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.
*meaning white working class.
The displacement by middle class fans, I don't think that is true outside of the EPL. Portsmouth is famously strong locals club. Not many out of towner middle class folks go to Fratton Park for a jolly hockey sticks type day out.
It's a phrase I sometimes use, and had no idea of the connotations. It's something I'll be careful with in future.
However: it's a real namby-pamby phrase. Real men (tm) use the word 'shovel'.
Incidentally, in a local garden centre I've seen shovels labelled as 'spades', and spades as 'shovels'. which means that even experts don't know the difference ...
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
Depends what sport. It is basically impossible to lose money as an NFL team owner.
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 haven't read City of Spades but I have read Absolute Beginners. I liked it. I think outsiders (like MacInnes) gain a certain cred when talking about other outsiders. The yucky stuff occurs when insiders start making out as if they are outsiders.
Something of that with Farage, for example, it seems to me. Indeed it is a theme for the spiritual leaders of Brexit.
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
Depends what sport. It is basically impossible to lose money as an NFL team owner.
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
Depends what sport. It is basically impossible to lose money as an NFL team owner.
If you've got one to spare, challenge accepted!
You would honestly have to try harder than the Richard Pryor in Brewster millions.
But sports like football. Absolutely bonkers to try and do it as a business. The likes of Randy Lerner (who many years owned the worst team in the NFL, but still made money on it), soon found that out when he bought Aston Villa.
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
As an Essex member I’m not that enamoured of Mr Bransgove’s polices.
SpaceX are hoping to 'hop' their Starhopper experimental rocket at 22.00 UK time (there is a 15-minute window for the flight). They're hoping it'll go up to 150 metres, possibly translate horizontally, and then land. Or go boom.
It's interesting as it's a prototype of the upper stage of their new proposed rocket, which will be the largest rocket ever flown. And it looks weirdly cool.
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.
*meaning white working class.
The displacement by middle class fans, I don't think that is true outside of the EPL. Portsmouth is famously strong locals club. Not many out of towner middle class folks go to Fratton Park for a jolly hockey sticks type day out.
The EPL and those Championship clubs that realistically aspire to it.
The remainder of the Football League do feel estrangement. Not many outside Bury would mourn the passing of Bury FC, and that lack of interest, that sense of being a neglected backwater, ripe to be asset stripped by financially astute asset strippers is part of the Brexit culture. The people of Bury want to take back control.
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
As an Essex member I’m not that enamoured of Mr Bransgove’s polices.
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.
*meaning white working class.
The displacement by middle class fans, I don't think that is true outside of the EPL. Portsmouth is famously strong locals club. Not many out of towner middle class folks go to Fratton Park for a jolly hockey sticks type day out.
The EPL and those Championship clubs that realistically aspire to it.
The remainder of the Football League do feel estrangement. Not many outside Bury would mourn the passing of Bury FC, and that lack of interest, that sense of being a neglected backwater, ripe to be asset stripped by financially astute asset strippers is part of the Brexit culture. The people of Bury want to take back control.
Come off it. The asset strippers in football have long been about. Ron Noades did a number of Crystal Palace and Brentford in the 90s / early 2000s.
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 pilot managed to eject but unfortunately didn’t survive
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 haven't read City of Spades but I have read Absolute Beginners. I liked it. I think outsiders (like MacInnes) gain a certain cred when talking about other outsiders. The yucky stuff occurs when insiders start making out as if they are outsiders.
Something of that with Farage, for example, it seems to me. Indeed it is a theme for the spiritual leaders of Brexit.
City of Spades is the better book IMO, but they are all interesting perspectives on the 1950's, and the turmoil under the surface.
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.
Not quickly enough to stop me using it. Though that eventuality is an unlikely one because most of my black friends I see as part of mixed groups.
As a principle, if a commonly used word is also used as an offensive epiphet to describe a group of people, I feel the difference is whether you're using it to describe that group of people, or the original object. This conversation will certainly stop me ever calling a black person a spade (as if that would ever have arisen). But it won't stop me calling *ahem* a spade a spade. And I don't think it should stop anyone. It's retreating in the face of racist language usage.
It's a phrase I sometimes use, and had no idea of the connotations. It's something I'll be careful with in future.
However: it's a real namby-pamby phrase. Real men (tm) use the word 'shovel'.
Incidentally, in a local garden centre I've seen shovels labelled as 'spades', and spades as 'shovels'. which means that even experts don't know the difference ...
My father a long time ago was introducing himself to a new team he was going to manage.
He got to the bit where he was telling his team he would be fair but firm and if they didn't meet his standards he would tell them as he believed in calling a spade a spade......
An Afro Caribbean man reported him for racism.
It ended ok but he had no idea that anyone would be offended by that old well known saying.
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.
*meaning white working class.
The displacement by middle class fans, I don't think that is true outside of the EPL. Portsmouth is famously strong locals club. Not many out of towner middle class folks go to Fratton Park for a jolly hockey sticks type day out.
The EPL and those Championship clubs that realistically aspire to it.
Come off it. The asset strippers in football have long been about. Ron Noades did a number of Crystal Palace and Brentford in the 90s / early 2000s.
Milan Mandaric at Leicester too.
But urban as opposed to Shire Brexitism is geographically to be found in those neglected towns of the lower leagues. The same places where chainstores and high streets are closing. Left behind Britain.
