The Italians are bloody lucky to be there if you ask me.
They also seem to get by far the least media coverage. Behind Abe, Trudeau, and even the EU rep.
Does anyone care what they have to say?
A bit mean, yes?
Not trying to be mean. It's just my assessment of the coverage.
Am I being unfair?
In one component, yes. That the Italians are lucky to be there is debatable but you are arguably correct, or at least not obviously wrong. I don't have figures for media coverage, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct. But the "Does anyone care what they have to say?" was gratuitous and gratuitously nasty (and rather uncharacteristic of you, if I may say), hence my rather surprised remark.
You're reading something into my remarks that wasn't there.
It was rhetorical. I was asking if anyone cared what they had to say because I hadn't seen or heard anything from them on any news outlet.
The Italians are bloody lucky to be there if you ask me.
They also seem to get by far the least media coverage. Behind Abe, Trudeau, and even the EU rep.
Does anyone care what they have to say?
Wasn't there once something called the G5 which was the G7 minus Italy and Canada ?
I vaguely remember Italy once demanding to be part of the G5 by claiming they had the a bigger GDP than the UK.
When they were told no they then refused to go to the G7 as a protest.
In the 1970s it made sense. I'm not sure it does so today.
By the same token if it's supposed to be about advanced economies that share western values - rather than global economic decisions that are better suited to the G20 - then I don't see why Russia should be there either.
Come that pre Brexit election - which I fear won't - Labour WILL be Remain. It's how they can win it. The only way really.
Except they won't, the LDs can always out Remain Corbyn Labour now, especially as Corbyn has refused to rule out campaigning for a Labour Brexit Deal even if he does back EUref2 while the LDs have always committed to back Remain in all circumstances
Corbyns gonna do worse than Foot
200 Majority for Tories
Just like in 2017
On voteshare Corbyn will likely do worse than Foot but it won't be a 200 Tory majority, 30 to 50 more like.
While Boris has won back most Leavers who have defected to the Brexit Party, Corbyn has not won back most Remainers who have defected to the LDs
Your 2017 prediction was so far wide of the mark you should try to separate reality from wishful thinking for fear of disappointment,
I didn't make a 2017 prediction and certainly was not predicting a Tory landslide after the dementia tax disaster but even so the Tories did won most seats, 42% of the vote and May was re elected.
The LDs were also polling nowhere near as high then as they are now. When the 2017 general election was called for example Yougov had the LDs on just 12% compared to 20% now and those extra LD votes are mainly coming from Labour
Yougov now has them on 19% . Opinium gives them 15%. They fell back by circa 5% in 2017 and I expect something similar again with them ending up at circa 12%.
Do not underestimate Remain voters. They will vote Labour or Lib Dem according to which seat they are voting in. Very few seats are Lib-Lab or 3 pronged. Remainers are more politically astute.
The problem is that in may seats it can be hard to know who the challenger is:
For example, in Maidenhead the LDs are the traditional challenger but Labour came second last time 5k votes ahead of the LDs
Another problem is postal voting. One can watch the battle develop locally but if 25% of votes are cast well before polling day a postal voter may well make the wrong, early choice.
**.... runs and hides, while laughing uproariously ...... **
Of course.
But games are an important part of life*, and cricket is one of the best.
*Watch a family of crows, if you don’t believe me.
Games are great.
Cricket is the most boring thing I have ever encountered. In the summer of 1981 I was in hospital for nearly 7 weeks. Apart from a royal wedding the only thing the tv was tuned to was cricket - Botham was doing something marvellous I'm told - and even after 6 weeks of it I could not make head or tail of it or find it remotely interesting.
Anyway, my son is teaching himself cooking from The Art of French Cooking. So tonight it is coq au vin, eaten outside, with the scent of my jasmine and pelargonium attar of roses. Bliss!
I think cricket is the most exciting game, followed by tennis. Golf is the most boring to watch. I don't know what playing it is like because I haven't tried. Cricket is something of a marmite sport, which you either love or hate.
