President Trump has actually suggested nuking hurricanes.
Now if you read XKCD, you will know about What If? (Serious scientific answer to absurd hypothetical questions.)
In it, it turns out that "Can't we just nuke hurricanes" is something that get asked a lot. And it turns out there have been a lot of simulations run. And it turns out to be a very bad idea.
But that was not how things appeared in late April 2017 at the beginning of the campaign.Quite a bit of talk then of Labour falling below 20% and being overtaken by the LDs who were on 13% in some polls. How many people really believe that Swinson will outcampaign Corbyn?
There was not much talk about the LDs at that time, in fact the talk was pretty much "how humongous will May's majority be" and the LDs were rather ignored. The result was of course voters retreated from giving May a majority and Corbyn got away without being scrutinised.
This time Corbyn will need to be scrutinised and I don't think he'll be given the benefit of the doubt as last time.
There was a fair bit of such speculation - maybe based on wishful thinking - on this site and others. The evidence is clearly in the archives should you wish to consult it.
I said the Lib Dems would get 10-12% and 12-14 seats.
President Trump has actually suggested nuking hurricanes.
Now if you read XKCD, you will know about What If? (Serious scientific answer to absurd hypothetical questions.)
In it, it turns out that "Can't we just nuke hurricanes" is something that get asked a lot. And it turns out there have been a lot of simulations run. And it turns out to be a very bad idea.
Don't forget the XKCD follow up to 'What if?' coming out soon, should make a good stocking filler
As was noted last night the big surprise is not that the question gets asked, since as you say turns out it is asked a lot, but that the President of the United States asked it, and asked it more than once (possibly because he is so fragile and vicious that telling him it is a bad idea cannot have been easy).
Nonsense. You're being far too squeamish. I know these people. They like to call a spade a spade.
Which must be where I get it from.
You trying to be funny with your racist joke?
Isn't the expression 'call a spade a spade' centuries old and not to do with race?
Like saying the monkey picture Danny Baker used is old picture and not to do with race.
So me questioning the etymology of a phrase (which you have not disputed, so I presume the answer is, 'yes, that is correct') and thus myself are now racist too by implication? I wonder if you realise just how much any valid points you make are now thoroughly undermined by such an attitude.
Nonsense. You're being far too squeamish. I know these people. They like to call a spade a spade.
Which must be where I get it from.
You trying to be funny with your racist joke?
Isn't the expression 'call a spade a spade' centuries old and not to do with race?
Like saying the monkey picture Danny Baker used is old picture and not to do with race.
So me questioning the etymology of a phrase (which you have not disputed, so I presume the answer is, 'yes, that is correct' is now racist too by implication? What an absolute arsehole you are, I wonder if you realise just how much any valid points you make are now thoroughly undermined by such a cretinous attidude.
I’ve made a valid point? By saying the counting out song is racist?
Nonsense. You're being far too squeamish. I know these people. They like to call a spade a spade.
Which must be where I get it from.
You trying to be funny with your racist joke?
Isn't the expression 'call a spade a spade' centuries old and not to do with race?
Like saying the monkey picture Danny Baker used is old picture and not to do with race.
So me questioning the etymology of a phrase (which you have not disputed, so I presume the answer is, 'yes, that is correct' is now racist too by implication? What an absolute arsehole you are, I wonder if you realise just how much any valid points you make are now thoroughly undermined by such a cretinous attidude.
I’ve made a valid point? By saying the counting out song is racist?
I've amended my post as I overreacted a tad there and I apologies. Though I think you're own follow up pointing out context is key was more helpful than your first which I took badly.
Thank you to those who left kind comments on a previous thread. Rule no 1 is whilst assessing your own difficult situation, its nothing like as bad as one might think when you consider other peoples problems.
History very rarely repeats itself, and as a committed abstainer next time via my spoilt ballot paper I have no reason to feel complacent. However, I am aware of no example of a third party reaching its peak during the election period itself.The main examples of such surges which come to mind are the Liberal surge in February 1974 - a Liberal recovery in the 1979 campaign - the 1983 Alliance surge - and the Clegg surge of 2010. Other elections saw little change or indeed a decline such as occurred in 2017.Even the 'surge' elections, though, did not see the third party match the levels of support gained earlier in those Parliaments. Thorpe's Liberals did well in February 1974 , but still fell well short of what had been suggested in by elections and Local Elections in 1973. The Alliance surge in 1983 came nowhere near what had been predicted in 1981 in the aftermath of the SDP launch and subsequent by election successes.In this Parliament, the LibDems have not really gone any higher than 20% and are currently hovering in the 15% - 19% range. I expect the calling of an election to see them fall back - we have already seen polls recording vote shares back at 13%.
You're expanding the question, to get the answer you want.
The question is a simple one: does the Liberal/Alliance/LibDem vote share tend to rise or fall during an election campaign.
Nonsense. You're being far too squeamish. I know these people. They like to call a spade a spade.
Which must be where I get it from.
You trying to be funny with your racist joke?
Isn't the expression 'call a spade a spade' centuries old and not to do with race?
Like saying the monkey picture Danny Baker used is old picture and not to do with race.
So me questioning the etymology of a phrase (which you have not disputed, so I presume the answer is, 'yes, that is correct' is now racist too by implication? What an absolute arsehole you are, I wonder if you realise just how much any valid points you make are now thoroughly undermined by such a cretinous attidude.
I’ve made a valid point? By saying the counting out song is racist?
I've amended my post as I overreacted a tad there and I apologies. Though I think you're own follow up pointing out context is key was more helpful than your first which I took badly.
For the record, even with the context I didn’t for a second think tin of beans was actually making a racist pun. I was just arseing about.
I suppose the line that writes itself has already been posted?
Turns out that the R4 Pork Pie Guy was mistaken and Boris, unlikely as it may seem, was right....
As he was on the kipper story.
FISHERY PRODUCTS 3.1. ‘Fishery products’ means all seawater or freshwater animals (except for live bivalve molluscs, live echinoderms, live tunicates and live marine gastropods, and all mammals, reptiles and frogs) whether wild or farmed and including all edible forms, parts and products of such animals. ..... CHAPTER VIII: TRANSPORT OF FISHERY PRODUCTS Food business operators transporting fishery products must ensure compliance with the following requirements. 1. During transport, fishery products must be maintained at the required temperature. In particular: (a) fresh fishery products, thawed unprocessed fishery products, and cooked and chilled products from crustaceans and molluscs, must be maintained at a temperature approaching that of melting ice; ... 3. If fishery products are kept under ice, melt water must not remain in contact with the products.
Seems fairly clear to me. I have no idea what he was waving the kipper around for though. Perhaps he wasn't wearing any trousers and the kipper waving was a massive distraction.
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
It has a racial meaning?
Yes, a spade is someone of african ethnicity.
Calling a shovel a shovel is meaningless turn of phrase. Calling an African a spade is a very loaded phrase.
I hope the Lib Dems are already on the phone to all the major New Labour business donors, and are already preparing a marketing campaign that puts Jo front and centre.
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
Totally o/t but among the more unlikely headlines on BBC East tonight was ‘The red flag flying over Frinton’ For the avoidance of doubt it was for beach safety! However I was, for a moment, flabbergasted!
Boris is clearly going to leave and he challenges the HOC not to betray the vote.
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
It has a racial meaning?