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 pilot managed to eject but unfortunately didn’t survive
the US Navy 'Blue Angels' display team apparently had an incident the other day, where the wingtip of one plane hit (cracked?) the canopy of another.
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.
*meaning white working class.
The displacement by middle class fans, I don't think that is true outside of the EPL. Portsmouth is famously strong locals club. Not many out of towner middle class folks go to Fratton Park for a jolly hockey sticks type day out.
The EPL and those Championship clubs that realistically aspire to it.
The remainder of the Football League do feel estrangement. Not many outside Bury would mourn the passing of Bury FC, and that lack of interest, that sense of being a neglected backwater, ripe to be asset stripped by financially astute asset strippers is part of the Brexit culture. The people of Bury want to take back control.
I think Bhaichung Bhutia was the first Indian player to play the EFL, he was at Bury 1999 - 2004.
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.
If you're talking about following a VONC, the 'single policy' is the extension of article 50 to head off No Deal.
This WOULD be enacted without a GE. That's the whole point.
A mandate from an election would then be required if Ref2 is to be delivered. Since there is no chance of this parliament being willing and able to do that.
So, OK, it is unlikely to come off, but I really do not see the big joke.
It's a phrase I sometimes use, and had no idea of the connotations. It's something I'll be careful with in future.
However: it's a real namby-pamby phrase. Real men (tm) use the word 'shovel'.
Incidentally, in a local garden centre I've seen shovels labelled as 'spades', and spades as 'shovels'. which means that even experts don't know the difference ...
My father a long time ago was introducing himself to a new team he was going to manage.
He got to the bit where he was telling his team he would be fair but firm and if they didn't meet his standards he would tell them as he believed in calling a spade a spade......
An Afro Caribbean man reported him for racism.
It ended ok but he had no idea that anyone would be offended by that old well known saying.
Is the racist origin from the sixties? Not sure I suppose there's Google...
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.
An average of the polls is less likely to be wrong than one poll or using one firm's polls when we don't know which will be the most accurate next time.
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.
If you're talking about following a VONC, the 'single policy' is the extension of article 50 to head off No Deal.
This WOULD be enacted without a GE. That's the whole point.
A mandate from an election would then be required if Ref2 is to be delivered. Since there is no chance of this parliament being willing and able to do that.
So, OK, it is unlikely to come off, but I really do not see the big joke.
An extension - even if one was granted - does not head off no deal unless either a deal is agreed, or revocation takes place.
But my point is that this would not be a government to enact this policy, it would be a change of government that might enact such a policy. Given Corbyn is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough.
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.
If you're talking about following a VONC, the 'single policy' is the extension of article 50 to head off No Deal.
This WOULD be enacted without a GE. That's the whole point.
A mandate from an election would then be required if Ref2 is to be delivered. Since there is no chance of this parliament being willing and able to do that.
So, OK, it is unlikely to come off, but I really do not see the big joke.
An extension - even if one was granted - does not head off no deal unless either a deal is agreed, or revocation takes place.
But my point is that this would not be a government to enact this policy, it would be a change of government that might enact such a policy. Given Corbyn is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough.
Given Johnson is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough
It's a phrase I sometimes use, and had no idea of the connotations. It's something I'll be careful with in future.
However: it's a real namby-pamby phrase. Real men (tm) use the word 'shovel'.
Incidentally, in a local garden centre I've seen shovels labelled as 'spades', and spades as 'shovels'. which means that even experts don't know the difference ...
My father a long time ago was introducing himself to a new team he was going to manage.
He got to the bit where he was telling his team he would be fair but firm and if they didn't meet his standards he would tell them as he believed in calling a spade a spade......
An Afro Caribbean man reported him for racism.
It ended ok but he had no idea that anyone would be offended by that old well known saying.
Is the racist origin from the sixties? Not sure I suppose there's Google...
Udall's C16 translation of Plutarch, apparently. Suggests you call an implement by its normal name. The racist connotation is from "as black as the Ace of Spades"
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.
If you're talking about following a VONC, the 'single policy' is the extension of article 50 to head off No Deal.
This WOULD be enacted without a GE. That's the whole point.
A mandate from an election would then be required if Ref2 is to be delivered. Since there is no chance of this parliament being willing and able to do that.
So, OK, it is unlikely to come off, but I really do not see the big joke.
An extension - even if one was granted - does not head off no deal unless either a deal is agreed, or revocation takes place.
But my point is that this would not be a government to enact this policy, it would be a change of government that might enact such a policy. Given Corbyn is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough.
Given Johnson is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough
Fixed for you.
Well, yes, that is a major problem right now. But you may have noticed I frequently compare Johnson to Corbyn (and both of them to Trump and Chavez). So I feel your ire is misdirected on this occasion.
Still wondering what you've got against Bransgrove.
I’ve always assumed that football clubs and other trophy assets were a way of combining vanity, a vague interest in sport and a little light money-laundering.
Though not saying that this has happened in Bury’s case.
It's a phrase I sometimes use, and had no idea of the connotations. It's something I'll be careful with in future.
However: it's a real namby-pamby phrase. Real men (tm) use the word 'shovel'.
Incidentally, in a local garden centre I've seen shovels labelled as 'spades', and spades as 'shovels'. which means that even experts don't know the difference ...
My father a long time ago was introducing himself to a new team he was going to manage.
He got to the bit where he was telling his team he would be fair but firm and if they didn't meet his standards he would tell them as he believed in calling a spade a spade......