**.... runs and hides, while laughing uproariously ...... **
Of course.
But games are an important part of life*, and cricket is one of the best.
*Watch a family of crows, if you don’t believe me.
Games are great.
Cricket is the most boring thing I have ever encountered. In the summer of 1981 I was in hospital for nearly 7 weeks. Apart from a royal wedding the only thing the tv was tuned to was cricket - Botham was doing something marvellous I'm told - and even after 6 weeks of it I could not make head or tail of it or find it remotely interesting.
Anyway, my son is teaching himself cooking from The Art of French Cooking. So tonight it is coq au vin, eaten outside, with the scent of my jasmine and pelargonium attar of roses. Bliss!
I think cricket is the most exciting game, followed by tennis. Golf is the most boring to watch. I don't know what playing it is like because I haven't tried. Cricket is something of a marmite sport, which you either love or hate.
A good thing about golf is that even a crap player will occasionally make a shot equal to a top professional.
Not just holing a ten foot putt but more difficult things such as a great chip.
On a related note I was thinking that 30 years ago many public parks would have had putting greens and possibly pitch and putt courses (or at the opposite end crazy golf).
They seem to have disappeared now which shuts off an entry into the sport.
**.... runs and hides, while laughing uproariously ...... **
Of course.
But games are an important part of life*, and cricket is one of the best.
*Watch a family of crows, if you don’t believe me.
Games are great.
Cricket is the most boring thing I have ever encountered. In the summer of 1981 I was in hospital for nearly 7 weeks. Apart from a royal wedding the only thing the tv was tuned to was cricket - Botham was doing something marvellous I'm told - and even after 6 weeks of it I could not make head or tail of it or find it remotely interesting.
Anyway, my son is teaching himself cooking from The Art of French Cooking. So tonight it is coq au vin, eaten outside, with the scent of my jasmine and pelargonium attar of roses. Bliss!
You’re entirely missing the point
Cricket is about 5 days in the sun chatting to friends and occasionally looking up to see how things are progressing, safe in the knowledge that you are unlikely to have missed anything
The Italians are bloody lucky to be there if you ask me.
They also seem to get by far the least media coverage. Behind Abe, Trudeau, and even the EU rep.
Does anyone care what they have to say?
A bit mean, yes?
Not trying to be mean. It's just my assessment of the coverage.
Am I being unfair?
In one component, yes. That the Italians are lucky to be there is debatable but you are arguably correct, or at least not obviously wrong. I don't have figures for media coverage, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct. But the "Does anyone care what they have to say?" was gratuitous and gratuitously nasty (and rather uncharacteristic of you, if I may say), hence my rather surprised remark.
You're reading something into my remarks that wasn't there.
It was rhetorical. I was asking if anyone cared what they had to say because I hadn't seen or heard anything from them on any news outlet.
Here we care about the U.K., France, Germany and the US
I suspect in Italy they care about Italy, France, Germany and the US
Did that really happen in the cricket or was i dreaming and England as usual collapsed to 200 all out?
All out 230 + Stokes.
Even Boycott was impressed: "I’ve seen some remarkable cricket moments in my life but that is the best I’ve seen in over 50 years"...
Surely Headingley 1981 was greater. It required two heroic efforts - not one - to win the match. Even after Botham's heroics England were still destined to lose the match.
I think not.
Look it up. With out Willis' 8-fer England would not have won that match.
Come that pre Brexit election - which I fear won't - Labour WILL be Remain. It's how they can win it. The only way really.