The racist usage of the word "spade" probably comes from the phrase "as black as the ace of spades". Normally when someone is referring to matters racial and says they like "to call a spade a spade" it is seen by such people as a very funny joke. Hilarious. Not.
Jo Swinson is benefiting from "Bollocks to Brexit". I don't think there's any real evidence that she is either benefiting, or harming, the LibDem brand.
But at least you will admit that the Lib Dems are now back on the map. That means that people will be paying some attention to the other things that they are saying. Give it time,Mr Smithson, give it time.....
Yes, I do agree with that. I think the LibDem surge is at present mostly about Brexit, and you'll need more in a GE, even a GE caused by Brexit (elections mutate - Heath's "Who governs Britain" was supposed to be about unions, but turned out to be about other things). You might need some other trademark policies rather soon.
More positively, I also agree that there are rich pickings for the LibDems in parts of the Remainerish South.
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
It has a racial meaning?
Yes, a spade is someone of african ethnicity.
Calling a shovel a shovel is meaningless turn of phrase. Calling an African a spade is a very loaded phrase.
Wasn't it Roy Hattersley who while trying to show his opposition to racism hiding itself in indirect ways famously said, 'When it comes to racism I think you have to call a spade a spade?'
Which only goes to show you should never use clichés.
Totally o/t but among the more unlikely headlines on BBC East tonight was ‘The red flag flying over Frinton’ For the avoidance of doubt it was for beach safety! However I was, for a moment, flabbergasted!
I really don't know how a campaign will go. It all depends on the circumstances of how it arises.
Corbyn could stagnate or sweep up the "Bored of Brexit" vote, the turn out could be down, the LDs could sweep up the Remain tactical vote, Boris could sweep up the Lab Leave vote or repel them.
Certainly it would be a risky gamble. Do you feel lucky, punk?
Some people don't want a referendum and some just want to revoke because they are worried remain wouldn't win the referendum. It's pretty easy to grasp though.
Jo Swinson is benefiting from "Bollocks to Brexit". I don't think there's any real evidence that she is either benefiting, or harming, the LibDem brand.
But at least you will admit that the Lib Dems are now back on the map. That means that people will be paying some attention to the other things that they are saying. Give it time,Mr Smithson, give it time.....
Yes, I do agree with that. I think the LibDem surge is at present mostly about Brexit, and you'll need more in a GE, even a GE caused by Brexit (elections mutate - Heath's "Who governs Britain" was supposed to be about unions, but turned out to be about other things). You might need some other trademark policies rather soon.
More positively, I also agree that there are rich pickings for the LibDems in parts of the Remainerish South.
I wish to punish the Conservatives for their damaging Brexit obsession and will vote LibDem for all GEs until a more reputable and moderate leader takes over, which will not be for a while. I would consider Labour for the same purpose, but never while Corbyn is in charge. He would be even worse than Brexit.
Boris is clearly going to leave and he challenges the HOC not to betray the vote.
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
Are you saying you are now prepared to support No Deal? Labour's position is pretty similar to its policy prior to the 1974 elections - reject the Heath terms - renegotiate - Referendum.
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
According to that it's an American thing. It's bad enough American phrases creeping into common use, without us ceasing to use British ones that they find offensive.
Totally o/t but among the more unlikely headlines on BBC East tonight was ‘The red flag flying over Frinton’ For the avoidance of doubt it was for beach safety! However I was, for a moment, flabbergasted!
I'm sure all matters were suitably oranged later.
Purple were confused.......Frinton was in the UKIP seat.
I really don't know how a campaign will go. It all depends on the circumstances of how it arises.
Corbyn could stagnate or sweep up the "Bored of Brexit" vote, the turn out could be down, the LDs could sweep up the Remain tactical vote, Boris could sweep up the Lab Leave vote or repel them.
Certainly it would be a risky gamble. Do you feel lucky, punk?
He's up against the only party leader more divisive, incompetent, dishonest and dodgy than he is. How much more luck does he need?
Boris is clearly going to leave and he challenges the HOC not to betray the vote.
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
Hard to argue with any of that.
I do think the anti-No Deal brigade have to be careful not to fall into the Johnson elephant trap. Boris going to argue leaving the EU on 31/10 prospects the result of the 23/6/16 referendum irrespective of the consequences. He will claim to be representing democracy and the will of the people and charge everyone else with being opposed to basic democracy.
Many, even those of us who voted LEAVE, are worried at the prospect of a No Deal Brexit and the short and medium term dislocation this will cause. It's all very well saying "but you should have supported the WA" but there was a lot unsatisfactory about the WA and May should not have agreed to it.
The other truth is we want to leave and the onus is on the UK to come up with solutions for the issues leaving will cause - that has been the EU line since March 2017 and Merkel re-stated it last week (even though some people claim she said something else). We have been unable or unwilling to put forward suggestions acceptable to all sides - yes, there are technological flights of fancy out there but the EU (justifiably) wants something that will work on day 1 not in 10 years.
To get this right, we have to revoke with a commitment to re-apply for A50 once we have worked out exactly what it is what we want and how it can be achieved.,
Some people don't want a referendum and some just want to revoke because they are worried remain wouldn't win the referendum. It's pretty easy to grasp though.
Ah, welcome, the Momentum Party equivalent of HYUFD. Vying with said Mr HYUFD for most ludicrous and mindless ovine worship of unsuitable political leaders.
Clearly the electorate do not agree that Mr Thicky's position is easy to grasp
Boris is clearly going to leave and he challenges the HOC not to betray the vote.
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
Are you saying you are now prepared to support No Deal? Labour's position is pretty similar to its policy prior to the 1974 elections - reject the Heath terms - renegotiate - Referendum.
Totally o/t but among the more unlikely headlines on BBC East tonight was ‘The red flag flying over Frinton’ For the avoidance of doubt it was for beach safety! However I was, for a moment, flabbergasted!
Good job John McDonnell hasn't gone there for a day out, he wouldn't have seen them and headed straight in the water.
It’s not often I agree with HY, but HY is right, Warren can’t beat Trump.
Remember trump won not by being popular or likable, but his opponent being hated. Whoever gets the dem ticket, trump team will go all out to make that person a hated figure too. So I say ignore their polling and status in the betting, pick which one most looks made of Teflon. HY is absolutely right. Warren would be slaughtered in an election against Trump, her policy platform is full of holes, and Warren herself unlikable. She’s not nearly Teflon enough for what the Trump campaign will do to her.
Warren is a kind of candidate that Trump has not come up against yet, and as your post demonstrates, she continues to be underestimated.
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
According to that it's an American thing. It's bad enough American phrases creeping into common use, without us ceasing to use British ones that they find offensive.
Spade referring to someone of African extraction has quite an established History. MacInnes published his novel on Black migrants in London in 1959 as"City of Spades".
I really don't know how a campaign will go. It all depends on the circumstances of how it arises.
Corbyn could stagnate or sweep up the "Bored of Brexit" vote, the turn out could be down, the LDs could sweep up the Remain tactical vote, Boris could sweep up the Lab Leave vote or repel them.
Certainly it would be a risky gamble. Do you feel lucky, punk?
He's up against the only party leader more divisive, incompetent, dishonest and dodgy than he is. How much more luck does he need?
Quite. But so was May in 2017 and she had much bigger polling leads than Johnson has now and she even had positive by-election result (Copeland) to back them up. And we all know what happened.