An Afro Caribbean man reported him for racism.
It ended ok but he had no idea that anyone would be offended by that old well known saying.
Is the racist origin from the sixties? Not sure I suppose there's Google...
Udall's C16 translation of Plutarch, apparently. Suggests you call an implement by its normal name. The racist connotation is from "as black as the Ace of Spades"
Language evolves, and meanings of words and phrases shift over time. Not so long ago "feeble minded" "moron" and spastic were neutral words. They no longer are. "Calling a Spade a Spade is in the same category. It is just impolite.
An extension - even if one was granted - does not head off no deal unless either a deal is agreed, or revocation takes place.
But my point is that this would not be a government to enact this policy, it would be a change of government that might enact such a policy. Given Corbyn is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough.
An extension does 'head off' No Deal but it does not kill it.
Killing it requires either a Deal or Revoke, neither of which can be delivered by Corbyn with this parliament, hence the requirement for a GE.
Ergo, the temp govt, it extends and then calls a GE.
I fear your Corbyphobia is interfering with your reasoning in this case.
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.
An average of the polls is less likely to be wrong than one poll or using one firm's polls when we don't know which will be the most accurate next time.
I would agree if you had used the last poll from each polling organization so long as the polling was done recently. Using YouGov 5 times, you are simply weighing them higher than other polling organisations. I think they are wrong and as always during the last week of the election campaign they begin to join the herd. Survation was the only one last time which stood out and stood firm. We were not to know [ even they did not know ] but they turned out to be correct.
I’ve always assumed that football clubs and other trophy assets were a way of combining vanity, a vague interest in sport and a little light money-laundering.
Though not saying that this has happened in Bury’s case.
Selling the debt to a family member certainly smells somewhat.
For personal enrichment, the classic scheme has been to invest, then claim a salary (or something more tax efficient) at a rate such that in only a matter of years you have more than earned your initial investment several times over.
An extension - even if one was granted - does not head off no deal unless either a deal is agreed, or revocation takes place.
But my point is that this would not be a government to enact this policy, it would be a change of government that might enact such a policy. Given Corbyn is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough.
An extension does 'head off' No Deal but it does not kill it.
Killing it requires either a Deal or Revoke, both of which cannot be delivered by this parliament, hence require a GE.
Ergo, the temp govt, it extends and then calls a GE.
I fear your Corbyphobia is interfering with your reasoning in this case.
If all Corbyn wants is a tweaked political declaration, this Parliament can deliver a deal by voting through the current deal - because May could and would have arranged that for him.
So your reasoning fails at once, and so does Corbyn's. He's indulging in naked politicking and doing it badly because he's basically thick.
My favourite dodgy football story is Dean Saunders's transfer from Oxford United to Derby County. The former was notionally owned by Kevin Maxwell and the latter owned by Robert Maxwell. Saunders came into training one morning only to be told that he was now a Derby County player whether he liked it or not.
My favourite dodgy football story is Dean Saunders's transfer from Oxford United to Derby County. The former was notionally owned by Kevin Maxwell and the latter owned by Robert Maxwell. Saunders came into training one morning only to be told that he was now a Derby County player whether he liked it or not.
Joey Beauchamp transfer from Oxford to West Ham. Your going, if you don't you will be responsible for your childhood club going out of business. Now chop chop.
The biggest c__t of the millennium (so far) is Sala's agent who thought that easyjet was incompatible with the football lifestyle, but £25000 worth of fucked up death trap piloted by a plumber wasn't.
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.
If you're talking about following a VONC, the 'single policy' is the extension of article 50 to head off No Deal.
This WOULD be enacted without a GE. That's the whole point.
A mandate from an election would then be required if Ref2 is to be delivered. Since there is no chance of this parliament being willing and able to do that.
So, OK, it is unlikely to come off, but I really do not see the big joke.
An extension - even if one was granted - does not head off no deal unless either a deal is agreed, or revocation takes place.
But my point is that this would not be a government to enact this policy, it would be a change of government that might enact such a policy. Given Corbyn is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough.
Given Johnson is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough
Fixed for you.
Well, yes, that is a major problem right now. But you may have noticed I frequently compare Johnson to Corbyn (and both of them to Trump and Chavez). So I feel your ire is misdirected on this occasion.
Still wondering what you've got against Bransgrove.
Obviously he's entitled too pour money into his local club if he wishes. But I wish it was easier to to get to, and he didn't keep offering substantial packages to lure players away from other clubs. Although, to be fair, Essex have done well out of it so far; the one good player who moved from us moved back shortly afterwards.
My favourite dodgy football story is Dean Saunders's transfer from Oxford United to Derby County. The former was notionally owned by Kevin Maxwell and the latter owned by Robert Maxwell. Saunders came into training one morning only to be told that he was now a Derby County player whether he liked it or not.
Joey Beauchamp transfer from Oxford to West Ham. Your going, if you don't you will be responsible for your childhood club going out of business. Now chop chop.
Not come across that one before. I see he never played for West Ham and shortly moved to Swindon. I wonder if that was to avoid a direct sale from Oxford to Swindon? Apparently that's why Clive Allen went from QPR to Crystal Palace via Arsenal. QPR apparently didn't want to be seen to sell directly to Palace.
My favourite dodgy football story is Dean Saunders's transfer from Oxford United to Derby County. The former was notionally owned by Kevin Maxwell and the latter owned by Robert Maxwell. Saunders came into training one morning only to be told that he was now a Derby County player whether he liked it or not.
