If he tones down the rhetoric, what does he have left ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/trump-evangelicals-blasphemy-profanity-1456178 “I’ve had people come to me and say, ‘You know I voted for [Trump], but if he doesn’t tone down the rhetoric, I might just stay home this time,’” Hardesty said in an interview, adding that he has yet to hear back from anyone inside the White House after urging the president in a formal letter to “reflect on your comments and never utter those words again.”
Coarse language is, of course, far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice, faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion...
Quite funny that Christian evangelicals finally draw the line... at 'goddam'.
The Skyfairy cult is rarely rational...
Indeed - but if they start believing that, when it comes to their immortal souls, orange is the new black...
At one stage they believed new born rabbits were fish and thus could be eaten on Fridays...
The Pacers have served us well. If it were not the them and the 15x-style Sprinters, many rural branch lines that are open today would have been closed in the 1980s.
The Pacers did serve a purpose. However, they were meant to be a 10-year stop-gap. Extending their life to 2020 (yes, the 144s will still be working in Yorkshire next year) was just treating passengers with contempt.
I actually thought it was 20 years, not 10, and the class 141s lasted 15 or so. But I take your point. They replaced units that had been built 25-30 years earlier, so have had a longer lifespan than those they replaced.
However they get far too much hate IMO and not enough commendation (and yes, I have travelled on them).
A variation of CANZUK was posited as an alternative to Common Market membership back in the day. Back then, India would also have been a member as a former nation of empire, though I doubt the CANZUKeers would be too keen on that now. (Australia and New Zealand also looked into joining the Common Market, though the idea never really took off.)
It also assumes that our former colonies want us to be in charge again. There could be a flaw in the Plan
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
They were not literally unaffordable. It was deemed they were not a priority to spend money on. The government that Patel and Johnson supported - and were a part of - had other spending priorities. They chose to prioritise these over public safety - as their statements about police numbers over the last week have made clear.
SO did you ever get the extensive list of EU imposed laws that are so terrible that you requested at 12:07?
The Dem nomination market is irrational so I haven't exactly shaped my book to reflect all these accurately as some may yet shorten etc etc but personally I'd make the book something like this :
Biden 2.75 Warren 4.25 Sanders 6 Buttigieg 12 Harris 12 Booker 34 Yang 76 Gabbard 151 Field 51
A variation of CANZUK was posited as an alternative to Common Market membership back in the day. Back then, India would also have been a member as a former nation of empire, though I doubt the CANZUKeers would be too keen on that now. (Australia and New Zealand also looked into joining the Common Market, though the idea never really took off.)
It also assumes that our former colonies want us to be in charge again. There could be a flaw in the Plan
If CANZUK were such a good idea, why is there no CANZ waiting for the UK to join? Why does it need the mother country to provide leadership?
You can't make an omelette without cracking some eggs. This is undeniably true. An omelette needs eggs and they must be cracked.
However the reverse is not true. If you have no clue what you are doing you can quite easily crack every last egg in your possession and yet fail to make an omelette worthy of the name.
In which case all you have to show for your efforts is a diminished larder and a godawful mess in the kitchen.
So, No Deal 31 Oct, eggs going neatly in the pan or all over the floor? I think we know the answer. So does Boris Johnson. Which is why I am still betting with confidence that it is a bluff. Political theatrics.
31 Oct will come and go without drama because we will have extended the deadline.
There is also the question of the cost of the eggs, and whether you want an omelette at all.
And whether you'd trust the current head chef to make beans on toast.
If he tones down the rhetoric, what does he have left ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/trump-evangelicals-blasphemy-profanity-1456178 “I’ve had people come to me and say, ‘You know I voted for [Trump], but if he doesn’t tone down the rhetoric, I might just stay home this time,’” Hardesty said in an interview, adding that he has yet to hear back from anyone inside the White House after urging the president in a formal letter to “reflect on your comments and never utter those words again.”