Calling an election would be a massive gamble in current circumstances and the chances of the Tories emerging with a majority are less than 50 - 50.
Boris is clearly going to leave and he challenges the HOC not to betray the vote.
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
Are you saying you are now prepared to support No Deal? Labour's position is pretty similar to its policy prior to the 1974 elections - reject the Heath terms - renegotiate - Referendum.
It’s not often I agree with HY, but HY is right, Warren can’t beat Trump.
Remember trump won not by being popular or likable, but his opponent being hated. Whoever gets the dem ticket, trump team will go all out to make that person a hated figure too. So I say ignore their polling and status in the betting, pick which one most looks made of Teflon. HY is absolutely right. Warren would be slaughtered in an election against Trump, her policy platform is full of holes, and Warren herself unlikable. She’s not nearly Teflon enough for what the Trump campaign will do to her.
Warren is a kind of candidate that Trump has not come up against yet, and as your post demonstrates, she continues to be underestimated.
I am pretty confident that Warren will be the nominee, and has a decent chance of defeating Trump, as anti Domineering acquired a strong motivator.
Actual immigration (or as is the case in places like Hartlepool) perceived immigration..
A good point. It's true that anti immigration sentiment is often strong in places with very little (and vice versa).
But TBF in Rotherham - as 'Another Richard' would confirm if he were here - there has been a big influx of Eastern Europeans.
The number of barber shops has gone bananas - so if you were in that business beforehand you would be none too pleased.
So, the issues are sometimes real, and not necessarily racist, but nevertheless I do not want Labour chasing these voters with Farage type rhetoric or policies.
At the time of the election announcement in April 2017 , May led Corbyn in Yougov's preferred PM ratings by 54% to 15%. How does Johnson's present lead compare with that?
Some people don't want a referendum and some just want to revoke because they are worried remain wouldn't win the referendum. It's pretty easy to grasp though.
That's not Labour's position.
Labour's position is:
Change of government (even though they don't have the numbers to do that or the ability to form a cabinet) Extend Article 50 (although that's already been done and may not be within our gift to extend again) Have a General Election (because that's far more important than all this brex-shit) Negotiate a new deal (which the EU have said they won't do) Once negotiated, hold a referendum on that deal or remain, with Labour campaigning against their own deal because they're sure it will be rubbish.
And this is done firmly in the interests of trying to hold the Labour Party together the country getting a say on what comes next.
And then they wonder why Jo Swinson seems to think this is a non-starter.
I really don't know how a campaign will go. It all depends on the circumstances of how it arises.
Corbyn could stagnate or sweep up the "Bored of Brexit" vote, the turn out could be down, the LDs could sweep up the Remain tactical vote, Boris could sweep up the Lab Leave vote or repel them.
Certainly it would be a risky gamble. Do you feel lucky, punk?
He's up against the only party leader more divisive, incompetent, dishonest and dodgy than he is. How much more luck does he need?
Quite. But so was May in 2017 and she had much bigger polling leads than Johnson has now and she even had positive by-election result (Copeland) to back them up. And we all know what happened.
Calling an election would be a massive gamble in current circumstances and the chances of the Tories emerging with a majority are less than 50 - 50.
So you're saying, he needs a little bit more luck than May?
Well, that's not totally out of the question, is it?
I am not sure the demise of Bury FC has much to do with Brexit or left behind Britain. It is everything to do with fit and proper test for owners and also the way owners have set up clubs to live way beyond their means / conveniently "forgotten" about having large bills for NI contributions / VAT.
There are loads of clubs that have gone through similar things over the past 20 years, and even those that haven't gone bust have been subjected to some shocking asset stripping etc e.g. selling the ground and training facilities from under the club.
A good article indeed, that shines a light on the financial house of cards that is Brexit Britain. Bury FC is just part of the deep malaise of these towns.
Just learned that one of the Spanish air display team died in a crash 15 miles away this morning, tried to find something on the bbc but couldn’t see it. Tragic but of no interest in the UK
A good article indeed, that shines a light on the financial house of cards that is Brexit Britain. Bury FC is just part of the deep malaise of these towns.
Nonsense, this crap has been happening for 30 years. Just look at the list. And it doesn't include all the asset stripping / unfair loans schemes that other dodgy owners have pulled.
Are there two clubs going mammary glands up then? Bury and Bolton?
Yep. I wonder if it's a coincidence that both are northern clubs within a few miles of each other. Are there too many football clubs for the market, especially given the desire to compete at the top, and the costs of doing so?
As a non-football fan, I'm sadly amused by people calling the closures 'tragedy' or a 'disaster'. Football clubs are businesses; and they have no fundamental right to exist.
But I guess I'm missing a large emotional factor in their existence.
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
According to that it's an American thing. It's bad enough American phrases creeping into common use, without us ceasing to use British ones that they find offensive.
Spade referring to someone of African extraction has quite an established History. MacInnes published his novel on Black migrants in London in 1959 as"City of Spades".
I use the phrase call a spade a spade about once every 2 years I'd say. I don't find it a massively useful phrase. This will certainly not increase my use of it in some sort of 'what's wrong with golliwogs?' racist disguised as anti-pc way, but nor will it stop me using it where it is appropriate.
I think it’s the financial aspects that need looking at. Isn’t Liz Truss the relevant Minister.
In this case, there has been some very "interesting" things going on. The current owner incredibly claims he didn't even know Bury had a football team, never goes there and only bought it because he wanted to use the training ground to rehabilitate young offenders.
Then he sells a load of the debt to his son in law.
Boris is clearly going to leave and he challenges the HOC not to betray the vote.
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
Are you saying you are now prepared to support No Deal? Labour's position is pretty similar to its policy prior to the 1974 elections - reject the Heath terms - renegotiate - Referendum.
No I am not. I support leave with a deal
Labour position is idiotic nonsense
We all know you will vote Tory no matter what. You will find an excuse. What happens if there is an election where the government is asking the people to vote for it and it will take the UK out on the 31st on a No Deal basis.
Despite your oft-repeated against No Deal rhetoric, you will vote Tory, right ? You have left that door firmly open by saying I could vote for either of them. One of "them" is accepting the Referendum.
The racist usage of the word "spade" probably comes from the phrase "as black as the ace of spades". Normally when someone is referring to matters racial and says they like "to call a spade a spade" it is seen by such people as a very funny joke. Hilarious. Not.
Quite.
Also it was a word that white hipsters in the 60s - who wished they were black and hence had real 'soul' - used to use to demonstrate that they were down with the brothers*.
Keith Richards was forever using it. Guess he wouldn't now.
* Think I'm OK with that? Brothers?
Or am I trying to be all cool like Keith and at grave risk of making a bit of a tit** of myself?
** That's 'tit' in the ... oh for pete's sake ... stop ... let it be.
Are there two clubs going mammary glands up then? Bury and Bolton?
Yep. I wonder if it's a coincidence that both are northern clubs within a few miles of each other. Are there too many football clubs for the market, especially given the desire to compete at the top, and the costs of doing so?
As a non-football fan, I'm sadly amused by people calling the closures 'tragedy' or a 'disaster'. Football clubs are businesses; and they have no fundamental right to exist.
But I guess I'm missing a large emotional factor in their existence.
I don't think anymore than 9-10 years ago a load of clubs on the south coast all went belly up. Portsmouth, Southampton, Weymouth, Bournemouth all went busto in the space of 2 years. Brighton was also in massive trouble with no ground, after it was sold from under them.