George Hirsts move to Leicester this summer was a bit dodgy, albeit legal.
It's a phrase I sometimes use, and had no idea of the connotations. It's something I'll be careful with in future.
However: it's a real namby-pamby phrase. Real men (tm) use the word 'shovel'.
Incidentally, in a local garden centre I've seen shovels labelled as 'spades', and spades as 'shovels'. which means that even experts don't know the difference ...
My father a long time ago was introducing himself to a new team he was going to manage.
He got to the bit where he was telling his team he would be fair but firm and if they didn't meet his standards he would tell them as he believed in calling a spade a spade......
An Afro Caribbean man reported him for racism.
It ended ok but he had no idea that anyone would be offended by that old well known saying.
Is the racist origin from the sixties? Not sure I suppose there's Google...
Udall's C16 translation of Plutarch, apparently. Suggests you call an implement by its normal name. The racist connotation is from "as black as the Ace of Spades"
Language evolves, and meanings of words and phrases shift over time. Not so long ago "feeble minded" "moron" and spastic were neutral words. They no longer are. "Calling a Spade a Spade is in the same category. It is just impolite.
It is still capable of innocent use, just about, but it isn't that useful a phrase that it has to be saved for the nation at all costs.
My favourite dodgy football story is Dean Saunders's transfer from Oxford United to Derby County. The former was notionally owned by Kevin Maxwell and the latter owned by Robert Maxwell. Saunders came into training one morning only to be told that he was now a Derby County player whether he liked it or not.
Joey Beauchamp transfer from Oxford to West Ham. Your going, if you don't you will be responsible for your childhood club going out of business. Now chop chop.
Not come across that one before. I see he never played for West Ham and shortly moved to Swindon. I wonder if that was to avoid a direct sale from Oxford to Swindon? Apparently that's why Clive Allen went from QPR to Crystal Palace via Arsenal. QPR apparently didn't want to be seen to sell directly to Palace.
No, apparently was an Oxford boy through and through, didn't want to move, but was far far too good a player for Oxford's league and they desperately needed the money.
However, he hated the idea of leaving Oxford, especially to live in a big smoke. His mental health suffered, and then was bounced around a couple of clubs, before finally getting transferred back to Oxford.
I think we could fill this blog with more stories of dodgy football transfers than posts about Brexit...and those would be just the ones where (censored*) was involved.
* I think anybody who follows football knows the manager I mean.
Back when Panorama did proper investigations, the one about football transfers from about 10 years or so ago was amazing. If it hadn't have leaked early, I think we would have had a famous manager or two behind bars.
My favourite dodgy football story is Dean Saunders's transfer from Oxford United to Derby County. The former was notionally owned by Kevin Maxwell and the latter owned by Robert Maxwell. Saunders came into training one morning only to be told that he was now a Derby County player whether he liked it or not.
One day the real story behind Frank Lampard's move to Manchester City will come out.
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
Owning US sports "franchises" has been an amazing money spinner.
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
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.
As always you are 'woke' (compliment, pure and simple, don't seek irony) on the subject of anti-black racism. Re the 'spade' word, for a black person, I think it's pretty much gone now. I can't imagine how it could be used - or by whom - in any way that was not arch. Apart from maybe in a Quentin Tarantino film.
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.
If you're talking about following a VONC, the 'single policy' is the extension of article 50 to head off No Deal.
This WOULD be enacted without a GE. That's the whole point.
A mandate from an election would then be required if Ref2 is to be delivered. Since there is no chance of this parliament being willing and able to do that.
So, OK, it is unlikely to come off, but I really do not see the big joke.
An extension - even if one was granted - does not head off no deal unless either a deal is agreed, or revocation takes place.
But my point is that this would not be a government to enact this policy, it would be a change of government that might enact such a policy. Given Corbyn is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough.
Given Johnson is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough
Fixed for you.
Well, yes, that is a major problem right now. But you may have noticed I frequently compare Johnson to Corbyn (and both of them to Trump and Chavez). So I feel your ire is misdirected on this occasion.
Still wondering what you've got against Bransgrove.
Obviously he's entitled too pour money into his local club if he wishes. But I wish it was easier to to get to, and he didn't keep offering substantial packages to lure players away from other clubs. Although, to be fair, Essex have done well out of it so far; the one good player who moved from us moved back shortly afterwards.
Hampshire are far from being the worst offenders in that regard. Warwickshire and Nottinghamshire both seem to think rules on tapping up apply solely to other people.
Colin Graves, now, I think we all have issues with him. Maybe a Hundred issues. But that is a conversation for another thread.
Still my favourite ever (non) transfer and the reasons therein.
Frank Worthington.
How close did he come to signing?
The rumoured reasons behind the collapse of Worthington’s transfer are the stuff of footballing legend. Though, the bottom line was that he failed a medical. Twice.
His life of leisure had caught up to him and, although there were rumours that he failed the first medical due to having ‘the clap’, high blood pressure was cited as the cause.
Worthington claimed the high blood pressure was down to stress, before jetting off to Mallorca to relax. Despite seeing Miss Great Britain at the time, it didn’t stop him chatting up a woman on the plane, before indulging in a threesome with a Swedish mother and daughter. He failed a second medical on his return.
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
Owning US sports "franchises" has been an amazing money spinner.