Coarse language is, of course, far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice, faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion...
Quite funny that Christian evangelicals finally draw the line... at 'goddam'.
The Skyfairy cult is rarely rational...
Indeed - but if they start believing that, when it comes to their immortal souls, orange is the new black...
At one stage they believed new born rabbits were fish and thus could be eaten on Fridays...
Going by his reported teachings, Christ displayed decidedly socialist tendencies.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
I think she can beat Trump. The 'Pocahontas' thing - aside from being the usual misogynist BS - is played out, so she is already partially inoculated against Trump's toxic attacks.
I still think it too early to assume any one candidate has a lock on the nomination, but she's rightly favourite for now.
Bernie, Biden and Warren are all in with a good shot. Harris is behind, slipping, and really has very little going for her which would suggest a recovery
I think Warren will get it as she is the only one who looks as if she really wants it. The rest look to be going through the motions, or complete outsiders.
She does have that slightly bossy schoolmarm manner, but doesn't have Hillarys air of entitlement.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
I think she can beat Trump. The 'Pocahontas' thing - aside from being the usual misogynist BS - is played out, so she is already partially inoculated against Trump's toxic attacks.
I still think it too early to assume any one candidate has a lock on the nomination, but she's rightly favourite for now.
Interestingly, this is happening in Nevada, another early state:
‘Warren has built a monster’: Inside the Democrats’ battle for Nevada
Warren's political trajectory from being a softly-spoken professor to building a campaigning juggernaut that could take her to the White House is pretty spectacular.
The Dem nomination market is irrational so I haven't exactly shaped my book to reflect all these accurately as some may yet shorten etc etc but personally I'd make the book something like this :
Biden 2.75 Warren 4.25 Sanders 6 Buttigieg 12 Harris 12 Booker 34 Yang 76 Gabbard 151 Field 51
I'm more certain in the combined 75%+ chance for the top 3 in the betting than the specific odds between them though. Edit: I know Sanders is currently behind Harris. That's wrong though and one thing I have shaped my book toward.
If he tones down the rhetoric, what does he have left ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/trump-evangelicals-blasphemy-profanity-1456178 “I’ve had people come to me and say, ‘You know I voted for [Trump], but if he doesn’t tone down the rhetoric, I might just stay home this time,’” Hardesty said in an interview, adding that he has yet to hear back from anyone inside the White House after urging the president in a formal letter to “reflect on your comments and never utter those words again.”
Coarse language is, of course, far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice, faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion...
Quite funny that Christian evangelicals finally draw the line... at 'goddam'.
The Skyfairy cult is rarely rational...
Indeed - but if they start believing that, when it comes to their immortal souls, orange is the new black...
At one stage they believed new born rabbits were fish and thus could be eaten on Fridays...
Going by his reported teachings, Christ displayed decidedly socialist tendencies.
Obviously an unsound chappie, member of the wrong sort of club, eh? What?
A variation of CANZUK was posited as an alternative to Common Market membership back in the day. Back then, India would also have been a member as a former nation of empire, though I doubt the CANZUKeers would be too keen on that now. (Australia and New Zealand also looked into joining the Common Market, though the idea never really took off.)
It also assumes that our former colonies want us to be in charge again. There could be a flaw in the Plan
If CANZUK were such a good idea, why is there no CANZ waiting for the UK to join? Why does it need the mother country to provide leadership?
And why do English speaking Commonwealth countries like Jamaica, Guyana, Kenya, Indiaand Nigeria get a look in... I wonder why....
Interestingly the President of the French Channel Ports (Boulogne and Calais) has said that the scares about long delays at the ports post-Brexit are "la bullshit". He says both the French and the British are well prepared and traffic will keep flowing...
And I suspect he is rather better informed than most PB posters...
95% of ROI containers exported travel to or through the Uk.
If the EU conspire to block Calais it’s the ROI economy that gets crucified.
