I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jonny Bairstow has been left out of England's squad for the Tests in New Zealand, while uncapped quartet Matthew Parkinson, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley and Saqib Mahmood have all been called up.
He really didn't have a great summer with the bat.
Odd that there's no-one from the (almost certainly) Champion County, who also won the t20 competition. Admittedly our best spinner is in the process of qualifying for England, but it does seem odd.
To be fair, there isn't an stand out England candidate in the Essex team - Lawrence perhaps, but he's only just back to his best; likewise Westley; Jamie Porter is probably not quite quick enough for England's needs; Browne has missed the boat, and Ravi Bopara falls foul of the 'failed before' criterion (although that is highly variable in its application).
Do you know what the latest position is on Harmer? I thought he automatically qualified next year but I read recently the decision is wholly in the hands of the ECB. Obviously he'd be an automatic pick, which would be tough on Jack Leach, who I like a lot, but I just can't see any spinner being picked ahead of him when eligible.
Agree about the reasons and with your categorisations; a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.Slightly surprised that Sam Cook hasn't been picked, though.
Think you're right about Harmer. TBH we in Essex would rather he didn't get picked, but equally we wouldn't want to stand in his way.
Doesn't Cook have the same problem as Porter - i.e. not quite quick enough for the highest level?
Looks like Essex have another decent young spinner coming through in Aron Nijar. It would be handy for him if Harmer were 'promoted'.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
It's OK, all company directors will volunteer for political re-education anyway, especially those who have the temerity to run successful companies.
Successful companies after a Labour Party gets into power? You're not thinking straight.
I thought you bankers were all for Mcdonnell ?
He seems such a reasonable bloke.
He looks and speaks like one of those corrupt Met detectives from the 1970’s: superficially charming, utterly untrustworthy and quite willing to have violence used to get his way.
Our views on him are very similar.
He's rattled your cage guys?
If you mean I loath the idea of a marxist with utterly loathsome views and whom I would not trust further than I can throw an elephant as a potential leader of this country.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
Would be interesting to see the equivalent with BREXIT party and Con Voters
Yes, I had the same thought.
Does anyone know where to find a link to the the source YouGov table - there may be more there for all we know?
YouGov are getting quite annoying as of late. The full results for their latest VI poll are still not up - all we know two days after it was mentioned in the Times is still Con 30, Lab 23, Lib 22 and nothing about the other parties and no data tables whatsoever.
Managed to track down the YouGov tables via an obscure twitter link to their political trackers.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Boeing used to do 120% funding for new low cost carriers, where you could borrow £120m for every £100m you spent on new planes.
Really? Presumably they’d list the planes at £120m and insist you insured them for that amount?
Probably a nervous aircraft lease company or two around today as well, plenty of bills not paid and aircraft impounded by authorities all over the place.
The 120% funding I believe comes not form Boeing itself, but form the 'Export Import Bank'
Which is a government funded and controlled, Supper Crony 'crony capitalist' agency designed to boost the profits of Big companys, mostly Boeing, that have a lot of lobbyists in Washington DC.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
quite
"There is no ownership on the Brexit side – it is always somebody else fault that they can’t get the perfect Brexit they want"
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jealousy is such a terrible thing.
It is indeed. I wish one of my boys had her ponytails! has anyone seen the parents? They may well be delightful perhaps?
Would be interesting to see the equivalent with BREXIT party and Con Voters
Yes, I had the same thought.
Does anyone know where to find a link to the the source YouGov table - there may be more there for all we know?
YouGov are getting quite annoying as of late. The full results for their latest VI poll are still not up - all we know two days after it was mentioned in the Times is still Con 30, Lab 23, Lib 22 and nothing about the other parties and no data tables whatsoever.
Managed to track down the YouGov tables via an obscure twitter link to their political trackers.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
I spent two years begging for compromise. Guess what. Now is not the time to ask for that.
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jealousy is such a terrible thing.
It is indeed. I wish one of my boys had her ponytails! has anyone seen the parents? They may well be delightful perhaps?
I dunno anything about her parents. All I know is that whatever she's trying to achieve it's probably no to be "appealing" to you.
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jealousy is such a terrible thing.
It is indeed. I wish one of my boys had her ponytails! has anyone seen the parents? They may well be delightful perhaps?
I dunno anything about her parents. All I know is that whatever she's trying to achieve it's probably no to be "appealing" to you.
I am all in favour of what she purports to be trying to achieve, and if she is successful good luck to her. I still find pushy children with pushy parents highly irritating.
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jealousy is such a terrible thing.
It is indeed. I wish one of my boys had her ponytails! has anyone seen the parents? They may well be delightful perhaps?
Corbyns Brexit policy is the only one that addresses the political crisis rather than exploit the political crisis for political self interest, they should simply stick to it, trust the intelligence of the British electorate as they point out a no deal or revoke does not bring the crisis to an end allowing not just U.K. but the whole world to move on. In fact a no deal brexit puts us even further away from the compromise and deal, and a revoke policy is so dumb it’s will be like pouring petrol on the flames of political crisis.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Summary: - The EU are nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - Ireland is nothing but 100% correct, decent and magnanimous - The Brits are thick, immoral colonialists - Ireland's position is the only possible acceptable deal and the other side needs to give in entirely
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jealousy is such a terrible thing.