Financial mismanagement, asset stripping, dodgy owners in football. It is as common place as politicians lying.
At the end of February 1992 the polls had the LibDems in the 17% - 20% range. On Polling Day - April 9th - they won circa 18% . No great surge there.
I guess it depends on where you count the General Election campaign having started. My eyeballing of the chart on the Wikipedia page shows a sharp increase in the LD vote share.
And if you want to look at it another way, the LDs eventual result was in the 96th percentile of their vote shares for the 1987-1992 parliament, so it's hard to conclude they did badly during the campaign.
But that was not how things appeared in late April 2017 at the beginning of the campaign.Quite a bit of talk then of Labour falling below 20% and being overtaken by the LDs who were on 13% in some polls. How many people really believe that Swinson will outcampaign Corbyn?
There was not much talk about the LDs at that time, in fact the talk was pretty much "how humongous will May's majority be" and the LDs were rather ignored. The result was of course voters retreated from giving May a majority and Corbyn got away without being scrutinised.
This time Corbyn will need to be scrutinised and I don't think he'll be given the benefit of the doubt as last time.
There was a fair bit of such speculation - maybe based on wishful thinking - on this site and others. The evidence is clearly in the archives should you wish to consult it.
Essentially all my profits at the last election were made out of betting on the Lib Dems failing. I slightly overdid it, thinking that they’d do even worse.
Next time round they are going to do a lot better. The only question is how much better. Since they seem to have a reasonably geographically concentrated voter base, I expect them to surprise on the upside.
I really don't know how a campaign will go. It all depends on the circumstances of how it arises.
Corbyn could stagnate or sweep up the "Bored of Brexit" vote, the turn out could be down, the LDs could sweep up the Remain tactical vote, Boris could sweep up the Lab Leave vote or repel them.
Certainly it would be a risky gamble. Do you feel lucky, punk?
He's up against the only party leader more divisive, incompetent, dishonest and dodgy than he is. How much more luck does he need?
Quite. But so was May in 2017 and she had much bigger polling leads than Johnson has now and she even had positive by-election result (Copeland) to back them up. And we all know what happened.
Calling an election would be a massive gamble in current circumstances and the chances of the Tories emerging with a majority are less than 50 - 50.
So you're saying, he needs a little bit more luck than May?
Well, that's not totally out of the question, is it?
He needs more than luck - if he runs on a platform of no deal he can say goodbye to a number of Tory seats in London and Scotland for starters so he will need to be very confident he can win over leave voters in traditional Labour areas. This is, as Sir Humphrey would put it, a brave assumption.
The racist usage of the word "spade" probably comes from the phrase "as black as the ace of spades". Normally when someone is referring to matters racial and says they like "to call a spade a spade" it is seen by such people as a very funny joke. Hilarious. Not.
Quite.
Also it was a word that white hipsters in the 60s - who wished they were black and hence had real 'soul' - used to use to demonstrate that they were down with the brothers*.
Keith Richards was forever using it. Guess he wouldn't now.
* Think I'm OK with that? Brothers?
Or am I trying to be all cool like Keith and at grave risk of making a bit of a tit** of myself?
** That's 'tit' in the ... oh for pete's sake ... stop ... let it be.
Well I got to Oriole y'know it took a month And there was my guitar, electric junk Some spade said you rock 'n' rollers, you're all the same Man that's your instrument. I felt so ashamed.
I hope the Lib Dems are already on the phone to all the major New Labour business donors, and are already preparing a marketing campaign that puts Jo front and centre.
The Labour tribalists are already rattled.
I do not think you can appreciate how big Labour is compared to the Lib Dems even amongst business donors.
But that was not how things appeared in late April 2017 at the beginning of the campaign.Quite a bit of talk then of Labour falling below 20% and being overtaken by the LDs who were on 13% in some polls. How many people really believe that Swinson will outcampaign Corbyn?
There was not much talk about the LDs at that time, in fact the talk was pretty much "how humongous will May's majority be" and the LDs were rather ignored. The result was of course voters retreated from giving May a majority and Corbyn got away without being scrutinised.
This time Corbyn will need to be scrutinised and I don't think he'll be given the benefit of the doubt as last time.
There was a fair bit of such speculation - maybe based on wishful thinking - on this site and others. The evidence is clearly in the archives should you wish to consult it.
Essentially all my profits at the last election were made out of betting on the Lib Dems failing. I slightly overdid it, thinking that they’d do even worse.
Next time round they are going to do a lot better. The only question is how much better. Since they seem to have a reasonably geographically concentrated voter base, I expect them to surprise on the upside.
Yes, I was quite bearish on the LDs in 2017, though my best payoffs were Lab winning marginals. Many of those were excellent value, and may well be again. I don't think Boris's charm travels well.
Some people don't want a referendum and some just want to revoke because they are worried remain wouldn't win the referendum. It's pretty easy to grasp though.
That's not Labour's position.
Labour's position is:
Change of government (even though they don't have the numbers to do that or the ability to form a cabinet) Extend Article 50 (although that's already been done and may not be within our gift to extend again) Have a General Election (because that's far more important than all this brex-shit) Negotiate a new deal (which the EU have said they won't do) Once negotiated, hold a referendum on that deal or remain, with Labour campaigning against their own deal because they're sure it will be rubbish.
And this is done firmly in the interests of trying to hold the Labour Party together the country getting a say on what comes next.
And then they wonder why Jo Swinson seems to think this is a non-starter.
Seem to be mixing up a few things there. A change of government isn't policy it is what oppositions aim for in an election but not actual policy. A temp government was the policy for avoiding no deal in the short term rather than our policy in an election.
The EU have said multiple times they are happy to change the political declaration, lying about that doesn't really change what the EU have said.
An extension is obviously needed to avoid crashing out with no deal and holding s referndum if the Lib Dems wanted a referendum they would also need something to put up against it.
If the Lib Dem position was just revoke then the complications of an extension and a referendum wouldn't apply to them but it does. Considering the current government they also need a change of government for it to happen.
Basically if a referendum is an illogical policy then it is illogical whether it is the Lib Dems or Labour calling for one.
But a referendum is a simple position even if you don't like those calling for it.
Actual immigration (or as is the case in places like Hartlepool) perceived immigration..
A good point. It's true that anti immigration sentiment is often strong in places with very little (and vice versa).
But TBF in Rotherham - as 'Another Richard' would confirm if he were here - there has been a big influx of Eastern Europeans.
The number of barber shops has gone bananas - so if you were in that business beforehand you would be none too pleased.
So, the issues are sometimes real, and not necessarily racist, but nevertheless I do not want Labour chasing these voters with Farage type rhetoric or policies.
Are there two clubs going mammary glands up then? Bury and Bolton?
Yep. I wonder if it's a coincidence that both are northern clubs within a few miles of each other. Are there too many football clubs for the market, especially given the desire to compete at the top, and the costs of doing so?
As a non-football fan, I'm sadly amused by people calling the closures 'tragedy' or a 'disaster'. Football clubs are businesses; and they have no fundamental right to exist.
But I guess I'm missing a large emotional factor in their existence.
Change of government (even though they don't have the numbers to do that or the ability to form a cabinet) Extend Article 50 (although that's already been done and may not be within our gift to extend again) Have a General Election (because that's far more important than all this brex-shit) Negotiate a new deal (which the EU have said they won't do) Once negotiated, hold a referendum on that deal or remain, with Labour campaigning against their own deal because they're sure it will be rubbish.