If he tones down the rhetoric, what does he have left ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/trump-evangelicals-blasphemy-profanity-1456178 “I’ve had people come to me and say, ‘You know I voted for [Trump], but if he doesn’t tone down the rhetoric, I might just stay home this time,’” Hardesty said in an interview, adding that he has yet to hear back from anyone inside the White House after urging the president in a formal letter to “reflect on your comments and never utter those words again.”
Coarse language is, of course, far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice, faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion...
Quite funny that Christian evangelicals finally draw the line... at 'goddam'.
The Skyfairy cult is rarely rational...
Indeed - but if they start believing that, when it comes to their immortal souls, orange is the new black...
At one stage they believed new born rabbits were fish and thus could be eaten on Fridays...
According to online sources that story is apocryphal, surprising enough.
But sceptics often believe things that would make the hair of the faithful stand on end ...
I think Warren will get it as she is the only one who looks as if she really wants it. The rest look to be going through the motions, or complete outsiders.
She does have that slightly bossy schoolmarm manner, but doesn't have Hillarys air of entitlement.
One fascinating aspect of Warren's platform is that the thing that really drives her - the mission to rebuild the American middle class - is exactly what enabled Trump to go mainstream in 2016.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
I think she can beat Trump. The 'Pocahontas' thing - aside from being the usual misogynist BS - is played out, so she is already partially inoculated against Trump's toxic attacks.
I still think it too early to assume any one candidate has a lock on the nomination, but she's rightly favourite for now.
Bernie, Biden and Warren are all in with a good shot. Harris is behind, slipping, and really has very little going for her which would suggest a recovery
I think Warren will get it as she is the only one who looks as if she really wants it. The rest look to be going through the motions, or complete outsiders.
She does have that slightly bossy schoolmarm manner, but doesn't have Hillarys air of entitlement.
Really? Sanders' campaigning has seemed very energetic to me.
A variation of CANZUK was posited as an alternative to Common Market membership back in the day. Back then, India would also have been a member as a former nation of empire, though I doubt the CANZUKeers would be too keen on that now. (Australia and New Zealand also looked into joining the Common Market, though the idea never really took off.)
It also assumes that our former colonies want us to be in charge again. There could be a flaw in the Plan
If CANZUK were such a good idea, why is there no CANZ waiting for the UK to join? Why does it need the mother country to provide leadership?
Oh William! I am disappointed in you. Do you not remember that The Empire was created by and for the British English? The Scots and Irish were helpful and those Welsh folk did dig out lots of coal ...
Only a resurgent Britain England can hold the reins that guide the world.
Kamala looking a bit clingy there. Liz the steady parent.
One of these 2 gets it, I think.
Or perhaps both. Wonder if they could be a joint ticket?
A little early to say.
But I'm beginning to wonder about shorting Biden heavily at his current favourite odds. Though I have not written off his chances, I think it's going to be a struggle for him.
Clinton could barely draw a whelk to a whelk stall compared to Trump & Sanders last time, but she won the nomination and then the popular vote in the general. OK granted those votes weren't in the right places but rally crowds =/= votes.
In a multi candidate nomination fight, with the frontrunner struggling to keep above 30% in the polls, the early states are going to be important. And enthusiasm and organisation matter a great deal in caucus states.
I think we've seen fairly clearly that Biden is not going to dominate in any of the debates, so it's hard to see what other than inertia is going to keep him in front. He isn't outraising or out-organising his closest opponents.
Note I haven't said Biden can't get the nomination - just that I think his odds too short now.
I am increasingly thinking Warren has this nailed. She has the energy, ideas and momentum. She can be quite folksy, which goes down well in the flyover states. Can she beat Trump? I reckon as good a chance as anyone.
No, she probably cannot beat Trump, at best she is polling as well as Hillary against Trump while Biden and Sanders beat Trump comfortably
I have to say, I am deeply sceptical that she can beat Trump.