Trump 'would meet Iran's Rouhani if circumstances right'
Mr Trump said he had "good feelings" about the prospect of a new nuclear deal with Iran. "Iran is not the same country it was two and a half years ago when I came into office,"
It's a phrase I sometimes use, and had no idea of the connotations. It's something I'll be careful with in future.
However: it's a real namby-pamby phrase. Real men (tm) use the word 'shovel'.
Incidentally, in a local garden centre I've seen shovels labelled as 'spades', and spades as 'shovels'. which means that even experts don't know the difference ...
My father a long time ago was introducing himself to a new team he was going to manage.
He got to the bit where he was telling his team he would be fair but firm and if they didn't meet his standards he would tell them as he believed in calling a spade a spade......
An Afro Caribbean man reported him for racism.
It ended ok but he had no idea that anyone would be offended by that old well known saying.
Is the racist origin from the sixties? Not sure I suppose there's Google...
Udall's C16 translation of Plutarch, apparently. Suggests you call an implement by its normal name. The racist connotation is from "as black as the Ace of Spades"
Language evolves, and meanings of words and phrases shift over time. Not so long ago "feeble minded" "moron" and spastic were neutral words. They no longer are. "Calling a Spade a Spade is in the same category. It is just impolite.
It is demonstrably not in the same category. Those words describe people. We are talking about another word, and a phrase that has an entirely valid use in another context. It is not impolite in the slightest. I feel we're not going to agree, and that's fine, I respect your opinion.
My favourite dodgy football story is Dean Saunders's transfer from Oxford United to Derby County. The former was notionally owned by Kevin Maxwell and the latter owned by Robert Maxwell. Saunders came into training one morning only to be told that he was now a Derby County player whether he liked it or not.
George Hirsts move to Leicester this summer was a bit dodgy, albeit legal.
That's rather sad. I saw Hirst snr play when I was a child and it would have been good for jnr to play for Wednesday, though reading that piece suggests that they aren't entirely innocent in that story.
If all Corbyn wants is a tweaked political declaration, this Parliament can deliver a deal by voting through the current deal - because May could and would have arranged that for him.
So your reasoning fails at once, and so does Corbyn's. He's indulging in naked politicking and doing it badly because he's basically thick.
More than tweaked. Labour's Brexit is BINO - CU and SM. Mrs May would not have complied.
But, yes, Labour seek to use Brexit to bring down this Tory government and replace it with a Labour one.
Given that Brexit is 100% a creation and project of the Tory party, I think that is a perfectly valid approach.
It certainly is not scandalous. Only a Corbyphobe would find it so.
Which is, TBF, what you are. This is clear and it's fair enough. No shame in it. You hate him and everything (you think) he stands for.
I think we could fill this blog with more stories of dodgy football transfers than posts about Brexit...and those would be just the ones where (censored*) was involved.
* I think anybody who follows football knows the manager I mean.
Back when Panorama did proper investigations, the one about football transfers from about 10 years or so ago was amazing. If it hadn't have leaked early, I think we would have had a famous manager or two behind bars.
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.
If you're talking about following a VONC, the 'single policy' is the extension of article 50 to head off No Deal.
This WOULD be enacted without a GE. That's the whole point.
A mandate from an election would then be required if Ref2 is to be delivered. Since there is no chance of this parliament being willing and able to do that.
So, OK, it is unlikely to come off, but I really do not see the big joke.
An extension - even if one was granted - does not head off no deal unless either a deal is agreed, or revocation takes place.
But my point is that this would not be a government to enact this policy, it would be a change of government that might enact such a policy. Given Corbyn is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough.
Given Johnson is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough
Fixed for you.
Well, yes, that is a major problem right now. But you may have noticed I frequently compare Johnson to Corbyn (and both of them to Trump and Chavez). So I feel your ire is misdirected on this occasion.
Still wondering what you've got against Bransgrove.
Obviously he's entitled too pour money into his local club if he wishes. But I wish it was easier to to get to, and he didn't keep offering substantial packages to lure players away from other clubs. Although, to be fair, Essex have done well out of it so far; the one good player who moved from us moved back shortly afterwards.
Hampshire are far from being the worst offenders in that regard. Warwickshire and Nottinghamshire both seem to think rules on tapping up apply solely to other people.
Colin Graves, now, I think we all have issues with him. Maybe a Hundred issues. But that is a conversation for another thread.
Have a great evening.
I suppose that, the system being what it is, we see more of Hampshire than Warks and Notts. Agree about Graves and the Hundred.
'FEC loses quorum to make decisions Matthew Petersen, the vice chairman of the Federal Election Commission, has announced his resignation — leaving the agency without enough commissioners to make decisions as the 2020 election season gets into full swing.'
Does it means candidates can do what they like? Irrespective of the law?
'FEC loses quorum to make decisions Matthew Petersen, the vice chairman of the Federal Election Commission, has announced his resignation — leaving the agency without enough commissioners to make decisions as the 2020 election season gets into full swing.'
Does it means candidates can do what they like? Irrespective of the law?
Why would the law no longer be enforced? I think it just means they won't be able to make new decisions if they require a quorum.
If all Corbyn wants is a tweaked political declaration, this Parliament can deliver a deal by voting through the current deal - because May could and would have arranged that for him.
So your reasoning fails at once, and so does Corbyn's. He's indulging in naked politicking and doing it badly because he's basically thick.