And this is done firmly in the interests of trying to hold the Labour Party together the country getting a say on what comes next.
And then they wonder why Jo Swinson seems to think this is a non-starter.
Labour's position is indeed, first and foremost, to seek a change of government.
It's even worse actually - their position is to replace this government with a Labour one!
How many YouGov's have you counted ? What if there is a methodological bias in their samples. The only reason people go for the average [ even though statistically it does not make sense ] is because no one knows beforehand which one has got it correct this time. Last time Survation got it right and YouGov 50000 but we only knew it after the election.
Boris is clearly going to leave and he challenges the HOC not to betray the vote.
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
Are you saying you are now prepared to support No Deal? Labour's position is pretty similar to its policy prior to the 1974 elections - reject the Heath terms - renegotiate - Referendum.
No I am not. I support leave with a deal
Labour position is idiotic nonsense
We all know you will vote Tory no matter what. You will find an excuse. What happens if there is an election where the government is asking the people to vote for it and it will take the UK out on the 31st on a No Deal basis.
Despite your oft-repeated against No Deal rhetoric, you will vote Tory, right ? You have left that door firmly open by saying I could vote for either of them. One of "them" is accepting the Referendum.
Even I do not know how I will vote as indicated in my comments
My vote will depend on the time of the GE, the position on brexit, and who can best defeat the labour candidate. If that is the lib dem at that time Jo will get my vote
Are there two clubs going mammary glands up then? Bury and Bolton?
Yep. I wonder if it's a coincidence that both are northern clubs within a few miles of each other. Are there too many football clubs for the market, especially given the desire to compete at the top, and the costs of doing so?
As a non-football fan, I'm sadly amused by people calling the closures 'tragedy' or a 'disaster'. Football clubs are businesses; and they have no fundamental right to exist.
But I guess I'm missing a large emotional factor in their existence.
I don't think anymore than 9-10 years ago a load of clubs on the south coast all went belly up. Portsmouth, Southampton, Weymouth, Bournemouth all went busto in the space of 2 years. Brighton was also in massive trouble with no ground, after it was sold from under them.
Financial mismanagement, asset stripping, dodgy owners in football. It is as common place as politicians lying.
Agree; all sorts of financial problems for clubs all over the country. Mike Ashley owns Newcastle. Need I say more?
I don't think anymore than 9-10 years ago a load of clubs on the south coast all went belly up. Portsmouth, Southampton, Weymouth, Bournemouth all went busto in the space of 2 years. Brighton was also in massive trouble with no ground, after it was sold from under them.
Financial mismanagement, asset stripping, dodgy owners in football. It is as common place as politicians lying.
From my position as a non-fan, the majority of professional football is corrupt.
Why?
Put simply, any business where many millions are floating about is a very tempting target for fraudsters and ner-do-wells. It's bad enough for things like councils and large companies, which at least (should) have good auditors and checks and balances.
But football has massive amounts of money floating about, and very nebulous and opaque deals. The agents system alone seems rather dodgy, yet alone ownership structures. You'd have to be a saint not to be on the take, and I fear football management does not attract saints.
It does make me wonder why only tiny steps have been taken by the authorities to tackle this (tiny steps like financial fair play aside). But the answer is probably that the authorities are, or have been, amongst those benefiting.
Or am I too cynical?
(The same goes for F1 and other top sports as well.)
The real reason for Bury and Bolton going busto, total and utter delusional owners.
Bury spending is what I imagine Jezza will be like if he gets into government. They bought a whole new team, many players who were way too good for League Two, lots of aging players with premier league experience, but still demanding high wages.
The average League Two player earns around £1,000 per-week. According to reports, the average weekly wage of a Bury FC player was around £2,401 per-week
And this is for a small community club, averaging 4000 a game, meaning they were way in the bottom half of League Two in terms of crowds.
Boris is clearly going to leave and he challenges the HOC not to betray the vote.
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
Are you saying you are now prepared to support No Deal? Labour's position is pretty similar to its policy prior to the 1974 elections - reject the Heath terms - renegotiate - Referendum.
No I am not. I support leave with a deal
Labour position is idiotic nonsense
We all know you will vote Tory no matter what. You will find an excuse. What happens if there is an election where the government is asking the people to vote for it and it will take the UK out on the 31st on a No Deal basis.
Despite your oft-repeated against No Deal rhetoric, you will vote Tory, right ? You have left that door firmly open by saying I could vote for either of them. One of "them" is accepting the Referendum.
Even I do not know how I will vote as indicated in my comments
My vote will depend on the time of the GE, the position on brexit, and who can best defeat the labour candidate. If that is the lib dem at that time Jo will get my vote
And in your constituency do the Lib Dems have the slightest chance of winning ?
I think it’s the financial aspects that need looking at. Isn’t Liz Truss the relevant Minister.
In this case, there has been some very "interesting" things going on. The current owner incredibly claims he didn't even know Bury had a football team, never goes there and only bought it because he wanted to use the training ground to rehabilitate young offenders.
Then he sells a load of the debt to his son in law.
Whose said son in law, allegedly, is then responsible for casting a vast proportion of the votes to accept the CVA, which shafts large numbers of small businesses for 15p in the £. As I said. Any government who would make the "fit and proper person" test more than just a criminal record and proof of funds check, might find it a surprising source of votes.
Cecily: This is no time for wearing the shallow mask of manners. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.” Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
According to that it's an American thing. It's bad enough American phrases creeping into common use, without us ceasing to use British ones that they find offensive.
Spade referring to someone of African extraction has quite an established History. MacInnes published his novel on Black migrants in London in 1959 as"City of Spades".
I use the phrase call a spade a spade about once every 2 years I'd say. I don't find it a massively useful phrase. This will certainly not increase my use of it in some sort of 'what's wrong with golliwogs?' racist disguised as anti-pc way, but nor will it stop me using it where it is appropriate.
I think that's fair but one also needs to be mindful that old English phrase as it might be it (to call someone, a black person, a spade) is also a racist epithet.
Your mind would no doubt be focused for example if you were on the verge of one of your two yearly usages of spade and you were in the company solely of your black friends.
Are there two clubs going mammary glands up then? Bury and Bolton?
Yep. I wonder if it's a coincidence that both are northern clubs within a few miles of each other. Are there too many football clubs for the market, especially given the desire to compete at the top, and the costs of doing so?
As a non-football fan, I'm sadly amused by people calling the closures 'tragedy' or a 'disaster'. Football clubs are businesses; and they have no fundamental right to exist.
But I guess I'm missing a large emotional factor in their existence.
I don't think anymore than 9-10 years ago a load of clubs on the south coast all went belly up. Portsmouth, Southampton, Weymouth, Bournemouth all went busto in the space of 2 years. Brighton was also in massive trouble with no ground, after it was sold from under them.
Financial mismanagement, asset stripping, dodgy owners in football. It is as common place as politicians lying.
Certainly the economics of football are bizarre and dodgy, but the towns you mention, apart from Brighton, are all rather Leavey. To which could be added Coventry.
A recurrent theme on football forums is about the displacement of real fans* by middle class wealthy spectators lacking in real passion. That sense of alienation and jealousy is at the heart of provincial town Brexitism.