Except they won't, the LDs can always out Remain Corbyn Labour now, especially as Corbyn has refused to rule out campaigning for a Labour Brexit Deal even if he does back EUref2 while the LDs have always committed to back Remain in all circumstances
Corbyns gonna do worse than Foot 200 Majority for Tories Just like in 2017
On voteshare Corbyn will likely do worse than Foot but it won't be a 200 Tory majority, 30 to 50 more like. While Boris has won back most Leavers who have defected to the Brexit Party, Corbyn has not won back most Remainers who have defected to the LDs
Your 2017 prediction was so far wide of the mark you should try to separate reality from wishful thinking for fear of disappointment,
I didn't make a 2017 prediction and certainly was not predicting a Tory landslide after the dementia tax disaster but even so the Tories did won most seats, 42% of the vote and May was re elected. The LDs were also polling nowhere near as high then as they are now. When the 2017 general election was called for example Yougov had the LDs on just 12% compared to 20% now and those extra LD votes are mainly coming from Labour
Yougov now has them on 19% . Opinium gives them 15%. They fell back by circa 5% in 2017 and I expect something similar again with them ending up at circa 12%.
Do not underestimate Remain voters. They will vote Labour or Lib Dem according to which seat they are voting in. Very few seats are Lib-Lab or 3 pronged. Remainers are more politically astute.
The problem is that in may seats it can be hard to know who the challenger is: For example, in Maidenhead the LDs are the traditional challenger but Labour came second last time 5k votes ahead of the LDs
Not too hard really. You just have to remember that 2017 was exceptional, in that everybody was voting to prevent a Conservative dictatorship, and Corbyn was posing as a Remainer. A much better guide is to look at the recent local election results. They will show you where people and parties are organised on the ground.
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
Did that really happen in the cricket or was i dreaming and England as usual collapsed to 200 all out?
All out 230 + Stokes.
Even Boycott was impressed: "I’ve seen some remarkable cricket moments in my life but that is the best I’ve seen in over 50 years"...
Surely Headingley 1981 was greater. It required two heroic efforts - not one - to win the match. Even after Botham's heroics England were still destined to lose the match.
I think not.
Look it up. With out Willis' 8-fer England would not have won that match.
I am old enough not to have to do so.
It was a remarkable test - and what is less remembered is Botham bowling 39 (!) overs in Australia’s first innings. Little wonder he only made 50 in England’s first effort.
I still don’t think it quite compares with the effort needed to get back from 67 all out. That Stokes managed to grind out 72 balls for three runs, and then go on to manage England’s tail and produce that explosive finish is an utterly remarkable piece of self control and skill.
Did that really happen in the cricket or was i dreaming and England as usual collapsed to 200 all out?
All out 230 + Stokes.
Even Boycott was impressed: "I’ve seen some remarkable cricket moments in my life but that is the best I’ve seen in over 50 years"...
Surely Headingley 1981 was greater. It required two heroic efforts - not one - to win the match. Even after Botham's heroics England were still destined to lose the match.
I think not.
Look it up. With out Willis' 8-fer England would not have won that match.
Without Leech's 1 not out, without the wasted referral, without the missed run out, without the dropped catch - You can play that game forever but none of them or any others can diminish the part played by Ben Stokes.
Did that really happen in the cricket or was i dreaming and England as usual collapsed to 200 all out?
All out 230 + Stokes.
Even Boycott was impressed: "I’ve seen some remarkable cricket moments in my life but that is the best I’ve seen in over 50 years"...
Surely Headingley 1981 was greater. It required two heroic efforts - not one - to win the match. Even after Botham's heroics England were still destined to lose the match.
I think not.
Look it up. With out Willis' 8-fer England would not have won that match.
I am old enough not to have to do so.
It was a remarkable test - and what is less remembered is Botham bowling 39 (!) overs in Australia’s first innings. Little wonder he only made 50 in England’s first effort.
I still don’t think it quite compares with the effort needed to get back from 67 all out. That Stokes managed to grind out 72 balls for three runs, and then go on to manage England’s tail and produce that explosive finish is an utterly remarkable piece of self control and skill.
Yes. He played 2 innings in one today. Remarkably disciplined to try and hold the side together, then all out nowt to lose attack when all was (seemingly) lost. Pity I missed it.
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
Come that pre Brexit election - which I fear won't - Labour WILL be Remain. It's how they can win it. The only way really.