More than tweaked. Labour's Brexit is BINO - CU and SM. Mrs May would not have complied.
But, yes, Labour seek to use Brexit to bring down this Tory government and replace it with a Labour one.
Given that Brexit is 100% a creation and project of the Tory party, I think that is a perfectly valid approach.
It certainly is not scandalous. Only a Corbyphobe would find it so.
Which is, TBF, what you are. This is clear and it's fair enough. No shame in it. You hate him and everything (you think) he stands for.
So, Article 50 was passed 100% by Tory MPs alone? I never knew that. I could have sworn large numbers of Labour MPs voted for it too. As they promised their voters they would.....
If all Corbyn wants is a tweaked political declaration, this Parliament can deliver a deal by voting through the current deal - because May could and would have arranged that for him.
So your reasoning fails at once, and so does Corbyn's. He's indulging in naked politicking and doing it badly because he's basically thick.
More than tweaked. Labour's Brexit is BINO - CU and SM. Mrs May would not have complied.
But, yes, Labour seek to use Brexit to bring down this Tory government and replace it with a Labour one.
Given that Brexit is 100% a creation and project of the Tory party, I think that is a perfectly valid approach.
It certainly is not scandalous. Only a Corbyphobe would find it so.
Which is, TBF, what you are. This is clear and it's fair enough. No shame in it. You hate him and everything (you think) he stands for.
So, Article 50 was passed 100% by Tory MPs alone? I never knew that. I could have sworn large numbers of Labour MPs voted for it too. As they promised their voters they would.....
Muppet.
Is Muppet your new signature these days? Seems to fit quite well
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.
NOW you tell me.
OK, so I withdraw the slightly poncy response below.
Being too late to delete.
Apologies Kin. I was arseing around but never should have posted what I did. Spadegate has overstepped my own rules and values as Zephyr. This avatar is for me to focus on doing the decent thing by everyone and treating everyone with respect at all times. *
My previous avatar, a hare riding a hound, was meant to be a devils advocate and stir it all up, but as KLE4 wisely pointed out below, when playing devils advocate and present contradictory arguments, you undermine any good points you may be making, so I came back to be as fair to everyone as the summer breeze and explain my own honest thoughts.
*i say this With exception of Doctor of smartalectricty ydoethur. All I suggested was we take revisionary look at how Crusaders were hostile to Jews also to what extent support for the Norman invasion of 1066 was channelling the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae and the mean old doctor was very rough with me. 🤕
But having failed to live up to my own rules and values I leave myself no where to go, other than to fall upon my sword, just like the little fella in this clip.
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.
Isn't it simply ineffectual ?
The energy released by a hurricane in ~ 4 hours is roughly the same as the combined nuclear energy of every single nuclear weapon in the world past and present combined.
Energy in a hurricane is staggeringly more than a nuclear weapon.
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
Owning US sports "franchises" has been an amazing money spinner.
Yes, strange how the "land of the free" adopts socialist closed shops as its sporting model.
Labour need to do lots of local, LibDemmy campaigns, focused on their incumbent MPs. This is good because it: 1) Shows LD-curious voters that it's Lab territory defending against a Tory 2) Avoids talking about Corbyn too much 3) Makes the most of Labour's strategic ambiguity on Brexit, since MPs will tend to have taken positions that play well in their seat
A lot of MPs did that in 2017 didn't they? The narrative after was that Corbyn had romped home, but I think there were a lot of nose legs applied.
Labour need to do lots of local, LibDemmy campaigns, focused on their incumbent MPs. This is good because it: 1) Shows LD-curious voters that it's Lab territory defending against a Tory 2) Avoids talking about Corbyn too much 3) Makes the most of Labour's strategic ambiguity on Brexit, since MPs will tend to have taken positions that play well in their seat
A lot of MPs did that in 2017 didn't they? The narrative after was that Corbyn had romped home, but I think there were a lot of nose legs applied.
Nose legs? That sounds like a very drastic form of nose peg?!!?
If all Corbyn wants is a tweaked political declaration, this Parliament can deliver a deal by voting through the current deal - because May could and would have arranged that for him.
So your reasoning fails at once, and so does Corbyn's. He's indulging in naked politicking and doing it badly because he's basically thick.
More than tweaked. Labour's Brexit is BINO - CU and SM. Mrs May would not have complied.
But, yes, Labour seek to use Brexit to bring down this Tory government and replace it with a Labour one.
Given that Brexit is 100% a creation and project of the Tory party, I think that is a perfectly valid approach.
It certainly is not scandalous. Only a Corbyphobe would find it so.
Which is, TBF, what you are. This is clear and it's fair enough. No shame in it. You hate him and everything (you think) he stands for.
So, Article 50 was passed 100% by Tory MPs alone? I never knew that. I could have sworn large numbers of Labour MPs voted for it too. As they promised their voters they would.....
Muppet.
Is Muppet your new signature these days? Seems to fit quite well
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
Depends what sport. It is basically impossible to lose money as an NFL team owner.
NFL fans seem ridiculously harsh toward their team's players - apparently Andrew Luck booed in his last game - he's obviously not right physically or mentally but he's only ever been with the Colts and he's played well for them whilst uninjured.
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.)
I can't understand why anyone would try to run a professional sports club as a business. The overheads are high, the rewards are low and the customers and the staff are both utterly unreasonable.
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
Owning US sports "franchises" has been an amazing money spinner.