Just learned that one of the Spanish air display team died in a crash 15 miles away this morning, tried to find something on the bbc but couldn’t see it. Tragic but of no interest in the UK
That's very sad. We had the privilege of seeing the Red Arrows (and others) perform at the NY International Air Show yesterday, and it's clear that although the pilots are elites at the top of their game, they are taking a real, if known and acceptable to them, risk every time they perform.
There was also a USAF F-35A going through its paces and I've got to say it might be a trillion-dollar boondoggle but wow, that machine can manoeuvre! Some of the tricks it pulled looked like the sorts of things CGI-ed spacecraft do in movies, not something an aeroplane should be able to do.
Fun fact: we asked one of the Arrows support crew at their tent how they actually got the planes over the pond, Hawks only having a ferry range of a couple of thousand miles, and he told us they flew in stages: Scampton to Iceland to Greenland to northern Canada.
The real reason for Bury and Bolton going busto, total and utter delusional owners.
Can be a calculated risk. Buy a club for peanuts, load it up with debt. If you get promotion to the PL, you make a fortune. If it fails, you lose your (minimal) investment.
Boris is clearly going to leave and he challenges the HOC not to betray the vote.
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
Are you saying you are now prepared to support No Deal? Labour's position is pretty similar to its policy prior to the 1974 elections - reject the Heath terms - renegotiate - Referendum.
No I am not. I support leave with a deal
Labour position is idiotic nonsense
We all know you will vote Tory no matter what. You will find an excuse. What happens if there is an election where the government is asking the people to vote for it and it will take the UK out on the 31st on a No Deal basis.
Despite your oft-repeated against No Deal rhetoric, you will vote Tory, right ? You have left that door firmly open by saying I could vote for either of them. One of "them" is accepting the Referendum.
Even I do not know how I will vote as indicated in my comments
My vote will depend on the time of the GE, the position on brexit, and who can best defeat the labour candidate. If that is the lib dem at that time Jo will get my vote
And in your constituency do the Lib Dems have the slightest chance of winning ?
Guto Bebb is standing down and it may well be a three way fight. They have always done well in local government
You can be certain I will not vote for the Corbynista labour nominee
Are there two clubs going mammary glands up then? Bury and Bolton?
Yep. I wonder if it's a coincidence that both are northern clubs within a few miles of each other. Are there too many football clubs for the market, especially given the desire to compete at the top, and the costs of doing so?
As a non-football fan, I'm sadly amused by people calling the closures 'tragedy' or a 'disaster'. Football clubs are businesses; and they have no fundamental right to exist.
But I guess I'm missing a large emotional factor in their existence.
I don't think anymore than 9-10 years ago a load of clubs on the south coast all went belly up. Portsmouth, Southampton, Weymouth, Bournemouth all went busto in the space of 2 years. Brighton was also in massive trouble with no ground, after it was sold from under them.
Financial mismanagement, asset stripping, dodgy owners in football. It is as common place as politicians lying.
Agree; all sorts of financial problems for clubs all over the country. Mike Ashley owns Newcastle. Need I say more?
Crucially, though, he doesn't own the ground. Hence why Newcastle have been unable to borrow vast, unsustainable amounts.
I don't think anymore than 9-10 years ago a load of clubs on the south coast all went belly up. Portsmouth, Southampton, Weymouth, Bournemouth all went busto in the space of 2 years. Brighton was also in massive trouble with no ground, after it was sold from under them.
Financial mismanagement, asset stripping, dodgy owners in football. It is as common place as politicians lying.
From my position as a non-fan, the majority of professional football is corrupt.
Why?
Put simply, any business where many millions are floating about is a very tempting target for fraudsters and ner-do-wells. It's bad enough for things like councils and large companies, which at least (should) have good auditors and checks and balances.
But football has massive amounts of money floating about, and very nebulous and opaque deals. The agents system alone seems rather dodgy, yet alone ownership structures. You'd have to be a saint not to be on the take, and I fear football management does not attract saints.
It does make me wonder why only tiny steps have been taken by the authorities to tackle this (tiny steps like financial fair play aside). But the answer is probably that the authorities are, or have been, amongst those benefiting.
Or am I too cynical?
(The same goes for F1 and other top sports as well.)
Not all all. Add into the mix a lot of these smaller clubs are often administered by folks who just want the club to do well, but don't understand the complexities of all of the above.
My own club, Crewe, for many years thought to have been run extremely well, is now saddled with a huge debt after they welcomed in an individual to invest in good faith, who then put a number of complex financial arrangements in place that personally benefit him.
The other board members / fans can't get rid of this individual, because he demands a massive sum of money to give up the ongoing returns from these legally binding arrangements.
Some people don't want a referendum and some just want to revoke because they are worried remain wouldn't win the referendum. It's pretty easy to grasp though.
That's not Labour's position.
Labour's position is:
Change of government (even though they don't have the numbers to do that or the ability to form a cabinet) Extend Article 50 (although that's already been done and may not be within our gift to extend again) Have a General Election (because that's far more important than all this brex-shit) Negotiate a new deal (which the EU have said they won't do) Once negotiated, hold a referendum on that deal or remain, with Labour campaigning against their own deal because they're sure it will be rubbish.
And this is done firmly in the interests of trying to hold the Labour Party together the country getting a say on what comes next.
And then they wonder why Jo Swinson seems to think this is a non-starter.
Seem to be mixing up a few things there. A change of government isn't policy it is what oppositions aim for in an election but not actual policy. A temp government was the policy for avoiding no deal in the short term rather than our policy in an election.
The EU have said multiple times they are happy to change the political declaration, lying about that doesn't really change what the EU have said.
An extension is obviously needed to avoid crashing out with no deal and holding s referndum if the Lib Dems wanted a referendum they would also need something to put up against it.
If the Lib Dem position was just revoke then the complications of an extension and a referendum wouldn't apply to them but it does. Considering the current government they also need a change of government for it to happen.
Basically if a referendum is an illogical policy then it is illogical whether it is the Lib Dems or Labour calling for one.
But a referendum is a simple position even if you don't like those calling for it.
I am not confusing anything. Labour's position is as I have stated it. A change in government is their policy and they have said they will negotiate a new deal, not a new political declaration. I'm sorry you can't understand it, but blame Corbyn rather than write rambling posts showcasing your bewilderment.
At the end of February 1992 the polls had the LibDems in the 17% - 20% range. On Polling Day - April 9th - they won circa 18% . No great surge there.
I guess it depends on where you count the General Election campaign having started. My eyeballing of the chart on the Wikipedia page shows a sharp increase in the LD vote share.
And if you want to look at it another way, the LDs eventual result was in the 96th percentile of their vote shares for the 1987-1992 parliament, so it's hard to conclude they did badly during the campaign.
The LibDems had a string of by election wins in the latter part of that Parliament - Eastbourne- Ribble Valley - Angus N & West Kincardine - which boosted their ratings quite a bit. The election announcement initially led to them falling back - ground which they proceeded to recover as the campaign developed. In the closing stages, some polls had them on 20%/21% before finally falling back to end on 18%.
Change of government (even though they don't have the numbers to do that or the ability to form a cabinet) Extend Article 50 (although that's already been done and may not be within our gift to extend again) Have a General Election (because that's far more important than all this brex-shit) Negotiate a new deal (which the EU have said they won't do) Once negotiated, hold a referendum on that deal or remain, with Labour campaigning against their own deal because they're sure it will be rubbish.