It is indeed. I wish one of my boys had her ponytails! has anyone seen the parents? They may well be delightful perhaps?
I dunno anything about her parents. All I know is that whatever she's trying to achieve it's probably no to be "appealing" to you.
I am all in favour of what she purports to be trying to achieve, and if she is successful good luck to her. I still find pushy children with pushy parents highly irritating.
Why is it, by the way, that males are assertive and forceful, but females are pushy and bossy? Never quite got my head around that.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
I spent two years begging for compromise. Guess what. Now is not the time to ask for that.
Compromise on all sides is the only way out of this.
Jonny Bairstow has been left out of England's squad for the Tests in New Zealand, while uncapped quartet Matthew Parkinson, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley and Saqib Mahmood have all been called up.
He really didn't have a great summer with the bat.
Odd that there's no-one from the (almost certainly) Champion County, who also won the t20 competition. Admittedly our best spinner is in the process of qualifying for England, but it does seem odd.
To be fair, there isn't an stand out England candidate in the Essex team - Lawrence perhaps, but he's only just back to his best; likewise Westley; Jamie Porter is probably not quite quick enough for England's needs; Browne has missed the boat, and Ravi Bopara falls foul of the 'failed before' criterion (although that is highly variable in its application).
Do you know what the latest position is on Harmer? I thought he automatically qualified next year but I read recently the decision is wholly in the hands of the ECB. Obviously he'd be an automatic pick, which would be tough on Jack Leach, who I like a lot, but I just can't see any spinner being picked ahead of him when eligible.
Agree about the reasons and with your categorisations; a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.Slightly surprised that Sam Cook hasn't been picked, though.
Think you're right about Harmer. TBH we in Essex would rather he didn't get picked, but equally we wouldn't want to stand in his way.
Doesn't Cook have the same problem as Porter - i.e. not quite quick enough for the highest level?
Looks like Essex have another decent young spinner coming through in Aron Nijar. It would be handy for him if Harmer were 'promoted'.
Well, I've seen much of all Essex' (proper) home games this season, and Cook's as fast as anyone else I've seen. Furthermore he's still young enough to be improving.
It would indeed be handy for Nijjar if Harmer were 'promoted'; personally, having seen him bowl several times I'm hoping I saw him on bad days!
Funny how many don't seem to have a problem with the suggestion of Johnson's corruption. Brexit Vincit Omnia
Now that the Labour Party has gone full communist, I'd vote for the Tories even if they were lead by Satan himself!
I think it is currently led by Beelzebub, not Satan himself. He is biding his time until Beelzebub has done his worst.
As I think you and I are roughly in the same boat on our views of that **** Johnson and his current shower of Tories, nevertheless what a recruiting sergeant the Labour Party is for the Tory vote.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Doesn't even a leased plane have value?
Carry value of aircraft £568 million, finance leasing commitments (primarily to aircraft) £216m, operating lease commitments to aircraft £1253m.
I'd guess the aircraft are going back to those that Thomas Cook has leased them from. So nothing for other creditors there. Still there is always brand name and goodwill for those with vouchers to tuck into.
I'd like to say the auditors should have been looking in askance at the value of goodwill, but it becomes a vicious circle for them.
If they write it down, they'll definitely go bust. So the 'friendly' auditor convinces themselves its definitely worth £2.5bn in goodwill. When everyone knows its worth jack.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
I spent two years begging for compromise. Guess what. Now is not the time to ask for that.
Compromise on all sides is the only way out of this.
Even if the result of compromise doesn't work?
While compromise is great at finding a solution that is acceptable, there is no certainty that a compromise solution is the most beneficial solution. Sometimes you just have to make a decision and weather the unpopularity for long term gain.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
“Objectively, there are possibilities,” Barnier said, but added: “I don’t know how to inspect a cow with virtual methods.”
That objection doesn't make sense given the latest UK proposal includes a single agriculture zone, so the cows would be under EU regulation.
I don't read it that way - simply a "sanitary and phytosanitary zone for agrifood products" but the border is still there and they need to document what goes over it. And what comes into the zone at Larne from Stranraer etc.
That would give Watson a real opportunity to talk about division without any hecklers remaining in the audience. I hope he prepares a cracking speech in case it actually happens.
It would be a field day for the press and destory any pretence of unity in Labour.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Doesn't even a leased plane have value?
Carry value of aircraft £568 million, finance leasing commitments (primarily to aircraft) £216m, operating lease commitments to aircraft £1253m.
I'd guess the aircraft are going back to those that Thomas Cook has leased them from. So nothing for other creditors there. Still there is always brand name and goodwill for those with vouchers to tuck into.
I'd like to say the auditors should have been looking in askance at the value of goodwill, but it becomes a vicious circle for them.
If they write it down, they'll definitely go bust. So the 'friendly' auditor convinces themselves its definitely worth £2.5bn in goodwill. When everyone knows its worth jack.
Not quite. Well of course it doesn't pay the bills but it is a hell of a brand value and hence part of the reason everyone is so shocked today. If they are shocked.