Yes, strange how the "land of the free" adopts socialist closed shops as its sporting model.
Not strange in my opinion. They see the sport rather than the team as the commercial product. Of course it’s much easier to do when there’s one league and no external competitors.
Five Thirty Eight also did a good piece on how Biden is struggling in Iowa. Again, nothing to panic about, but Iowa influences the rest of the primary season
Five Thirty Eight also did a good piece on how Biden is struggling in Iowa. Again, nothing to panic about, but Iowa influences the rest of the primary season
Yes, I posted that earlier - but this one is a significant national drop in support, ostensibly.
So, Article 50 was passed 100% by Tory MPs alone? I never knew that. I could have sworn large numbers of Labour MPs voted for it too. As they promised their voters they would.....
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
I think Warren is the easiest opponent for Trump of the big three. She is well known compared to many of the Democrat minnows, so why is her H2H polling vs Trump so poor ?
So, Article 50 was passed 100% by Tory MPs alone? I never knew that. I could have sworn large numbers of Labour MPs voted for it too. As they promised their voters they would.....
Muppet.
Not the point.
Poppet.
That you don't WANT it to be the point doesn't mean it isn't the point.
The record will show who told their voters what. And voted for Article 50. Then blocked Brexit.
The constituency-specific mailshots against Labour MPs come the election are going to be doozies.....
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
Bit early for such certainty, but it’s true she’s staged a remarkable comeback.
Warren was available at weirdly long odds for ages considering her inherent strength and organisation amongst the Democrat base.
Everyone wrote her off because... “Pocahontas”. People ascribe way too much power to Trump’s bullshit.
She has the mo. But it is very early days. And she can't beat Trump. Very happy to be proved wrong, but... seriously, an ideas, policy wonk and plans professor beats Trump?
I think Warren is going to steamroller it. Her momentum is too much, and none of the others are making headway.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
I think Warren is the easiest opponent for Trump of the big three. She is well known compared to many of the Democrat minnows, so why is her H2H polling vs Trump so poor ?
charisma, warmth? That kind of thing. Americans mostly like to vote for someone they would stand next to a bbq and do a six pack with, imho.
So, Article 50 was passed 100% by Tory MPs alone? I never knew that. I could have sworn large numbers of Labour MPs voted for it too. As they promised their voters they would.....Muppet.
Not the point. Poppet.
That you don't WANT it to be the point doesn't mean it isn't the point. The record will show who told their voters what. And voted for Article 50. Then blocked Brexit. The constituency-specific mailshots against Labour MPs come the election are going to be doozies.....
How will the Tories know who to send them to, if they no longer have the services of Cambridge Analytica and other such crooks?
Corbyn's Brexit satisfies Starmer's 6 tests, keeps the benefits of the CU and SM whilst having an entirely independent trade policy and keeps freedom of movement for us but restricts it for ne'er do wells from elsewhere.
Comments
It's a phrase I sometimes use, and had no idea of the connotations. It's something I'll be careful with in future.
However: it's a real namby-pamby phrase. Real men (tm) use the word 'shovel'.
Incidentally, in a local garden centre I've seen shovels labelled as 'spades', and spades as 'shovels'. which means that even experts don't know the difference ...
Many people have successfully pumped their own money in to keep their beloved club alive - Rod Bransgrove at Hampshire springs to mind - but trying to run them as a business to turn a profit outside a handful of premiership clubs is just daft.
Something of that with Farage, for example, it seems to me. Indeed it is a theme for the spiritual leaders of Brexit.
But sports like football. Absolutely bonkers to try and do it as a business. The likes of Randy Lerner (who many years owned the worst team in the NFL, but still made money on it), soon found that out when he bought Aston Villa.
SpaceX are hoping to 'hop' their Starhopper experimental rocket at 22.00 UK time (there is a 15-minute window for the flight). They're hoping it'll go up to 150 metres, possibly translate horizontally, and then land. Or go boom.
It's interesting as it's a prototype of the upper stage of their new proposed rocket, which will be the largest rocket ever flown. And it looks weirdly cool.
There are various distant livestreams, including this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fblo3vzsOo4
The remainder of the Football League do feel estrangement. Not many outside Bury would mourn the passing of Bury FC, and that lack of interest, that sense of being a neglected backwater, ripe to be asset stripped by financially astute asset strippers is part of the Brexit culture. The people of Bury want to take back control.
As a principle, if a commonly used word is also used as an offensive epiphet to describe a group of people, I feel the difference is whether you're using it to describe that group of people, or the original object. This conversation will certainly stop me ever calling a black person a spade (as if that would ever have arisen). But it won't stop me calling *ahem* a spade a spade. And I don't think it should stop anyone. It's retreating in the face of racist language usage.
He got to the bit where he was telling his team he would be fair but firm and if they didn't meet his standards he would tell them as he believed in calling a spade a spade......
An Afro Caribbean man reported him for racism.
It ended ok but he had no idea that anyone would be offended by that old well known saying.
Like, how do I find not beating my wife?
But urban as opposed to Shire Brexitism is geographically to be found in those neglected towns of the lower leagues. The same places where chainstores and high streets are closing. Left behind Britain.
Both landed safely, but close. So close.
This WOULD be enacted without a GE. That's the whole point.
A mandate from an election would then be required if Ref2 is to be delivered. Since there is no chance of this parliament being willing and able to do that.