And this is done firmly in the interests of trying to hold the Labour Party together the country getting a say on what comes next.
And then they wonder why Jo Swinson seems to think this is a non-starter.
Labour's position is indeed, first and foremost, to seek a change of government.
It's even worse actually - their position is to replace this government with a Labour one!
The unprincipled rotters.
I've no objection to them wanting to form a government. I object to them feebly and unconvincingly pretending that it's a unity government for a single policy that they won't enact without a general election. That's why everyone who can pass for sane is pointing and laughing at them.
Some people don't want a referendum and some just want to revoke because they are worried remain wouldn't win the referendum. It's pretty easy to grasp though.
That's not Labour's position.
Labour's position is:
Change of government (even though they don't have the numbers to do that or the ability to form a cabinet) Extend Article 50 (although that's already been done and may not be within our gift to extend again) Have a General Election (because that's far more important than all this brex-shit) Negotiate a new deal (which the EU have said they won't do) Once negotiated, hold a referendum on that deal or remain, with Labour campaigning against their own deal because they're sure it will be rubbish.
And this is done firmly in the interests of trying to hold the Labour Party together the country getting a say on what comes next.
And then they wonder why Jo Swinson seems to think this is a non-starter.
Seem to be mixing up a few things there. A change of government isn't policy it is what oppositions aim for in an election but not actual policy. A temp government was the policy for avoiding no deal in the short term rather than our policy in an election.
The EU have said multiple times they are happy to change the political declaration, lying about that doesn't really change what the EU have said.
An extension is obviously needed to avoid crashing out with no deal and holding s referndum if the Lib Dems wanted a referendum they would also need something to put up against it.
If the Lib Dem position was just revoke then the complications of an extension and a referendum wouldn't apply to them but it does. Considering the current government they also need a change of government for it to happen.
Basically if a referendum is an illogical policy then it is illogical whether it is the Lib Dems or Labour calling for one.
But a referendum is a simple position even if you don't like those calling for it.
I am not confusing anything. Labour's position is as I have stated it. A change in government is their policy and they have said they will negotiate a new deal, not a new political declaration. I'm sorry you can't understand it, but blame Corbyn rather than write rambling posts showcasing your bewilderment.
Are there two clubs going mammary glands up then? Bury and Bolton?
Yep. I wonder if it's a coincidence that both are northern clubs within a few miles of each other. Are there too many football clubs for the market, especially given the desire to compete at the top, and the costs of doing so?
As a non-football fan, I'm sadly amused by people calling the closures 'tragedy' or a 'disaster'. Football clubs are businesses; and they have no fundamental right to exist.
But I guess I'm missing a large emotional factor in their existence.
I don't think anymore than 9-10 years ago a load of clubs on the south coast all went belly up. Portsmouth, Southampton, Weymouth, Bournemouth all went busto in the space of 2 years. Brighton was also in massive trouble with no ground, after it was sold from under them.
Financial mismanagement, asset stripping, dodgy owners in football. It is as common place as politicians lying.
Certainly the economics of football are bizarre and dodgy, but the towns you mention, apart from Brighton, are all rather Leavey. To which could be added Coventry.
A recurrent theme on football forums is about the displacement of real fans* by middle class wealthy spectators lacking in real passion. That sense of alienation and jealousy is at the heart of provincial town Brexitism.
Comments
Now if you read XKCD, you will know about What If? (Serious scientific answer to absurd hypothetical questions.)
In it, it turns out that "Can't we just nuke hurricanes" is something that get asked a lot. And it turns out there have been a lot of simulations run. And it turns out to be a very bad idea.
I was wrong, but not massively.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1473680328/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
As was noted last night the big surprise is not that the question gets asked, since as you say turns out it is asked a lot, but that the President of the United States asked it, and asked it more than once (possibly because he is so fragile and vicious that telling him it is a bad idea cannot have been easy).
Making the point white working class on sink estates put immigration high on the agenda. And adding they like to call a spade a spade?
https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/counting_out_song.html
And it isn't racist. So don't be an arse.
Can any of us actually escape our socialisation, or just like to think we can?
The question is a simple one: does the Liberal/Alliance/LibDem vote share tend to rise or fall during an election campaign.
In 1979, the Liberals ended up well up on the start of the campaign share.>/a>
Ditto 1983
In '87, they were flat
In '92, they were well up
In '97, their share also rose sharply during the campaign
The same is true of 2001
In 2005, there was no big jump for the LDs. They increased their polling position only marginally
In 2010, while down on the heady days in the middle of the campaign, they ended up well up on their pre-election position
In 2015, there was no bounce for the LibDems (although they didn't go backwards either). In 2017, the LibDems did go backwards.
So, that's:
Meaningful increases:
'79, '83, '92, '97, '01, '10
Broadly flat:
'83, '05, '15
Down:
'17
FISHERY PRODUCTS
3.1. ‘Fishery products’ means all seawater or freshwater animals (except for live bivalve molluscs, live echinoderms, live tunicates and live marine gastropods, and all mammals, reptiles and frogs) whether wild or farmed and including all edible forms, parts and products of such animals.
.....
CHAPTER VIII: TRANSPORT OF FISHERY PRODUCTS
Food business operators transporting fishery products must ensure compliance with the following requirements.
1. During transport, fishery products must be maintained at the required temperature. In particular:
(a) fresh fishery products, thawed unprocessed fishery products, and cooked and chilled products from crustaceans and molluscs, must be maintained at a temperature approaching that of melting ice;
...
3. If fishery products are kept under ice, melt water must not remain in contact with the products.
https://www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/Consol_Reg853_2004(1).pdf
Seems fairly clear to me. I have no idea what he was waving the kipper around for though. Perhaps he wasn't wearing any trousers and the kipper waving was a massive distraction.
Gwendolen: [Satirically.] I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different.”
Wilde, Importance of Being Earnest, 1895, when I am pretty sure "spade" had no racist meaning.
Calling a shovel a shovel is meaningless turn of phrase. Calling an African a spade is a very loaded phrase.
The Labour tribalists are already rattled.
Soon figs will be out of season. Like i’m A fig.
Hell. It was fun.
For the avoidance of doubt it was for beach safety! However I was, for a moment, flabbergasted!
Jo Swinson clearly wants to remain either by a referendum or revoke
Both positions are clear and I could vote for either of them
Labour has a convulated position on brexit that not even labour can espouse without contracdicting itself. It is led by the most unsuitable leader I can ever recall who has pitiful leader ratings amongst the populace and it's polling has fallen of a cliff and that continues to be the case in local elections
Labour will pay a big price at an early election in Scotland, Wales and even possibly London where the Lib Dems message will resonate.
I understand Jo Swinson has rejected Corbyn's self promotion to PM tonight and she is wise to do so. There is no political capital for her by being a party to PM Corbyn
More positively, I also agree that there are rich pickings for the LibDems in parts of the Remainerish South.
Which only goes to show you should never use clichés.
Corbyn could stagnate or sweep up the "Bored of Brexit" vote, the turn out could be down, the LDs could sweep up the Remain tactical vote, Boris could sweep up the Lab Leave vote or repel them.
Certainly it would be a risky gamble. Do you feel lucky, punk?
Referendum.
Some people don't want a referendum and some just want to revoke because they are worried remain wouldn't win the referendum. It's pretty easy to grasp though.
Labour's position is pretty similar to its policy prior to the 1974 elections - reject the Heath terms - renegotiate - Referendum.