Corbyns gonna do worse than Foot 200 Majority for Tories Just like in 2017
On voteshare Corbyn will likely do worse than Foot but it won't be a 200 Tory majority, 30 to 50 more like. While Boris has won back most Leavers who have defected to the Brexit Party, Corbyn has not won back most Remainers who have defected to the LDs
Your 2017 prediction was so far wide of the mark you should try to separate reality from wishful thinking for fear of disappointment,
I didn't make a 2017 prediction and certainly was not predicting a Tory landslide after the dementia tax disaster but even so the Tories did won most seats, 42% of the vote and May was re elected. The LDs were also polling nowhere near as high then as they are now. When the 2017 general election was called for example Yougov had the LDs on just 12% compared to 20% now and those extra LD votes are mainly coming from Labour
Yougov now has them on 19% . Opinium gives them 15%. They fell back by circa 5% in 2017 and I expect something similar again with them ending up at circa 12%.
Do not underestimate Remain voters. They will vote Labour or Lib Dem according to which seat they are voting in. Very few seats are Lib-Lab or 3 pronged. Remainers are more politically astute.
The problem is that in may seats it can be hard to know who the challenger is: For example, in Maidenhead the LDs are the traditional challenger but Labour came second last time 5k votes ahead of the LDs
Not too hard really. You just have to remember that 2017 was exceptional, in that everybody was voting to prevent a Conservative dictatorship, and Corbyn was posing as a Remainer. A much better guide is to look at the recent local election results. They will show you where people and parties are organised on the ground.
Local Election results are rarely a good guide to how Parliamentary elections will turn out. Here in Norwich , we have seen examples of Green success at the former fall well short at general elections. The same has been true of the LibDems in Liverpool and Watford over an extended period - and may well be true now in seats such as St Albans.
**.... runs and hides, while laughing uproariously ...... **
Of course.
But games are an important part of life*, and cricket is one of the best.
*Watch a family of crows, if you don’t believe me.
Games are great.
Cricket is the most boring thing I have ever encountered. In the summer of 1981 I was in hospital for nearly 7 weeks. Apart from a royal wedding the only thing the tv was tuned to was cricket - Botham was doing something marvellous I'm told - and even after 6 weeks of it I could not make head or tail of it or find it remotely interesting.
Anyway, my son is teaching himself cooking from The Art of French Cooking. So tonight it is coq au vin, eaten outside, with the scent of my jasmine and pelargonium attar of roses. Bliss!
You’re entirely missing the point
Cricket is about 5 days in the sun chatting to friends and occasionally looking up to see how things are progressing, safe in the knowledge that you are unlikely to have missed anything
Can’t you just invite your friends round without the need for an ... umm ..... boring game in the background?
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
**.... runs and hides, while laughing uproariously ...... **
Of course.
But games are an important part of life*, and cricket is one of the best.
*Watch a family of crows, if you don’t believe me.
Games are great.
Cricket is the most boring thing I have ever encountered. In the summer of 1981 I was in hospital for nearly 7 weeks. Apart from a royal wedding the only thing the tv was tuned to was cricket - Botham was doing something marvellous I'm told - and even after 6 weeks of it I could not make head or tail of it or find it remotely interesting.
Anyway, my son is teaching himself cooking from The Art of French Cooking. So tonight it is coq au vin, eaten outside, with the scent of my jasmine and pelargonium attar of roses. Bliss!
You’re entirely missing the point
Cricket is about 5 days in the sun chatting to friends and occasionally looking up to see how things are progressing, safe in the knowledge that you are unlikely to have missed anything
Can’t you just invite your friends round without the need for an ... umm ..... boring game in the background?
Not many people have a large enough garden with an unencumbered vista.
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
On voteshare Corbyn will likely do worse than Foot but it won't be a 200 Tory majority, 30 to 50 more like.
While Boris has won back most Leavers who have defected to the Brexit Party, Corbyn has not won back most Remainers who have defected to the LDs
Your 2017 prediction was so far wide of the mark you should try to separate reality from wishful thinking for fear of disappointment,
I didn't make a 2017 prediction and certainly was not predicting a Tory landslide after the dementia tax disaster but even so the Tories did won most seats, 42% of the vote and May was re elected.
