Granted, your company may not have been quite as refined as mine :-)
Is there any historical reason why Inselaffe is considered so offensive? On straight translation it seems pretty mild.
Mr. Pointer, general weakness on the understanding and presentation of stats is a tedious and mendacious aspect of the modern world.
The 'gender pay gap' is a fantastic example of this.
No it isn't. What everyone (for some values of everyone) cites as a weakness of the gender pay gap -- that men and women are doing different jobs -- is precisely what was intended -- to identify companies where women are concentrated in less well-paid roles.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
I would say the last WC was probably one of the best I can remember for the high quality exciting games with stunning goals. The likes of Columbia were excellent.
I think this WC isn't going to be as good as last time. The Brazilian fans were part of what made 2014 such a great tournament. It does represent an opportunity for England though, with such a young squad and no pressure they could get the QF and really surprise everyone.
QED
I'm not building it up tbh, if they make the knockouts I think that will be a fairly good result for this squad. If they play like they did against Nigeria in the first half then I don't mind us going out, as long as we play well. If all else fails, I'll support Switzerland lol.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
I would say the last WC was probably one of the best I can remember for the high quality exciting games with stunning goals. The likes of Columbia were excellent.
I think this WC isn't going to be as good as last time. The Brazilian fans were part of what made 2014 such a great tournament. It does represent an opportunity for England though, with such a young squad and no pressure they could get the QF and really surprise everyone.
Just looking at the teams / groups, what I think is also interesting is the past 2-3 WC in the lead up there has been all the talk of if a big African nation really has a shot. And a number of small nations like Belgium had strong squads.
Nigeria were piss poor at the weekend (should have been 5-0 at half time against England), and the likes of Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana and Algeria haven't made it, and lots of the squads look significantly weaker e.g. Belgium have selected Chadli who doesn't even set the world on fire with West Brom, France selected Giroud, etc
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
You seem to confuse explaining something with excusing it.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs.
They really don't in my experience; I spent a year at a French university and have a house in France. I don't think I ever heard anyone talk about the British whether in disparaging terms or not. They think about us a lot less than we think about them. A similar situation prevails in the opposite direction with the Scottish and English.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
In all my 10 years in Germany, I don't think anyone ever said the word "Inselaffe" within my earshot. It is regarded as a pretty offensive insult, and it is certainly not a word that anyone would use in polite company, even in jest. Granted, your company may not have been quite as refined as mine :-)
Is there any historical reason why Inselaffe is considered so offensive? On straight translation it seems pretty mild.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
You seem to confuse explaining something with excusing it.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I believe there is also some statistical evidence that shows that hours worked to pay for salaried roles is highly non-linear. Those working those few extra hours to go from 35 to 40hrs a week earn a lot more than those working 35hrs.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
‘Equality’ of opportunity, outside the NHS and similar public bosies had existed for, what 15-20 years? So to properly compare whether there is a gender/pay gap one needs to take length of service into account, as well as Mr D’s point about gaps in service. or of course, not going back at all.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
I think that's why Southgate is trying Alli in the deeper role rather than the preferred number 10 position. Part of the problem is that no English midfielder is first choice in that role in the Premier League except possibly Shelvey who doesn't cut it on the international stage IMO.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
Didn't the ATP propose the opposite and say the men's tournaments should be best of 3?
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
You clearly have no understanding of capitalism. They are paid to sell tickets, not to play tennis.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
I fully support men and women being paid equally. I look forward to the Women Singles in Wimbledon and other GS tournaments being a best of 5 sets rather than best of 3 sets as it is now.
You clearly have no understanding of capitalism. They are paid to sell tickets, not to play tennis.
In which case women's prize money should be 50% of what the men's prize money is.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
I think that's why Southgate is trying Alli in the deeper role rather than the preferred number 10 position. Part of the problem is that no English midfielder is first choice in that role in the Premier League except possibly Shelvey who doesn't cut it on the international stage IMO.
Hopefully with Brexit the foreign players rules can be modified to require 5 Brits in the starting eleven.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
I would say the last WC was probably one of the best I can remember for the high quality exciting games with stunning goals. The likes of Columbia were excellent.
I think this WC isn't going to be as good as last time. The Brazilian fans were part of what made 2014 such a great tournament. It does represent an opportunity for England though, with such a young squad and no pressure they could get the QF and really surprise everyone.
Just looking at the teams / groups, what I think is also interesting is the past 2-3 WC in the lead up there has been all the talk of if a big African nation really has a shot. And a number of small nations like Belgium had strong squads.
Nigeria were piss poor at the weekend (should have been 5-0 at half time against England), and the likes of Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana and Algeria haven't made it, and lots of the squads look significantly weaker e.g. Belgium have selected Chadli who doesn't even set the world on fire with West Brom, France selected Giroud, etc
Giroud is very much a worthy selection for France.