So, OK, it is unlikely to come off, but I really do not see the big joke.
But my point is that this would not be a government to enact this policy, it would be a change of government that might enact such a policy. Given Corbyn is a fluent liar, a populist fool and a divisive and unprincipled chancer, that wouldn't be good enough.
Fixed for you.
Still wondering what you've got against Bransgrove.
I have a penchant for short snappy novels that I can consume in one session where I lose myself in it - start, immerse, finish.
EG - Less Than Zero by Brett Easton Ellis. Read that a few times and even now, given a slack afternoon, I could still happily zip through it.
"There's a feeling I get when I look to the West ..."
Though not saying that this has happened in Bury’s case.
Killing it requires either a Deal or Revoke, neither of which can be delivered by Corbyn with this parliament, hence the requirement for a GE.
Ergo, the temp govt, it extends and then calls a GE.
I fear your Corbyphobia is interfering with your reasoning in this case.
For personal enrichment, the classic scheme has been to invest, then claim a salary (or something more tax efficient) at a rate such that in only a matter of years you have more than earned your initial investment several times over.
So your reasoning fails at once, and so does Corbyn's. He's indulging in naked politicking and doing it badly because he's basically thick.
Nethertown - Least Used Station in Cumbria: https://youtu.be/i_Z_87iSrY4
Although, to be fair, Essex have done well out of it so far; the one good player who moved from us moved back shortly afterwards.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/aug/12/george-hirst-sheffield-wednesday-leuven-leicester
However, he hated the idea of leaving Oxford, especially to live in a big smoke. His mental health suffered, and then was bounced around a couple of clubs, before finally getting transferred back to Oxford.
* I think anybody who follows football knows the manager I mean.
Back when Panorama did proper investigations, the one about football transfers from about 10 years or so ago was amazing. If it hadn't have leaked early, I think we would have had a famous manager or two behind bars.
Colin Graves, now, I think we all have issues with him. Maybe a Hundred issues. But that is a conversation for another thread.
Have a great evening.
Frank Worthington.
How close did he come to signing?
The rumoured reasons behind the collapse of Worthington’s transfer are the stuff of footballing legend. Though, the bottom line was that he failed a medical. Twice.
His life of leisure had caught up to him and, although there were rumours that he failed the first medical due to having ‘the clap’, high blood pressure was cited as the cause.
Worthington claimed the high blood pressure was down to stress, before jetting off to Mallorca to relax. Despite seeing Miss Great Britain at the time, it didn’t stop him chatting up a woman on the plane, before indulging in a threesome with a Swedish mother and daughter. He failed a second medical on his return.
https://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2016/06/liverpool-the-ones-that-got-away-11-nearly-but-not-quite-transfers-for-the-reds/
Mr Trump said he had "good feelings" about the prospect of a new nuclear deal with Iran. "Iran is not the same country it was two and a half years ago when I came into office,"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49475744
All that blowing and capturing up oil tankers....definite improvement.
But, yes, Labour seek to use Brexit to bring down this Tory government and replace it with a Labour one.
Given that Brexit is 100% a creation and project of the Tory party, I think that is a perfectly valid approach.
It certainly is not scandalous. Only a Corbyphobe would find it so.
Which is, TBF, what you are. This is clear and it's fair enough. No shame in it. You hate him and everything (you think) he stands for.
The modern show is less military than it used to be, but still a spectacle.
Trying to be clever - sign of somebody who isn't.
From now on it's going to be honest to god and no frills ...
'FEC loses quorum to make decisions
Matthew Petersen, the vice chairman of the Federal Election Commission, has announced his resignation — leaving the agency without enough commissioners to make decisions as the 2020 election season gets into full swing.'
Does it means candidates can do what they like? Irrespective of the law?
Muppet.
My previous avatar, a hare riding a hound, was meant to be a devils advocate and stir it all up, but as KLE4 wisely pointed out below, when playing devils advocate and present contradictory arguments, you undermine any good points you may be making, so I came back to be as fair to everyone as the summer breeze and explain my own honest thoughts.
*i say this With exception of Doctor of smartalectricty ydoethur. All I suggested was we take revisionary look at how Crusaders were hostile to Jews also to what extent support for the Norman invasion of 1066 was channelling the
Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae and the mean old doctor was very rough with me. 🤕
But having failed to live up to my own rules and values I leave myself no where to go, other than to fall upon my sword, just like the little fella in this clip.
https://vimeo.com/160827785
So when you see the little fella get it, think of me.
The energy released by a hurricane in ~ 4 hours is roughly the same as the combined nuclear energy of every single nuclear weapon in the world past and present combined.
Energy in a hurricane is staggeringly more than a nuclear weapon.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/458833-new-poll-shows-biden-falling-badly-three-way-tie-for-democratic-lead
Outlier poll, perhaps ?
Or not ?
On 1%. A case of So Long, Marianne?
In all seriousness though it looks like a close 3 horse race. If you're going by the odds available, Sanders is the one to be longest on.
All that publicity may well put her in a position to beat Trump, who may well be declaring war on Canada tommorow.
Poppet.
The record will show who told their voters what. And voted for Article 50. Then blocked Brexit.
The constituency-specific mailshots against Labour MPs come the election are going to be doozies.....
People ascribe way too much power to Trump’s bullshit.
You should climb Black Combe if you’ve never done it. Wonderful views.
An impossible, unicorn perfect "Stokes Brexit"
No he won't.