The LDs were also polling nowhere near as high then as they are now. When the 2017 general election was called for example Yougov had the LDs on just 12% compared to 20% now and those extra LD votes are mainly coming from Labour
Yougov now has them on 19% . Opinium gives them 15%. They fell back by circa 5% in 2017 and I expect something similar again with them ending up at circa 12%. Do not underestimate Remain voters. They will vote Labour or Lib Dem according to which seat they are voting in. Very few seats are Lib-Lab or 3 pronged. Remainers are more politically astute.
Remainers are also growing as a proportion of the number of people likely to vote. There's the steady loss to the grim reaper, and although the numbers of people changing their minds isn't huge the net direction of travel is away from Brexit. And in 2017 Brexit didn't feature much and wasn't yet in the toxic no deal form.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
People suggested detonating nuclear bombs in the atmosphere in the 1950s to induce unusual patterns and colours in the sky! In the 1960s people discovered you could get the same effect by dropping acid....
The best part that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration felt the need to publish their response some time ago, as quoted in the piece, which emphasises how common an idea it must be.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
And that is an utterly ludicrous idea. As repeatedly described. Over and over.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
And that is an utterly ludicrous idea. As repeatedly described. Over and over.
Well it's the first I have heard of it
In any case, if it is repeatedly described, why were they incredulous at his question, not knowing how to respond?
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
And that is an utterly ludicrous idea. As repeatedly described. Over and over.
Well it's the first I have heard of it
In any case, if it is repeatedly described, why were they incredulous at his question, not knowing how to respond?
Because while the question might well come up a lot, you don't expect someone who thinks they are so intelligent and is President of the United States to ask that question? And because he is known to have such a fragile ego and is a vindictive bully, they were too afraid to tell him upfront how stupid a question it was? The not knowing how to respond seems more likely linked to his status and personality than anything else.
Pensioners will be feeling pretty secure for the next few months as we prepare for a GE. Even more than everyone else getting cash thrown at them Boris will know he needs to keep the older vote on side.
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
That will be a story briefed by the Dutch who are disappointed with the number of “tax-minimising” firms they have been able to attract
We shall see in due course.
Sure. The gloating in advance is pretty depressing though
Very few people actively want No Deal. A litany of failures by political leadership on all sides and many countries has led us here.
But we are here and it’s not going to change. So we might as well make the best of it
No deal has not become an inevitability. You claim few people actively want no deal, but I disagree, because while few will claim it as their preferred option they are unwilling to take action or make any personal compromise to avoid it, so in any practical sense a lot of people do want no deal, even if they whine that they do not.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
And that is an utterly ludicrous idea. As repeatedly described. Over and over.
Well it's the first I have heard of it
In any case, if it is repeatedly described, why were they incredulous at his question, not knowing how to respond?
Because while the question might well come up a lot, you don't expect someone who thinks they are so intelligent and is President of the United States to ask that question? And because he is known to have such a fragile ego and is a vindictive bully, they were too afraid to tell him upfront how stupid a question it was? The not knowing how to respond seems more likely linked to his status and personality than anything else.
Everyone has surely heard that Trump is a dumbass by now?
**.... runs and hides, while laughing uproariously ...... **
Of course.
But games are an important part of life*, and cricket is one of the best.
*Watch a family of crows, if you don’t believe me.
Games are great.
Cricket is the most boring thing I have ever encountered. In the summer of 1981 I was in hospital for nearly 7 weeks. Apart from a royal wedding the only thing the tv was tuned to was cricket - Botham was doing something marvellous I'm told - and even after 6 weeks of it I could not make head or tail of it or find it remotely interesting.
Anyway, my son is teaching himself cooking from The Art of French Cooking. So tonight it is coq au vin, eaten outside, with the scent of my jasmine and pelargonium attar of roses. Bliss!