I am betting on her for nominee. For POTUS a lot depends on the economy, but I think she can do it. None of the others look up for the fight.
If he tones down the rhetoric, what does he have left ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/trump-evangelicals-blasphemy-profanity-1456178 “I’ve had people come to me and say, ‘You know I voted for [Trump], but if he doesn’t tone down the rhetoric, I might just stay home this time,’” Hardesty said in an interview, adding that he has yet to hear back from anyone inside the White House after urging the president in a formal letter to “reflect on your comments and never utter those words again.”
Coarse language is, of course, far from the president’s only behavior that might turn off the religious right. He’s been divorced twice, faced constant allegations of extramarital affairs, previously supported abortion rights and has stumbled when trying to discuss the specifics of religion...
Quite funny that Christian evangelicals finally draw the line... at 'goddam'.
The Skyfairy cult is rarely rational...
Indeed - but if they start believing that, when it comes to their immortal souls, orange is the new black...
At one stage they believed new born rabbits were fish and thus could be eaten on Fridays...
According to online sources that story is apocryphal, surprising enough.
But sceptics often believe things that would make the hair of the faithful stand on end ...
This is PB - facts never get in way of pushing a good legend.
The Pacers have served us well. If it were not the them and the 15x-style Sprinters, many rural branch lines that are open today would have been closed in the 1980s.
Sprinters are OK, at least they have four axles per carriage!
150s with 3+2 seating are fairly rubbish. Plus many of the seats offer a very poor view out of the window.
158s are decent, but Northern have decided to replace the comfy seats with rock-hard ironing boards. Progress!
I've not sampled the new 195 or 331 yet.
Neither have I - but I passed a new 331 (I think) stabled at Edge Hill on the way into Lime Street last year.
You can't make an omelette without cracking some eggs. This is undeniably true. An omelette needs eggs and they must be cracked.
However the reverse is not true. If you have no clue what you are doing you can quite easily crack every last egg in your possession and yet fail to make an omelette worthy of the name.
In which case all you have to show for your efforts is a diminished larder and a godawful mess in the kitchen.
So, No Deal 31 Oct, eggs going neatly in the pan or all over the floor? I think we know the answer. So does Boris Johnson. Which is why I am still betting with confidence that it is a bluff. Political theatrics.
31 Oct will come and go without drama because we will have extended the deadline.
There is also the question of the cost of the eggs, and whether you want an omelette at all.
And whether you'd trust the current head chef to make beans on toast.
This isn’t the first time that Scott has tweeted this particular London based high end restaurant critic in his support of remain.
Perhaps if only more of the country had enjoyed the witty barbs that have been honed on substandard mushroom consommés the Leave would never have won.
Or something 😆.
But here is definitely no M25 bubble in action here.
To be fair, Jay Raynor does get out of London a lot. I really enjoy his columns in The Guardian, and he writes very well. We get more than our fair share of shite Brexit analogies from both sides in here, so why not one from a bloke who can actually string a sentence together?
The Pacers have served us well. If it were not the them and the 15x-style Sprinters, many rural branch lines that are open today would have been closed in the 1980s.
Sprinters are OK, at least they have four axles per carriage!
150s with 3+2 seating are fairly rubbish. Plus many of the seats offer a very poor view out of the window.
158s are decent, but Northern have decided to replace the comfy seats with rock-hard ironing boards. Progress!
I've not sampled the new 195 or 331 yet.
Neither have I - but I passed a new 331 (I think) stabled at Edge Hill on the way into Lime Street last year.
I was on an AZUMA this morning Sunil. I think it was we who were moving not the earth.
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
We're still borrowing money. In what sense can we afford them now if we couldn't afford them then?
The government can afford to borrow 1.5% of GDP, as opposed to 10% of GDP.
When we were borrowing 10% some of that was due to the economic crash. Now we are still borrowing after a long period of record employment.