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jealousy is such a terrible thing.
It is indeed. I wish one of my boys had her ponytails! has anyone seen the parents? They may well be delightful perhaps?
I dunno anything about her parents. All I know is that whatever she's trying to achieve it's probably no to be "appealing" to you.
I am all in favour of what she purports to be trying to achieve, and if she is successful good luck to her. I still find pushy children with pushy parents highly irritating.
Why is it, by the way, that males are assertive and forceful, but females are pushy and bossy? Never quite got my head around that.
Aw, pleeeze! I didn't say she was "bossy", so please don't try your hardest to turn it into a gender politics issue, which is just silly. I simply saying that I find juveniles in these types of circumstances irritating. If Greta was 16 year old Graham I would find she/he just as annoying. "Pushy parent" is something that applies across genders. I have seen plenty of pushy fathers on the rugby touchline believe me!
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
I spent two years begging for compromise. Guess what. Now is not the time to ask for that.
Compromise on all sides is the only way out of this.
Even if the result of compromise doesn't work?
While compromise is great at finding a solution that is acceptable, there is no certainty that a compromise solution is the most beneficial solution. Sometimes you just have to make a decision and weather the unpopularity for long term gain.
Of course the result of compromise can work. But the term "not working" is used by both sides to mean "doesn't 100% meet my preferences".
Jonny Bairstow has been left out of England's squad for the Tests in New Zealand, while uncapped quartet Matthew Parkinson, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley and Saqib Mahmood have all been called up.
He really didn't have a great summer with the bat.
Odd that there's no-one from the (almost certainly) Champion County, who also won the t20 competition. Admittedly our best spinner is in the process of qualifying for England, but it does seem odd.
To be fair, there isn't an stand out England candidate in the Essex team - Lawrence perhaps, but he's only just back to his best; likewise Westley; Jamie Porter is probably not quite quick enough for England's needs; Browne has missed the boat, and Ravi Bopara falls foul of the 'failed before' criterion (although that is highly variable in its application).
Do you know what the latest position is on Harmer? I thought he automatically qualified next year but I read recently the decision is wholly in the hands of the ECB. Obviously he'd be an automatic pick, which would be tough on Jack Leach, who I like a lot, but I just can't see any spinner being picked ahead of him when eligible.
Agree about the reasons and with your categorisations; a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.Slightly surprised that Sam Cook hasn't been picked, though.
Think you're right about Harmer. TBH we in Essex would rather he didn't get picked, but equally we wouldn't want to stand in his way.
Doesn't Cook have the same problem as Porter - i.e. not quite quick enough for the highest level?
Looks like Essex have another decent young spinner coming through in Aron Nijar. It would be handy for him if Harmer were 'promoted'.
Well, I've seen much of all Essex' (proper) home games this season, and Cook's as fast as anyone else I've seen. Furthermore he's still young enough to be improving.
It would indeed be handy for Nijjar if Harmer were 'promoted'; personally, having seen him bowl several times I'm hoping I saw him on bad days!
Lol! Be patient, OKC, spinners develop slowly and often don't peak until into their thirties.
I've yet to see Cook live so will take your word for it. Anyway he's young enough to quicken up if he works on it and stays fit, but bowling at real pace is very tough on the body. One of Joff Archer's greatest assets is that he generates his pace off a short run up and smooth action, so his body is likely to withstand the strain better than most, but you'll know how few can withstand the rigors of regular exertions.
That would give Watson a real opportunity to talk about division without any hecklers remaining in the audience. I hope he prepares a cracking speech in case it actually happens.
It would be a field day for the press and destory any pretence of unity in Labour.
“Objectively, there are possibilities,” Barnier said, but added: “I don’t know how to inspect a cow with virtual methods.”
That objection doesn't make sense given the latest UK proposal includes a single agriculture zone, so the cows would be under EU regulation.
I don't read it that way - simply a "sanitary and phytosanitary zone for agrifood products" but the border is still there and they need to document what goes over it. And what comes into the zone at Larne from Stranraer etc.
A single zone for the island of Ireland would mean the documentation woukd be done between Larne and Stranraer - the border is in the Irish sea, which is what the EU wants.
But then the nature of the 2017 campaign played perfectly for Corbyn. He would be foolish to assume an exceptional set of circumstances was a natural law of politics. 1. Corbyn got a second hearing from the public; there's no reason to assume he'll get a third.
True, assuming it really was a "second hearing". However the claim was that during the campaign Corbyn was given equal air time due to election media rules, which he did not get beforehand. So it was really a "first hearing". If this was the reason then we can expect something similar next time, but maybe not as large an effect.
2. Corbyn and Labour's polling is now worse than it was in April 2017 (though granted that the Tory / Johnson figures are also worse than the equivalent ones). 3. Nick Timothy was a policy wonk with a tin ear for public opinion; Dominic Cummings, for all his faults as a political practitioner, is a highly capable campaigner. 4. Theresa May's natural instinct was to hide from the public; Boris Johnson's is not. That might bring risks but the balance favours Johnson.
Johnson has done plenty of "hiding from the public" both in his campaign for Tory leader and as PM. If your assertion is right, then he is being told to "hide from the public", which is not really being prime ministerial.