You’re entirely missing the point
Cricket is about 5 days in the sun chatting to friends and occasionally looking up to see how things are progressing, safe in the knowledge that you are unlikely to have missed anything
Can’t you just invite your friends round without the need for an ... umm ..... boring game in the background?
In a place a socially awkward as this country such social lubricant is necessary.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
And that is an utterly ludicrous idea. As repeatedly described. Over and over.
Well it's the first I have heard of it
In any case, if it is repeatedly described, why were they incredulous at his question, not knowing how to respond?
Because while the question might well come up a lot, you don't expect someone who thinks they are so intelligent and is President of the United States to ask that question? And because he is known to have such a fragile ego and is a vindictive bully, they were too afraid to tell him upfront how stupid a question it was? The not knowing how to respond seems more likely linked to his status and personality than anything else.
Everyone has surely heard that Trump is a dumbass by now?
Indeed, but it doesn't make it easier to know how to respond to him when he holds high office and great power. Without reaching for the obvious Emperor's New Clothes analogy, I'm sure we've all had to listen to a really dumb idea from someone more senior to us, or at least they are the decision maker, and quite often the best first step particularly in a situation where you cannot openly contradict them, or want to maintain a working relationship, is to defer the immediate response and hope they don't bring it up again and you are forced to make clear how dumb an idea it is.
"I'll look into it" can safely shelve many a bad idea particularly with someone easily distracted, without the worry of having to explain any idiocy and upset someone fragile.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
Absolutely. The precedents for Trump's openness to being corrected and informed are legion.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
Absolutely. The precedents for Trump's openness to being corrected and informed are legion.
Dear gods. Surely even people who think Trump is the Chosen One must look at that and think it implausible? I cannot see any other explanation other than that he is indeed smarter than he sounds, and he will have tremendous fun knowing how much rage such comments provoke amongst his opponents.
Or maybe it is very well phrased, depending on comma usage at least - there were no world leaders present who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, other than himself, and he asked the question himself? So not a lie, since only world leaders who think that were quoted by him.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
And that is an utterly ludicrous idea. As repeatedly described. Over and over.
Well it's the first I have heard of it
In any case, if it is repeatedly described, why were they incredulous at his question, not knowing how to respond?
Perhaps because it is a totally fuckwitted idea that anyone with a functioning knowledge of owt at all could see was insane? Just an idea.
Pensioners will be feeling pretty secure for the next few months as we prepare for a GE. Even more than everyone else getting cash thrown at them Boris will know he needs to keep the older vote on side.
Cos they'll win him the election. Meanwhile, the mugs will keep working and paying tax.
On the article - trying to extrapolate anything about Con election chances from Cambridge Newnham ward is for the birds. It is never ever going Con ever.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
Absolutely. The precedents for Trump's openness to being corrected and informed are legion.
Perhaps the better response might have been to explain why it wasn't feasible. The fact they have to describe why it isn't possible on their website suggests that the idea gets floated every so often.
Absolutely. The precedents for Trump's openness to being corrected and informed are legion.
British firms "easily coping with No Deal Brexit" Thank goodness we now have proper No Deal planning under Johnson and not the didn't-really-mean-it sort from Remainer May:
That will be a story briefed by the Dutch who are disappointed with the number of “tax-minimising” firms they have been able to attract
We shall see in due course.
Sure. The gloating in advance is pretty depressing though
Very few people actively want No Deal. A litany of failures by political leadership on all sides and many countries has led us here.
But we are here and it’s not going to change. So we might as well make the best of it
No deal has not become an inevitability. You claim few people actively want no deal, but I disagree, because while few will claim it as their preferred option they are unwilling to take action or make any personal compromise to avoid it, so in any practical sense a lot of people do want no deal, even if they whine that they do not.
That’s what I meant by “actively” - someone who won’t act to avoid it is “passively” enabling it rather than “actively” supporting it
Comments
It was rhetorical. I was asking if anyone cared what they had to say because I hadn't seen or heard anything from them on any news outlet.