I guess terms like "structural deficit"are out of fashion these days.
Off Topic: I just got the Toyota C-HR hybrid. It's really rather good! Never thought I'd be praising an automatic but until full electric becomes practical in rural SE Spain it's very satisfying and something of a head-turner!
She comes over very well to me. Looks and sounds like a POTUS. It's not difficult for me to see her in the role. Many of the others, not so much.
And then more analytically, I think the Dems will go for a sharp contrast to the hated (by them) Trump. This contrast can be twofold, policy and personal, and I think they will go with one contrast not both (which would be too risky). And I think it's the personal contrast which will prevail. That will be the safer option.
Therefore Harris as a youngish mixed race woman who is a moderate (not a lefty) fits the bill perfectly. Biden does not.
And if a stark policy contrast is what they opt for, then I think Warren is a far more likely choice than Sanders.
The greatest benefit to life in the UK immediately post Brexit will be the hysterical doomsters going suddenly quiet when it becomes apparent the sky isn't going to fall in as life goes on pretty much as it now.
The hyperbole is getting utterly ridiculous and is actually counter-productive for remainers because they have painted a future of horror the day after we exit which is a bar so low as to be easily cleared by reality.
Normal people will just shake their heads, remind themselves again not to believe Project Fear and carry on with their lives.
Straw Man Alert! Remainers are not claiming that the sky will fall in. Rather leavers are claiming that remainers are claiming that the sky will fall in.
To suggest that the UK could end up like Yugolsavia potentially, as this article does, i think rather gives the lie to your claim.
For the nth bloody time I do not compare No Deal Brexit with Yugoslavia.
I specifically state that there is no precedent that I can think of. The only one that is remotely comparable is Czechosolvakia and even that is not much of a precedent at all. The reference to Russia and Yugoslavia are there as they are interesting facts and and an interesting comparison for Czechoslovakia and how they managed to avoid the difficulties that other ex-Communist countries did not.
I don’t think the initial days after No Deal will be chaos as I think a lot of effort will be put in to avoid this. I may be wrong on this. I am more worried by the time after this and the fact that there seems to be no plan, no vision, no strategy for what Britain’s relationship with the EU or anyone else will be.
I have made this point repeatedly both below the line and in a number of other headers over the last few years.
Rather than put words into my mouth why doesn’t one of the pro-No Deal Brexiteers on here write a header explaining what the plan is.
I think Warren will get it as she is the only one who looks as if she really wants it. The rest look to be going through the motions, or complete outsiders.
She does have that slightly bossy schoolmarm manner, but doesn't have Hillarys air of entitlement.
An arguable sliver of native American genes aside, I think all in all Warren wins the authenticity battle. Trump, despite being excrement in human form, is authentic excrement, he sniffs out weakness and phoneyness in an opponent and rips them apart. I think Warren could cope (and has already has as has been pointed out).
There is a valid point here - there suddenly seems to be money for everything since Johnson became Prime Minister. The amounts are not small and while I fully accept the efforts of the Coalition (not just the Conservatives) to reduce the deficit were successful, the fact remains there is still a huge debt to be paid down and it seems churlish to leave that to future generations.
Second, if we have some money to spare, where should it go? Some will immediately say tax cuts but I'd much prefer to see the money spent on infrastructure projects, research & development and other areas where the long term economic benefits are considerably more attractive than the short-term electoral.
There was always money for Cameron and May's pet projects too. And it was May not Johnson who declared an end to austerity.
Infrastructure etc is where Johnson has been making some commitments. A northern train across the Pennines is a good idea.
Spending billions on recruiting and training 20,000 extra police is not infrastructure. It is mending the hole created when Johnson, Patel and co voted to cut them in the first place. A bail-out fund for businesses harmed by Brexit is not spending on infrastructure,
Police numbers weren't cut because of an ideological desire to cut police numbers. They were cut because a decade ago they were literally unaffordable and we had to live within our means.