5. The Tory manifesto in 2017 was a disaster for the party; the 2019 one, going by policy changes so far, has been properly prepared for in terms of political campaigning (which is not the same as being entirely responsible). 6. Brexit in 2017 was a distant concept: there was plenty of time to think about other things. It will be far harder for Labour (or anyone) to shift the focus of the election in 2019.
Eh? May's reason for calling the election was Brexit, and the A50 clock was already ticking.
8. The Lib Dems wasted 2017 arguing about gay sex. They will not waste 2019, having a clear and distinctive Brexit policy that they can explain in 2 seconds, and which is aimed at Lab supporters.
Agree mostly, except the LD policy is also aimed at Tory remainers, who were prepared to support May, but cannot support Johnson.
The Brexit vortex is only going to be resolved when all hope is gone on all sides. Right now everyone thinks that they can still win utterly. I'm not expecting any resolution any time soon, just a continued yawing motion as first one side then another thinks it has the upper hand.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Doesn't even a leased plane have value?
Carry value of aircraft £568 million, finance leasing commitments (primarily to aircraft) £216m, operating lease commitments to aircraft £1253m.
I'd guess the aircraft are going back to those that Thomas Cook has leased them from. So nothing for other creditors there. Still there is always brand name and goodwill for those with vouchers to tuck into.
I'd like to say the auditors should have been looking in askance at the value of goodwill, but it becomes a vicious circle for them.
If they write it down, they'll definitely go bust. So the 'friendly' auditor convinces themselves its definitely worth £2.5bn in goodwill. When everyone knows its worth jack.
Not quite. Well of course it doesn't pay the bills but it is a hell of a brand value and hence part of the reason everyone is so shocked today. If they are shocked.
I wasn't shocked. The crisis has been ongoing for ages.
10. Things could indeed get better for Labour in an election campaign: they could also get worse with public exposure.
Agree. There is something called Regression to the mean.
One thing which is a known unknown, but very large unknown is how stable is Boris' Honeymoon Effect. It is clear that new PMs do get a Honeymoon Effect and Johnson is having his at the moment. What has not really been tested is how robust this is to an election campaign? The closest example we have was May calling an election after 8 Months as PM, when she was clearly still "On Honeymoon"!
“Objectively, there are possibilities,” Barnier said, but added: “I don’t know how to inspect a cow with virtual methods.”
That objection doesn't make sense given the latest UK proposal includes a single agriculture zone, so the cows would be under EU regulation.
Not to mention not making sense as the way cross border intra EU VAT transactions are handled at the moment.
That leaves Customs (and FOM).
Customs seems to be best done via anti-smuggling laws making smuggling into Ireland a criminal offence under UK law.
FOM is mainly dealt with via the CTA for British and Irish citizens. The minority of non-Irish EU citizens is a problem for the UK, not the EU, so London can just put checks in the Irish sea or do it via the same method as visa overstays.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
I think you mistakenly believe people's democratic right to still believe a policy is wrong has no right to continue to have that view voiced. I think many of those of us who supported remain would accept a EEA type solution as reflecting and respecting the result. Sadly, even TMay tried to add a whole load of bells and whistles for which there was no proper mandate. Those that want to force change on 48% of the population should proceed with a respectful caution. This did not happen. Hubris and arrogance have been the best descriptors of a large number of people that claim to be opinion leaders on the leave side
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
Problem is hard line leavers are convinced that no deal Brexit is the default so where's the incentive for them to be reasonable particularly since the default mood for many of them is to be unreasonable. The reverse is also true for Remainers, except for them the default is remain.
The Brexit vortex is only going to be resolved when all hope is gone on all sides. Right now everyone thinks that they can still win utterly. I'm not expecting any resolution any time soon, just a continued yawing motion as first one side then another thinks it has the upper hand.
In the meantime, the country founders.
Hard Leavers don't seem to realise a scorched Earth Brexit will just return to needing a deal of some form. Hard Remainers don't seem to realise EU membership will never be sustainable unless Leavers accept it getting there via legitimate means.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
Problem is hard line leavers are convinced that no deal Brexit is the default so where's the incentive for them to be reasonable particularly since the default mood for many of them is to be unreasonable. The reverse is also true for Remainers, except for them the default is remain.
There are two default positions if all else fails:
Revoke or No Deal
That may explain why the factions are pushing to the brink. Or there may be idiots on both sides.
TC were totally and utterly bust, drowning in debt and should have gone to the wall years ago.
What I want to know is, why did lenders keep on lending to them for so long?
Because they did secured lending on their planes, I would guess.
Do they have planes? Aren't they likely to be leased?
Doesn't even a leased plane have value?
Carry value of aircraft £568 million, finance leasing commitments (primarily to aircraft) £216m, operating lease commitments to aircraft £1253m.
I'd guess the aircraft are going back to those that Thomas Cook has leased them from. So nothing for other creditors there. Still there is always brand name and goodwill for those with vouchers to tuck into.
I'd like to say the auditors should have been looking in askance at the value of goodwill, but it becomes a vicious circle for them.
If they write it down, they'll definitely go bust. So the 'friendly' auditor convinces themselves its definitely worth £2.5bn in goodwill. When everyone knows its worth jack.