But I tend to agree that it looks quite predictable. I've taken 23.5/1 on Spain, Portugal, Germany, Brazil, Belgium and England making the quarter finals.
Teams I think could cause a bit of shock are Morocco (Renard is a very good coach), Denmark and Senegal.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
The only way to bring the gap to an end is by persuading or forcing men to work fewer hours, relative to women.
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and got a move on with becoming next PM/leader of the Cons.
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and moved with his buddies over to the opposition benches. Then the NHS might stand a chance.
Is this one of those Northern Powerhouse stories - a US commentator comes over and says what a sh1t hole the North is because of austerity and has everyone lining up saying how vibrant the North is, what a great place it is and what are the Yanks talking about, and then there are endless articles in the Graun about how awful the North is and it has been left behind, etc. etc...
Same with the NHS which is deemed to be on the verge of collapse at the same time as being the most wonderful institution ever.
You know exactly how the NHS can be a great institution and on the verge of collapse. Why the feigned confusion?
I presume you believe it to have been on the verge of collapse since 7th May 2010?
We can move onto that once you acknowledge your rhetorical sleight of hand
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Exactly right – I seem to remember similar when the US topped our group with a last minute goal and indeed in the last tournament whereby we wound up going down a much harder path (albeit there were no excuses for losing to Iceland!!)
"Richard Nixon and his legal team would have been interested in the arguments espoused by the Trump legal team"
I'm not sure they would. Nixon resigned because he would almost certainly have otherwise have been impeached, against which there is no presidential power to pardon. And that's the constitutional backstop. It doesn't really matter whether or not a president can pardon himself. If one ever tried to do so, Congress could (and very likely would) kick him out.
I think the difference between 1974 and now is Trump's base. Whilst the base does not guarantee that Trump will win a Presidential election [ After all some of the states were won very narrowly ], it certainly will dominate the primaries.
That is why the Republican House members who are re-selected every two years in a primary [ the word "re-selection" is emotive in the UK ] and one-third of the Senate seats are up for re-election this November [ some of them Republican ] are scared stiff.
Senators like Collins, Murkowski etc. don't give a damn as they are not up for re-election.
Hopefully with Brexit the foreign players rules can be modified to require 5 Brits in the starting eleven.
No thank you. The Premier League already has rules on academy players. What we need is to give the Premier League a much bigger role in nurturing talent. Until recently I was against Premier League B teams playing in the Football League, but I think they should allow it and enforce a "75% of the squad must be British" requirement for those that pursue the idea. That way young English players will get to play every week and if they impress then they can get promoted into the senior Premier League side. It's literally how Spain has such an amazing talent factory of young Spanish players.
Mr. L, people say the gender pay gap is proof of discrimination and undervaluing of women. That's clearly misunderstanding both statistics and the reality.
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
Part of it is also in the "hours worked" section of the ONS release every month. IIRC the average man works around 40h per week in a full time job while the average woman works around 35h per week in a full time job. A huge chunk of the earnings gap comes from men simply working more hours than women.
The only way to bring the gap to an end is by persuading or forcing men to work fewer hours, relative to women.
Looking at that from another angle, is it worth wondering why so much overtime is needed? It does not seem to be as prevalent in Germany.
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and got a move on with becoming next PM/leader of the Cons.
Many of us on here would rather he stopped being the longest serving health secretary and moved with his buddies over to the opposition benches. Then the NHS might stand a chance.
Is this one of those Northern Powerhouse stories - a US commentator comes over and says what a sh1t hole the North is because of austerity and has everyone lining up saying how vibrant the North is, what a great place it is and what are the Yanks talking about, and then there are endless articles in the Graun about how awful the North is and it has been left behind, etc. etc...
Same with the NHS which is deemed to be on the verge of collapse at the same time as being the most wonderful institution ever.
You know exactly how the NHS can be a great institution and on the verge of collapse. Why the feigned confusion?
I presume you believe it to have been on the verge of collapse since 7th May 2010?
We can move onto that once you acknowledge your rhetorical sleight of hand
I think the greater rhetorical sleight of hand is to pronounce something as being on the verge of collapse when it is evidently nothing of the sort.
Of course there are challenges in the running of the NHS but hyperbole will not solve those problems. As a call to the base I believe it is losing potency also.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
Hopefully with Brexit the foreign players rules can be modified to require 5 Brits in the starting eleven.
No thank you. The Premier League already has rules on academy players. What we need is to give the Premier League a much bigger role in nurturing talent. Until recently I was against Premier League B teams playing in the Football League, but I think they should allow it and enforce a "75% of the squad must be British" requirement for those that pursue the idea. That way young English players will get to play every week and if they impress then they can get promoted into the senior Premier League side. It's literally how Spain has such an amazing talent factory of young Spanish players.