Thanks to the last decade and the Tories stewardship of the economy we can actually afford them now. That's good news
We're still borrowing money. In what sense can we afford them now if we couldn't afford them then?
In real terms as a proportion of GDP we aren't. Debt to GDP is going down not up.
We can start to afford things now we couldn't previously but must continue to lower debt while doing that.
Is that still true after the last quarter's contraction?
Given how well you have said the economy has done over recent years, in terms of employment and rising incomes, I would have thought we would need to be running a surplus now if we are to balance the budget over an economic cycle.
Or is it only Brown who is criticised for deficit-spending after a long period of economic growth?
Seriously? Cameron decided not to cut the NHS or Education which presumably you supported.
As the Party of law and order, the Conservatives made a conscious decision to reduce the number of Police and now you want everyone to think you are the Party of law and order.
There were plenty of alternatives to reducing Police numbers and closing Police stations as you well know. It was an ideological decision predicated on the premise the way to bring the public finances back under control was for most of the heavy lifting to be done by spending cuts rather than raising taxes. It wouldn't have taken much in terms of additional tax rises to make reductions in Police numbers unnecessary even if you couldn't have found the savings elsewhere.
195 is the sum of eleven consecutive primes whereas 331 is a prime
Neither are new
You haven't really got the hang of this railway lark, have you!
Spend a day out with Sunil - it will be an eye-opener...
More likely an eye closer, be snoozing in no time.
Next week, planning to do Croy to Alloa, Ayr to Stranraer and at least one of Cardross to Oban or Cardross to Fort William/Mallaig, given that the line won't reopen till the Thursday. Stirling to Perth could well be a consolation, or past there to Dundee, time permitting.
I'm staying in Glasgow next week only to learn they've closed the West Highland Line past Ardlui until Thursday 22nd!
If you take the train out to Gourock you can split your time between the open air swimming pool and identifying the ships on the Clyde.
Been there, done that! Nice location. I did Gourock and Wemyss Bay and Largs and Ardrossan last year - apart from Stranraer, done all of ScotRail south of a line connecting Balloch to Falkirk, plus Edinburgh to Leuchars.
The Pacers have served us well. If it were not the them and the 15x-style Sprinters, many rural branch lines that are open today would have been closed in the 1980s.
Sprinters are OK, at least they have four axles per carriage!
150s with 3+2 seating are fairly rubbish. Plus many of the seats offer a very poor view out of the window.
158s are decent, but Northern have decided to replace the comfy seats with rock-hard ironing boards. Progress!
I've not sampled the new 195 or 331 yet.
Neither have I - but I passed a new 331 (I think) stabled at Edge Hill on the way into Lime Street last year.
I was on an AZUMA this morning Sunil. I think it was we who were moving not the earth.
I saw one at Alexandra Palace, but not been on one
The greatest benefit to life in the UK immediately post Brexit will be the hysterical doomsters going suddenly quiet when it becomes apparent the sky isn't going to fall in as life goes on pretty much as it now.
The hyperbole is getting utterly ridiculous and is actually counter-productive for remainers because they have painted a future of horror the day after we exit which is a bar so low as to be easily cleared by reality.
Normal people will just shake their heads, remind themselves again not to believe Project Fear and carry on with their lives.
Straw Man Alert! Remainers are not claiming that the sky will fall in. Rather leavers are claiming that remainers are claiming that the sky will fall in.
To suggest that the UK could end up like Yugolsavia potentially, as this article does, i think rather gives the lie to your claim.
For the nth bloody time I do not compare No Deal Brexit with Yugoslavia.
I specifically state that there is no precedent that I can think of. The only one that is remotely comparable is Czechosolvakia and even that is not much of a precedent at all. The reference to Russia and Yugoslavia are there as they are interesting facts and and an interesting comparison for Czechoslovakia and how they managed to avoid the difficulties that other ex-Communist countries did not.