In my experience, the auditors tend to be very friendly if they themselves are owed a lot of money by the company in question.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
I think you mistakenly believe people's democratic right to still believe a policy is wrong has no right to continue to have that view voiced. I think many of those of us who supported remain would accept a EEA type solution as reflecting and respecting the result. Sadly, even TMay tried to add a whole load of bells and whistles for which there was no proper mandate. Those that want to force change on 48% of the population should proceed with a respectful caution. This did not happen. Hubris and arrogance have been the best descriptors of a large number of people that claim to be opinion leaders on the leave side
A classic example of taking umbrage off all the wrong doings of the other side rather than reflecting on those of one's own side. Had Remainers united around a EEA/CU position (which I advocated at the time) we would have won it, but even that would have been far closer to Remain preferences than Leave preferences. But Remainers didn't even do that. We wanted to fight for a second referendum and full Remain while expecting the other side to push our second preference.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
May's deal was not BINO.
Indeed, it was a pretty hard Brexit. Nowhere near a compromise. If the headbangers had been offered this on a plate in 2015 they would have scoffed it down without being able to believe their luck. After the referendum they thought they had a whip hand to make it as extreme as they could.
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jealousy is such a terrible thing.
It is indeed. I wish one of my boys had her ponytails! has anyone seen the parents? They may well be delightful perhaps?
I dunno anything about her parents. All I know is that whatever she's trying to achieve it's probably no to be "appealing" to you.
I am all in favour of what she purports to be trying to achieve, and if she is successful good luck to her. I still find pushy children with pushy parents highly irritating.
Why is it, by the way, that males are assertive and forceful, but females are pushy and bossy? Never quite got my head around that.
Because men (and therefore society) have always used langauge as a way of keeping women in a socially inferior place. Bear in mind that until the turn of the 20th Century, women were regarded as "chattels". As late as 1980 barstaff could legally refuse to serve women alcohol.
My own mother had trouble getting her name on the deeds of her first house because in the 1970s that was regarded as a man's responsibility.
It rankles to know that just because you are born without a willy (and for no other reason) in large parts of the world you are worth less than cars or property. 200 years ago, it was not all that different around these parts...
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
"Magnanimous in defeat"? What an absurd comment that can only come from a Leaver who has belatedly seen his preferred outcome slip away. It has nothing to do with the dynamics of 2016.
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
"Magnanimous in defeat"? What an absurd comment that can only come from a Leaver who has belatedly seen his preferred outcome slip away. It has nothing to do with the dynamics of 2016.
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
I voted Remain, accepted CU/SM as a second preference that respected democracy and still want to Rejoin. But you are such a headbanging Remainer you see anyone not in your absolutist position as being a Leaver.
Jonny Bairstow has been left out of England's squad for the Tests in New Zealand, while uncapped quartet Matthew Parkinson, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley and Saqib Mahmood have all been called up.
He really didn't have a great summer with the bat.
Odd that there's no-one from the (almost certainly) Champion County, who also won the t20 competition. Admittedly our best spinner is in the process of qualifying for England, but it does seem odd.
Do you know what the latest position is on Harmer? I thought he automatically qualified next year but I read recently the decision is wholly in the hands of the ECB. Obviously he'd be an automatic pick, which would be tough on Jack Leach, who I like a lot, but I just can't see any spinner being picked ahead of him when eligible.
Agree about the reasons and with your categorisations; a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.Slightly surprised that Sam Cook hasn't been picked, though.
Think you're right about Harmer. TBH we in Essex would rather he didn't get picked, but equally we wouldn't want to stand in his way.
Doesn't Cook have the same problem as Porter - i.e. not quite quick enough for the highest level?
Looks like Essex have another decent young spinner coming through in Aron Nijar. It would be handy for him if Harmer were 'promoted'.
It would indeed be handy for Nijjar if Harmer were 'promoted'; personally, having seen him bowl several times I'm hoping I saw him on bad days!
Lol! Be patient, OKC, spinners develop slowly and often don't peak until into their thirties.
I've yet to see Cook live so will take your word for it. Anyway he's young enough to quicken up if he works on it and stays fit, but bowling at real pace is very tough on the body. One of Joff Archer's greatest assets is that he generates his pace off a short run up and smooth action, so his body is likely to withstand the strain better than most, but you'll know how few can withstand the rigors of regular exertions.
Agree about spinners development. Having watched both Mills and Topley before they decided they could do better elsewhere agree there, too. Mills especially was only useful in 4 over spells, and Topley just didn't really seem to have the body for sustained fast bowling.
The Labour conference dealing with Brexit though of a low standard seems to reflect the country's demographics. The young want to go all out Remain the old want to join Corbyn on the fence. Keir Starmer. Thank God!
The Brexit vortex is only going to be resolved when all hope is gone on all sides. Right now everyone thinks that they can still win utterly. I'm not expecting any resolution any time soon, just a continued yawing motion as first one side then another thinks it has the upper hand.
In the meantime, the country founders.
Hard Leavers don't seem to realise a scorched Earth Brexit will just return to needing a deal of some form. Hard Remainers don't seem to realise EU membership will never be sustainable unless Leavers accept it getting there via legitimate means.