It seems in the past seasons, the Bundesliga has become the equivalent of the Premier League B with so many young British EPL players going there on loan.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
I would say the last WC was probably one of the best I can remember for the high quality exciting games with stunning goals. The likes of Columbia were excellent.
I think this WC isn't going to be as good as last time. The Brazilian fans were part of what made 2014 such a great tournament. It does represent an opportunity for England though, with such a young squad and no pressure they could get the QF and really surprise everyone.
Just looking at the teams / groups, what I think is also interesting is the past 2-3 WC in the lead up there has been all the talk of if a big African nation really has a shot. And a number of small nations like Belgium had strong squads.
Nigeria were piss poor at the weekend (should have been 5-0 at half time against England), and the likes of Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana and Algeria haven't made it, and lots of the squads look significantly weaker e.g. Belgium have selected Chadli who doesn't even set the world on fire with West Brom, France selected Giroud, etc
Giroud is very much a worthy selection for France.
But I tend to agree that it looks quite predictable. I've taken 23.5/1 on Spain, Portugal, Germany, Brazil, Belgium and England making the quarter finals.
Teams I think could cause a bit of shock are Morocco (Renard is a very good coach), Denmark and Senegal.
That's a nice bet. Who has that market? I'd be interested in taking a look.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The problem England have suffered for years, we lack creativity in the middle of the park. And nowadays, all international teams (even tiny nations) are well drilled to play a solid system (plus all England's players pros/ cons are well known as they are seen around the world every week in the EPL).
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Very good assessment .The England world cup squad lacks a 1990 , Paul Gascoigne type player, who broke through late to get into the world cup squad.
Is it just me or do the WC squads look a lot weaker / less exciting / lots of players who are in very poor form but still getting selected than 4 years ago?
Yes, surprisingly not for England though.
David Baddiel on his Desert Island Discs summed up perfectly the process whereby in the months and years leading up to the World Cup we write the England team off, and then, two weeks before the competition starts, we somehow get it into our heads that they have a real chance...only for those hopes to be dashed cruelly once it actually begins.
Apart from 1990 , when we started very slow , in the opening games, then by the semi final , playing really well and bloody close to winning it.
Indeed, people forget how mediocre we were in the early stages of that tournament, we drew our first two games and squeezed past Egypt in the last group game to top the group.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
Absolutely this!
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
Indeed. It was difference between playing Brazil in the afternoon heat and playing them at night as we would have done in the semi final. Of course, Senegal in the last 16 would probably have been harder than Denmark. And Turkey had a useful team back then so the quarters would not have been a gimme either.
True enough but Brazil in the heat of the day (it was 35c on match day) is almost a certain defeat for an English team.
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
The worst part about that game is that we didn't even play badly despite the heat. It all went south because of a rubbish bit of goalkeeping.
Comments
I sense not a landslide or hugely decisive either way.
Mr. Phil, PFI buggered the NHS, and Brown's epic recession (which included bringing forward spending to the pre-election period) made spending increases rather tricky.
Social care is a quagmire, and the Conservatives didn't exactly help with their fantastically cackhanded efforts at their last manifesto.
And will that even be mathematically/demographically true in 20-30 years time?
Neither was Virginia Bottomley IIRC
In the House of Representatives California has 53 Representatives versus North Dakota having 1.
Same with the NHS which is deemed to be on the verge of collapse at the same time as being the most wonderful institution ever.
This we are assured by people who have never got off their backside to visit a city and a country they frequently cite as a forces for ill.
Funny old world.
Childish.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1003570454995636224
*cough*Little Englanders*cough*
Taking the piss out of the French is an ancient English pastime. And they do the same to the rosbifs. Only the professionally offended care. And the person here who raised France/the French is you.
And if you look at the map, you might just see that I'm right. The closer to London one is, the less the feeling of Englishness.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44142843
Edited extra bit: Mr. P, Anglophobe
As an aside, it'd be interesting to compare differences between Englishness prevalence and the Leave vote. Not perfect, but the Leeds result (for Englishness) is 60%. The city region (which was oddly massive, third largest) in the referendum was 50.2% Remain.
The Germans on the other hand... I've heard the term "Inselaffe" more than once...
Though it doesn't mention that in the poll details here https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7lnxwjw12j/BBC_EnglishIdentity_March18_Results_for_website.pdf
Presumably Londoners weren't asked if they identified with a county, though?
I am super-cautious to criticise the LFB based upon hindsight but I am at the same time very interested to understand the thinking, as it took place, of the evolution of the strategy that meant that no one thought it necessary to change it.
As they say, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy, but to torture the analogy, in the military there is an extensive scenario analysis list to determine the what ifs, or actions on and I am interested to understand whether such processes/scenarios had been trained for, etc.
In any event, Morris was wrong to deduce from the map that people feel less English the closer one is to London. (He might be right in assuming it but the map doesn't prove it.)