I don’t think the initial days after No Deal will be chaos as I think a lot of effort will be put in to avoid this. I may be wrong on this. I am more worried by the time after this and the fact that there seems to be no plan, no vision, no strategy for what Britain’s relationship with the EU or anyone else will be.
I have made this point repeatedly both below the line and in a number of other headers over the last few years.
Rather than put words into my mouth why doesn’t one of the pro-No Deal Brexiteers on here write a header explaining what the plan is.
Then why bother to quote the break up of Yugoslavia at all as a comparator?? ...unless you want the inference to be drawn. If it's not relevant dont quote it!!!
Comments
However they get far too much hate IMO and not enough commendation (and yes, I have travelled on them).
Biden 2.75
Warren 4.25
Sanders 6
Buttigieg 12
Harris 12
Booker 34
Yang 76
Gabbard 151
Field 51
Perhaps if only more of the country had enjoyed the witty barbs that have been honed on substandard mushroom consommés the Leave would never have won.
Or something 😆.
But here is definitely no M25 bubble in action here.
She does have that slightly bossy schoolmarm manner, but doesn't have Hillarys air of entitlement.
Edit: I know Sanders is currently behind Harris. That's wrong though and one thing I have shaped my book toward.
95% of ROI containers exported travel to or through the Uk.
If the EU conspire to block Calais it’s the ROI economy that gets crucified.
But sceptics often believe things that would make the hair of the faithful stand on end ...
Spend a day out with Sunil - it will be an eye-opener...
Only a resurgent Britain England can hold the reins that guide the world.
I guess terms like "structural deficit"are out of fashion these days.
Edit: Not to say remarkably reasonably priced.
And then more analytically, I think the Dems will go for a sharp contrast to the hated (by them) Trump. This contrast can be twofold, policy and personal, and I think they will go with one contrast not both (which would be too risky). And I think it's the personal contrast which will prevail. That will be the safer option.
Therefore Harris as a youngish mixed race woman who is a moderate (not a lefty) fits the bill perfectly. Biden does not.
And if a stark policy contrast is what they opt for, then I think Warren is a far more likely choice than Sanders.
So, 'woman beats Trump' is my betting position.
Of course, we’ll do precisely nothing about it.
I specifically state that there is no precedent that I can think of. The only one that is remotely comparable is Czechosolvakia and even that is not much of a precedent at all. The reference to Russia and Yugoslavia are there as they are interesting facts and and an interesting comparison for Czechoslovakia and how they managed to avoid the difficulties that other ex-Communist countries did not.
I don’t think the initial days after No Deal will be chaos as I think a lot of effort will be put in to avoid this. I may be wrong on this. I am more worried by the time after this and the fact that there seems to be no plan, no vision, no strategy for what Britain’s relationship with the EU or anyone else will be.
I have made this point repeatedly both below the line and in a number of other headers over the last few years.
Rather than put words into my mouth why doesn’t one of the pro-No Deal Brexiteers on here write a header explaining what the plan is.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/12/british-diplomats-to-pull-out-from-eu-decision-making-meetings-within-days
New Thread with incorrect basis for the article
Update: Somebody is editing it. History is being airbrushed!!!Given how well you have said the economy has done over recent years, in terms of employment and rising incomes, I would have thought we would need to be running a surplus now if we are to balance the budget over an economic cycle.
Or is it only Brown who is criticised for deficit-spending after a long period of economic growth?
As the Party of law and order, the Conservatives made a conscious decision to reduce the number of Police and now you want everyone to think you are the Party of law and order.
There were plenty of alternatives to reducing Police numbers and closing Police stations as you well know. It was an ideological decision predicated on the premise the way to bring the public finances back under control was for most of the heavy lifting to be done by spending cuts rather than raising taxes. It wouldn't have taken much in terms of additional tax rises to make reductions in Police numbers unnecessary even if you couldn't have found the savings elsewhere.
You protest too much...