You're angling for a common ground that doesn't exist. Remainers have to accept that they lost. Leavers have to accept that Brexit is a shitshow.
The Labour conference dealing with Brexit though of a low standard seems to reflect the countries demographics. The young want to go all out Remain the old want to join Corbyn on the fence.
My guess is that events this week in Brighton will severely curtail LD to Labour tactical voting. I’d expect the Tories to win a comfortable majority now on far fewer votes than they got in 2017.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
That's how I see it. Irrespective of the likes of the ERG and their howling, the Remain lobby, at least to my reckoning, never acknowledged that the reason for Leave winning may be down to the fact that the EU has issues. Issues that need to be addressed. There was never, immediately after the vote especially, any evident contrition - only increasingly angry remonstrances with Leavers (as demonstrated on this site).
This is not to say Leavers acted with the necessary magnanimity - a lot didn't and don't - but there was space for compromise early-on. Maybe there still is.
If any of the most ardent Remainers on this site were to show and acknowledge that the EU isn't perfect, its leaders/technocrats do lie and cheat like any other politician , and that fundamental reform of the EU is necessary to a) address the concerns of at least 50% of the British public and b) put it on a more stable keel going into the future then I would quite happily compromise myself on what leaving the EU meant - if at all.
Leavers accept we can't just cut ourselves adrift. Remainers acknowledge things can't stay the same.
If we could remain, perhaps we could create concrete mechanisms for preventing any further integration via treaty or legislative creep by triple locking acceptance via separate super- majorities of MEPS; MP's and Referendum. Just an idea. Probably wouldn't work but at least we can maintain the status-quo without pandering to the fears (rightly or wrongly) held by many that the EU is a one way street to superstatedom.
I find precocious child activists pushed along by probable pushy parents as highly unappealing. Supercilious piousness in adults is pretty hard to stomach, but in a 16 year old....
Jealousy is such a terrible thing.
It is indeed. I wish one of my boys had her ponytails! has anyone seen the parents? They may well be delightful perhaps?
I dunno anything about her parents. All I know is that whatever she's trying to achieve it's probably no to be "appealing" to you.
I am all in favour of what she purports to be trying to achieve, and if she is successful good luck to her. I still find pushy children with pushy parents highly irritating.
Why is it, by the way, that males are assertive and forceful, but females are pushy and bossy? Never quite got my head around that.
Because men (and therefore society) have always used langauge as a way of keeping women in a socially inferior place. Bear in mind that until the turn of the 20th Century, women were regarded as "chattels". As late as 1980 barstaff could legally refuse to serve women alcohol.
My own mother had trouble getting her name on the deeds of her first house because in the 1970s that was regarded as a man's responsibility.
It rankles to know that just because you are born without a willy (and for no other reason) in large parts of the world you are worth less than cars or property. 200 years ago, it was not all that different around these parts...
Woa, I know I am anon, so maybe it doesn't matter, but my views are being completely misrepresented (deliberately by the other poster) here. I did not use the word "bossy". I used the word "pushy" and as I said previously I have met many many pushy fathers.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Name another pressure group that has resorted to putting up a disturbed yoof as the face of a campaign of fear ?
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Ms Thunberg is literally saying please listen to those who are experts in this area.
That is not being religious.
Yes, but the experts are only experts in a particular area - and often a narrow one. Policy has too be made looking over a vast swathe of areas.
For instance, how do you trade off the speed of cutting carbon emissions and any job losses that may come from that? Or harm done to the economy by fast moves?
This is not to say do nothing, but it is saying that the experts she wants us to listen to may weight things differently, and have their own biases. A government should look at things in total.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
"Magnanimous in defeat"? What an absurd comment that can only come from a Leaver who has belatedly seen his preferred outcome slip away. It has nothing to do with the dynamics of 2016.
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
I voted Remain, accepted CU/SM as a second preference that respected democracy and still want to Rejoin. But you are such a headbanging Remainer you see anyone not in your absolutist position as being a Leaver.
Your attitudes betray your not-very-convincing act. You'd do better being honest about your (pretty obvious) position. You discredit it with your deceit.
The Brexit vortex is only going to be resolved when all hope is gone on all sides. Right now everyone thinks that they can still win utterly. I'm not expecting any resolution any time soon, just a continued yawing motion as first one side then another thinks it has the upper hand.
In the meantime, the country founders.
And flounders.
But it's true - no one has quit to date, except those seeking a compromise as they see the chance has gone. So now we await to see which side gives up first.
He has never negotiated in good faith, and he's not going to start now.
#ThingsIHateAboutThe21stCentury, Part 76
73. ... 74. People who think "The Last Jedi" is in any sense good 75. People who say "Are you alright?" when they mean "Can I help you" 76. People who use the phrases "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" wrongly 77. Vaping 78. ...
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Name another pressure group that has resorted to putting up a disturbed yoof as the face of a campaign of fear ?
It’s wrong.
For some reason these climate strikes make me think of the Children's Crusade. That didn't end well.
Undiplomatic, maybe. Succinct and troubling summary of international relations at the moment. Yeah, kinda.