(Having said that, using the tool to see how English each county feels it is, Cornwall scores 62% - bloody second-homers eh?)
As an aside, I dislike the term 'pride' when it's associated with something one's done nothing to earn. I certainly don't feel ashamed to be English, and I like being English, but I wouldn't go out of my way to describe myself as proud (in a forced yes/no, I'd say yes).
Edited extra bit: Mr. kle4, quite, but some terribly delicate killjoys are dead set against anyone enjoying good-natured mockery.
Just saying.
If asked, I would say yes to an afinity with my adopted county (Dorset), the south-west region, England, Britain and Europe. Do I feel more English than British or European? No, about the same for all three I'd say.
It's a silly season survey really.
I'm not sure they would. Nixon resigned because he would almost certainly have otherwise have been impeached, against which there is no presidential power to pardon. And that's the constitutional backstop. It doesn't really matter whether or not a president can pardon himself. If one ever tried to do so, Congress could (and very likely would) kick him out.
It isn't surprising that county identity is stronger in the larger more historic counties like Yorkshire or Cornwall (or indeed parts of Kent, looking at the map) than the likes of Middlesex or Hertfordshire.
So the only question is whether the migration target is ditched before she is replaced as Tory leader or afterwards. We say the sooner the better.
Let’s make it a hat-trick for common sense on immigration: Cabinet 3, Prime Minister 0.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-clash-on-immigration-a-win-for-the-cabinet-grenfell-tower-inquiry-reaches-a3854541.html
Curiously doesn't mention who came up with the 100,000 target...
Insel + Affe (literally, "island-monkey")
(pejorative, regional) A British person. (Predominantly in areas of the former British Occupation Zone)
Where a lot of my age group did their National Service!
Hmmm.
The 'gender pay gap' is a fantastic example of this.
Just glad the Skripals survived.
Suggested tweet: "Today I grabbed Old Europe by the p****. A great man becomes greater!"
At least I now understand the meaning of his orange mane.
One possibility is that he resigns in a tantrum. The guy is such a spoilt brat it's almost unreal.
Meanwhile in Blighty the midprices for the next Tory leader are
Rees-Mogg 8
Gove 8.4
Johnson 12.25
Javid 12.75
Hunt 19.5
Raab 23.5
Crossover soon? Will the "never a favourite" crowd then start laying Gove?
Calling French people 'Frogs' is fine.
Calling you a 'Little Englander' isn't okay.
Funny old world.
(P.S. my post wasn't actually about being anyone being offended, it was aimed at your acute geographical myopia – you reference London and France as if you know anything about them, which is a brave move indeed because, by your own admission, you have never once visited either)
I'm not building it up tbh, if they make the knockouts I think that will be a fairly good result for this squad. If they play like they did against Nigeria in the first half then I don't mind us going out, as long as we play well. If all else fails, I'll support Switzerland lol.
Nigeria were piss poor at the weekend (should have been 5-0 at half time against England), and the likes of Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana and Algeria haven't made it, and lots of the squads look significantly weaker e.g. Belgium have selected Chadli who doesn't even set the world on fire with West Brom, France selected Giroud, etc
It turns out taking years off work to have and raise kids (mostly women) puts you at a disadvantage against people (mostly men) who do not do that. My gast was flabbered to discover that.
The problem England have had in recent tournaments is that, even when we do qualify, we fail to win the group, which lands us with a much harder route to the latter stages.
The likely WC starting England midfield will include at least Dier and Henderson...no international team is going shit their load over those two on the ball.
One plus point, watching some highlights of England U21 over the weekend, like the other youth teams they play with some real excitement (but of course hardly any of them get any time in the EPL).
Not that I would agree, I think you are right, the women should play best of 5 if they want equal prize money.
If we had turned up against Nigeria in 2002, we'd have had a relatively easy route to the final
Instead we got Brazil in the QF
Never gets mentioned, but one of the most important results in recent years
But I tend to agree that it looks quite predictable. I've taken 23.5/1 on Spain, Portugal, Germany, Brazil, Belgium and England making the quarter finals.
Teams I think could cause a bit of shock are Morocco (Renard is a very good coach), Denmark and Senegal.
That is why the Republican House members who are re-selected every two years in a primary [ the word "re-selection" is emotive in the UK ] and one-third of the Senate seats are up for re-election this November [ some of them Republican ] are scared stiff.
Senators like Collins, Murkowski etc. don't give a damn as they are not up for re-election.
Of course there are challenges in the running of the NHS but hyperbole will not solve those problems. As a call to the base I believe it is losing potency also.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1003601217111707649
I remember Michael Owen saying on TV a few days before the game "we'll all be praying for rain –– otherwise it's going to be another really hot game, which obviously will suit them".
He was right, unfortunately.
Are they all going to move to Hungary?
Jesse Lingard shows some promise.