OK, so I withdraw the slightly poncy response below.
Being too late to delete.
I do think the anti-No Deal brigade have to be careful not to fall into the Johnson elephant trap. Boris going to argue leaving the EU on 31/10 prospects the result of the 23/6/16 referendum irrespective of the consequences. He will claim to be representing democracy and the will of the people and charge everyone else with being opposed to basic democracy.
Many, even those of us who voted LEAVE, are worried at the prospect of a No Deal Brexit and the short and medium term dislocation this will cause. It's all very well saying "but you should have supported the WA" but there was a lot unsatisfactory about the WA and May should not have agreed to it.
The other truth is we want to leave and the onus is on the UK to come up with solutions for the issues leaving will cause - that has been the EU line since March 2017 and Merkel re-stated it last week (even though some people claim she said something else). We have been unable or unwilling to put forward suggestions acceptable to all sides - yes, there are technological flights of fancy out there but the EU (justifiably) wants something that will work on day 1 not in 10 years.
To get this right, we have to revoke with a commitment to re-apply for A50 once we have worked out exactly what it is what we want and how it can be achieved.,
Clearly the electorate do not agree that Mr Thicky's position is easy to grasp
Labour position is idiotic nonsense
Calling an election would be a massive gamble in current circumstances and the chances of the Tories emerging with a majority are less than 50 - 50.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/26/bury-britain-gigg-lane-brexit
But TBF in Rotherham - as 'Another Richard' would confirm if he were here - there has been a big influx of Eastern Europeans.
The number of barber shops has gone bananas - so if you were in that business beforehand you would be none too pleased.
So, the issues are sometimes real, and not necessarily racist, but nevertheless I do not want Labour chasing these voters with Farage type rhetoric or policies.
They would lose my vote if they did that.
Labour's position is:
Change of government (even though they don't have the numbers to do that or the ability to form a cabinet)
Extend Article 50 (although that's already been done and may not be within our gift to extend again)
Have a General Election (because that's far more important than all this brex-shit)
Negotiate a new deal (which the EU have said they won't do)
Once negotiated, hold a referendum on that deal or remain, with Labour campaigning against their own deal because they're sure it will be rubbish.
And this is done firmly in the interests of
trying to hold the Labour Party togetherthe country getting a say on what comes next.And then they wonder why Jo Swinson seems to think this is a non-starter.
Well, that's not totally out of the question, is it?
There are loads of clubs that have gone through similar things over the past 20 years, and even those that haven't gone bust have been subjected to some shocking asset stripping etc e.g. selling the ground and training facilities from under the club.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football)
As a non-football fan, I'm sadly amused by people calling the closures 'tragedy' or a 'disaster'. Football clubs are businesses; and they have no fundamental right to exist.
But I guess I'm missing a large emotional factor in their existence.
Then he sells a load of the debt to his son in law.
What happens if there is an election where the government is asking the people to vote for it and it will take the UK out on the 31st on a No Deal basis.
Despite your oft-repeated against No Deal rhetoric, you will vote Tory, right ? You have left that door firmly open by saying I could vote for either of them. One of "them" is accepting the Referendum.
Also it was a word that white hipsters in the 60s - who wished they were black and hence had real 'soul' - used to use to demonstrate that they were down with the brothers*.
Keith Richards was forever using it. Guess he wouldn't now.
* Think I'm OK with that? Brothers?
Or am I trying to be all cool like Keith and at grave risk of making a bit of a tit** of myself?
** That's 'tit' in the ... oh for pete's sake ... stop ... let it be.
Financial mismanagement, asset stripping, dodgy owners in football. It is as common place as politicians lying.
Average of the latest 10 opinion polls:
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
And if you want to look at it another way, the LDs eventual result was in the 96th percentile of their vote shares for the 1987-1992 parliament, so it's hard to conclude they did badly during the campaign.
Next time round they are going to do a lot better. The only question is how much better. Since they seem to have a reasonably geographically concentrated voter base, I expect them to surprise on the upside.
And there was my guitar, electric junk
Some spade said you rock 'n' rollers, you're all the same
Man that's your instrument. I felt so ashamed.
Mott the Hoople, All the way from Memphis
And see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Spades - 1957 novel by Colin MacInnes, in the same series as Absolute Beginners, about black culture in London.
The EU have said multiple times they are happy to change the political declaration, lying about that doesn't really change what the EU have said.
An extension is obviously needed to avoid crashing out with no deal and holding s referndum if the Lib Dems wanted a referendum they would also need something to put up against it.
If the Lib Dem position was just revoke then the complications of an extension and a referendum wouldn't apply to them but it does. Considering the current government they also need a change of government for it to happen.
Basically if a referendum is an illogical policy then it is illogical whether it is the Lib Dems or Labour calling for one.
But a referendum is a simple position even if you don't like those calling for it.
It's even worse actually - their position is to replace this government with a Labour one!
The unprincipled rotters.
My vote will depend on the time of the GE, the position on brexit, and who can best defeat the labour candidate. If that is the lib dem at that time Jo will get my vote
Why?
Put simply, any business where many millions are floating about is a very tempting target for fraudsters and ner-do-wells. It's bad enough for things like councils and large companies, which at least (should) have good auditors and checks and balances.
But football has massive amounts of money floating about, and very nebulous and opaque deals. The agents system alone seems rather dodgy, yet alone ownership structures. You'd have to be a saint not to be on the take, and I fear football management does not attract saints.
It does make me wonder why only tiny steps have been taken by the authorities to tackle this (tiny steps like financial fair play aside). But the answer is probably that the authorities are, or have been, amongst those benefiting.
Or am I too cynical?
(The same goes for F1 and other top sports as well.)
Bury spending is what I imagine Jezza will be like if he gets into government. They bought a whole new team, many players who were way too good for League Two, lots of aging players with premier league experience, but still demanding high wages.
The average League Two player earns around £1,000 per-week. According to reports, the average weekly wage of a Bury FC player was around £2,401 per-week
And this is for a small community club, averaging 4000 a game, meaning they were way in the bottom half of League Two in terms of crowds.
As I said. Any government who would make the "fit and proper person" test more than just a criminal record and proof of funds check, might find it a surprising source of votes.
Your mind would no doubt be focused for example if you were on the verge of one of your two yearly usages of spade and you were in the company solely of your black friends.
A recurrent theme on football forums is about the displacement of real fans* by middle class wealthy spectators lacking in real passion. That sense of alienation and jealousy is at the heart of provincial town Brexitism.
*meaning white working class.
There was also a USAF F-35A going through its paces and I've got to say it might be a trillion-dollar boondoggle but wow, that machine can manoeuvre! Some of the tricks it pulled looked like the sorts of things CGI-ed spacecraft do in movies, not something an aeroplane should be able to do.
Fun fact: we asked one of the Arrows support crew at their tent how they actually got the planes over the pond, Hawks only having a ferry range of a couple of thousand miles, and he told us they flew in stages: Scampton to Iceland to Greenland to northern Canada.
You can be certain I will not vote for the Corbynista labour nominee
My own club, Crewe, for many years thought to have been run extremely well, is now saddled with a huge debt after they welcomed in an individual to invest in good faith, who then put a number of complex financial arrangements in place that personally benefit him.
The other board members / fans can't get rid of this individual, because he demands a massive sum of money to give up the ongoing returns from these legally binding arrangements.