Perhaps she has looked at two of the last three Foreign Secretaries and decided differently!
Agree it makes no sense for Labour to demand an internationalist US president.
Not sure there has been a leader of the free world or a need for such a figure head since the end of the Soviet Union. Obama was probably the closest where people in other countries would have recognised him as a leader.
Regardless of Trump the next generation is very likely to face a very different set of global power dynamics than "free world" vs "communism".
As well as leader of the free world, the US president also gets almost universally defined as the most powerful person on the planet. I am not sure he is in the top 10. Putin and Xi Jinping are surely more powerful, probably someone like Zuckerberg is as well.
The dynamics are going to be “liberal democratic societies” vs “authoritarian illiberal” ones. The fact that China and Russia think that tomorrow belongs to them (witness Putin’s recent attack on liberalism and what has come out today about China’s treatment of the Uighurs) is very troubling.
I wish we did have far-sighted leaders in the West who articulated, demonstrated and stood up for the best of Western values.
I think that is partly right. The dynamics will be far more complex and fluid than in the Cold War. Environmental, atheist vs religious, Islamic v Christian, haves vs have nots will all provide tensions of a similar scale to liberal vs illiberal. It is probably a lot further away but its not impossible biotech or robotics are also at the centre of global tensions for the next generation.
With so many competing impacts, countries and even groups within countries wont sit clearly on one side of a dominant global power struggle looking for a single leader, as we did in the Cold War. It would still be great to have far sighted persuasive Western leaders but if they do come along we shouldnt expect them to always be on our side, but should view them as a powerful friend not our leader vs others.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
"Magnanimous in defeat"? What an absurd comment that can only come from a Leaver who has belatedly seen his preferred outcome slip away. It has nothing to do with the dynamics of 2016.
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
Certainly EEA can only really be an option in about 10 years time once EU migration has been brought under control
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
Yes, that's correct. Equally had Remainers been more magnanimous in defeat it would have been a better outcome. But from the beginning, they refused to even accept a BINO solution, much less one that addressed the concerns of Leavers.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
Problem is hard line leavers are convinced that no deal Brexit is the default so where's the incentive for them to be reasonable particularly since the default mood for many of them is to be unreasonable. The reverse is also true for Remainers, except for them the default is remain.
There are two default positions if all else fails:
Revoke or No Deal
That may explain why the factions are pushing to the brink. Or there may be idiots on both sides.
Imagine a 16 yo was wheeled out to give a view on new cancer treatment or surgical techniques.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
Utter tosh.
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial. Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Name another pressure group that has resorted to putting up a disturbed yoof as the face of a campaign of fear ?
It’s wrong.
"a disturbed yoof' ? You sound a little disturbed yourself.
I once read that a successful marriage needs both parties to try to do 60% of the work. In the UK right now, Remainers and Leavers expect the other side to do 90%. The same is true of the UK and EU negotiations. It is just layering bad blood on top of bad blood.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
While I go along with this in general, the context is a failed Brexit policy. Do we accept half a failure? Maybe we do, but the point is, the compromise isn't just the midpoint between two positions where both sides get more than half of what they want.
The main problem has been that Leave won by a very small margin, but it's most vociferous supporters subsequently behaved if they won with 92% of the vote, rather than the more measly 52% . If they had been more magnanimous in victory it would have been a better outcome
des need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
"Magnanimous in defeat"? What an absurd comment that can only come from a Leaver who has belatedly seen his preferred outcome slip away. It has nothing to do with the dynamics of 2016.
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
I voted Remain, accepted CU/SM as a second preference that respected democracy and still want to Rejoin. But you are such a headbanging Remainer you see anyone not in your absolutist position as being a Leaver.
Your attitudes betray your not-very-convincing act. You'd do better being honest about your (pretty obvious) position. You discredit it with your deceit.
Yes, those terrible attitudes about wanting compromise and ownership from all involved! I must be one of the enemy!
Comments
Looks like Essex have another decent young spinner coming through in Aron Nijar. It would be handy for him if Harmer were 'promoted'.
This might work for the "let's make the world burn" Trump-types but it boggles my mind that Remainers, who want us to have a long-lasting membership of the EU, think it's a good idea.
The problem is logical thoughts aren't leading this on either side. Visceral, self-righteous desire to crush the other side is.
Then yes.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/pj2oug2ore/PeoplesVote_190920_w.pdf
Full result
Con 30
Lab 23
LD 22
SNP 4
Brex 14
Green 5
Other 1
The pumping of secondary information other than VI often muddies the water.
And then a step to the ... left again.
https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/rs-181480-774274_c.jpg?resize=900,600&w=1200
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1176156474848022528
Good summary!
LibDems are having one of their best conferences in years!!
It's very cultish isn't it.
Even if they were...... or
Even if they weren't...….
It would indeed be handy for Nijjar if Harmer were 'promoted'; personally, having seen him bowl several times I'm hoping I saw him on bad days!
That objection doesn't make sense given the latest UK proposal includes a single agriculture zone, so the cows would be under EU regulation.
If they write it down, they'll definitely go bust. So the 'friendly' auditor convinces themselves its definitely worth £2.5bn in goodwill.
When everyone knows its worth jack.