By the same token if it's supposed to be about advanced economies that share western values - rather than global economic decisions that are better suited to the G20 - then I don't see why Russia should be there either.
I don’t resent your lack of enjoyment; don’t resent my enjoyment.
* An imperfect metaphor, but you get the point.
Call it hypocritical to keep the money but he was right in what he said.
Not just holing a ten foot putt but more difficult things such as a great chip.
On a related note I was thinking that 30 years ago many public parks would have had putting greens and possibly pitch and putt courses (or at the opposite end crazy golf).
They seem to have disappeared now which shuts off an entry into the sport.
Cricket is about 5 days in the sun chatting to friends and occasionally looking up to see how things are progressing, safe in the knowledge that you are unlikely to have missed anything
I suspect in Italy they care about Italy, France, Germany and the US
What does that tell you?
(*New word for me from Saturday's Guardian crossword, hope it's not offensive!)
Hello and good night!
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1165741032581029888
It was a remarkable test - and what is less remembered is Botham bowling 39 (!) overs in Australia’s first innings. Little wonder he only made 50 in England’s first effort.
I still don’t think it quite compares with the effort needed to get back from 67 all out. That Stokes managed to grind out 72 balls for three runs, and then go on to manage England’s tail and produce that explosive finish is an utterly remarkable piece of self control and skill.
Pity I missed it.
Don't say that some of us did not warn.
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1165758260743421957
Very few people actively want No Deal. A litany of failures by political leadership on all sides and many countries has led us here.
But we are here and it’s not going to change. So we might as well make the best of it
But it is well established so more a sign of quirky reading choices than illness
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/11/hurricanes-weather-history-nuclear-weapons/
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/johnson-tells-bbc-cough-up-for-pensioner-tv-licences-in-full_uk_5d62bda3e4b02cc97c8f61f3?bwf
And that is why the dangers of no deal are now so widely disregarded.
On voteshare Corbyn will likely do worse than Foot but it won't be a 200 Tory majority, 30 to 50 more like.
While Boris has won back most Leavers who have defected to the Brexit Party, Corbyn has not won back most Remainers who have defected to the LDs
Your 2017 prediction was so far wide of the mark you should try to separate reality from wishful thinking for fear of disappointment,
I didn't make a 2017 prediction and certainly was not predicting a Tory landslide after the dementia tax disaster but even so the Tories did won most seats, 42% of the vote and May was re elected.
The LDs were also polling nowhere near as high then as they are now. When the 2017 general election was called for example Yougov had the LDs on just 12% compared to 20% now and those extra LD votes are mainly coming from Labour
Yougov now has them on 19% . Opinium gives them 15%. They fell back by circa 5% in 2017 and I expect something similar again with them ending up at circa 12%.
Do not underestimate Remain voters. They will vote Labour or Lib Dem according to which seat they are voting in. Very few seats are Lib-Lab or 3 pronged. Remainers are more politically astute.
Remainers are also growing as a proportion of the number of people likely to vote. There's the steady loss to the grim reaper, and although the numbers of people changing their minds isn't huge the net direction of travel is away from Brexit. And in 2017 Brexit didn't feature much and wasn't yet in the toxic no deal form.
In any case, if it is repeatedly described, why were they incredulous at his question, not knowing how to respond?
"I'll look into it" can safely shelve many a bad idea particularly with someone easily distracted, without the worry of having to explain any idiocy and upset someone fragile.
In 'transparent lies' news...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1165677808896507904?s=20
Or maybe it is very well phrased, depending on comma usage at least - there were no world leaders present who think the USA is doing so well and is stronger than ever before, other than himself, and he asked the question himself? So not a lie, since only world leaders who think that were quoted by him.
Con 32.1%
Lab 24.4%
LD 17.9%
BRX 13.4%
Green 5.4%
SNP 4.0%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Baxter:
Con 351, Lab 201, LD 41, SNP 35, Green 1, BRX 0.
Just an idea.