While compromise is great at finding a solution that is acceptable, there is no certainty that a compromise solution is the most beneficial solution. Sometimes you just have to make a decision and weather the unpopularity for long term gain.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
It would be a field day for the press and destory any pretence of unity in Labour.
I've yet to see Cook live so will take your word for it. Anyway he's young enough to quicken up if he works on it and stays fit, but bowling at real pace is very tough on the body. One of Joff Archer's greatest assets is that he generates his pace off a short run up and smooth action, so his body is likely to withstand the strain better than most, but you'll know how few can withstand the rigors of regular exertions.
That leaves Customs (and FOM).
TBC. Needs to be split due to Charachter count...
In the meantime, the country founders.
The crisis has been ongoing for ages.
If Labour play this right (OK it is a big if) they can stamp on the idea that the Conservatives are careful with money. Agree. There is something called Regression to the mean.
One thing which is a known unknown, but very large unknown is how stable is Boris' Honeymoon Effect. It is clear that new PMs do get a Honeymoon Effect and Johnson is having his at the moment. What has not really been tested is how robust this is to an election campaign? The closest example we have was May calling an election after 8 Months as PM, when she was clearly still "On Honeymoon"!
FOM is mainly dealt with via the CTA for British and Irish citizens. The minority of non-Irish EU citizens is a problem for the UK, not the EU, so London can just put checks in the Irish sea or do it via the same method as visa overstays.
Revoke or No Deal
That may explain why the factions are pushing to the brink. Or there may be idiots on both sides.
They would be laughed off stage if they hadn’t a degree in medicine or any experience.
Shows climate panic is a religion - hence not subject to normal rules of rigour.
Her parents should be ashamed of themselves.
My own mother had trouble getting her name on the deeds of her first house because in the 1970s that was regarded as a man's responsibility.
It rankles to know that just because you are born without a willy (and for no other reason) in large parts of the world you are worth less than cars or property. 200 years ago, it was not all that different around these parts...
The EEA Leavers skulked behind the anti-immigration mob, hoping to swoop in afterwards to get what they wanted by positioning themselves in the fulcrum. What they hadn't appreciated was that the manner of victory was as important as the victory itself, and a Brexit that did not deal with immigration concerns was an entirely invalid Brexit.
Of course, a Brexit that deals with immigration concerns leads us to the wretched point we now are at. But that was the inevitable consequence of falling in behind xenophobic lies.
That is not being religious.
Having watched both Mills and Topley before they decided they could do better elsewhere agree there, too. Mills especially was only useful in 4 over spells, and Topley just didn't really seem to have the body for sustained fast bowling.
Shameful cowardice that greens hide backstage and send this girl up to front the scam.
A 10 year extension should do it
She's an activist trying to get across how her generation feel about your generation's science denial.
Sixteen year old kids may not know everything we know, but that hardly makes their concerns about their future invalid.
Now both sides need to give a little and work out something in the middle, dealing with each other in good faith.
That's how I see it. Irrespective of the likes of the ERG and their howling, the Remain lobby, at least to my reckoning, never acknowledged that the reason for Leave winning may be down to the fact that the EU has issues. Issues that need to be addressed. There was never, immediately after the vote especially, any evident contrition - only increasingly angry remonstrances with Leavers (as demonstrated on this site).
This is not to say Leavers acted with the necessary magnanimity - a lot didn't and don't - but there was space for compromise early-on. Maybe there still is.
If any of the most ardent Remainers on this site were to show and acknowledge that the EU isn't perfect, its leaders/technocrats do lie and cheat like any other politician , and that fundamental reform of the EU is necessary to a) address the concerns of at least 50% of the British public and b) put it on a more stable keel going into the future then I would quite happily compromise myself on what leaving the EU meant - if at all.
Leavers accept we can't just cut ourselves adrift. Remainers acknowledge things can't stay the same.
If we could remain, perhaps we could create concrete mechanisms for preventing any further integration via treaty or legislative creep by triple locking acceptance via separate super- majorities of MEPS; MP's and Referendum. Just an idea. Probably wouldn't work but at least we can maintain the status-quo without pandering to the fears (rightly or wrongly) held by many that the EU is a one way street to superstatedom.
It’s wrong.
For instance, how do you trade off the speed of cutting carbon emissions and any job losses that may come from that? Or harm done to the economy by fast moves?
This is not to say do nothing, but it is saying that the experts she wants us to listen to may weight things differently, and have their own biases. A government should look at things in total.
But it's true - no one has quit to date, except those seeking a compromise as they see the chance has gone. So now we await to see which side gives up first.
73. ...
74. People who think "The Last Jedi" is in any sense good
75. People who say "Are you alright?" when they mean "Can I help you"
76. People who use the phrases "in good faith" and "in utmost good faith" wrongly
77. Vaping
78. ...
How did it turn out for Wet Willy ?
With so many competing impacts, countries and even groups within countries wont sit clearly on one side of a dominant global power struggle looking for a single leader, as we did in the Cold War. It would still be great to have far sighted persuasive Western leaders but if they do come along we shouldnt expect them to always be on our side, but should view them as a powerful friend not our leader vs others.
You sound a little disturbed yourself.