“When you ask a normal, right-handed person about something he’s supposed to have seen, if he looks upward and to his left, he’s truly accessing his memory of the incident,” Bouton says. “However, if he looks upward and to his right, he’s accessing his imagination, and he’s inventing an answer.”
Point of order. I think that's an urban myth popularised by the late 90s film "The Negotiator". I don't think it's true IRL. Happy to be contradicted if wrong.
Yes, that's total twaddle. It's a well know fact of psychology that there are no mannerisms that can be used to determine whether someone is lying.
There is no body language that will always tell you for all people, but there is certainly some body language that will tell you most of the time for many people.
The diagonal upwards eye movements and what they mean when they are to the left and right: that isn't from a 1990s film; it's from neurolinguistic programming which will almost certainly be where that film got it from. See Bandler and Grinder's book Frogs into Princes from the 1970s.
As for upward left meaning remembered visual and upward right meaning constructed visual, left-handed people mostly do it the other way round.
Jeremy Corbyn probably doesn't watch the queen's speech at Christmas and remember every word fondly all the time until the following year, any more than he enjoys reading the Sun with his breakfast toast. He's a politician aiming to win votes. Anybody who has a rock solid objection to politicians acting like politicians shouldn't vote. Look on the bright side - at least he can eat a bag of chips like a human being, unlike Theresa May.
The point is he lied about it, pointlessly. He can never have watched it 'in the morning' so has clearly never watched it. I've never watched it either, I don't see the need to lie and I'm also aware its a 3 o'clock thing by dint of being alive and not brain dead. Your argument can be reductio ad absurdumed to 'boo hoo my guy is a twat'
Last post. My argument is many people are not details people, they dont remember specifics of times, dates, directions, peoples names. As people age these trends to get stronger, with grandparents often calling grandkids by their kids names for example.
Corbyn is not my guy at all, he is a disaster, but anyone finding fault in that interview is going to find fault in whatever he does.
So you're suggesting Corbyn is too old to be able to master details and that shouldn't be relevant to his ability to be PM?
I'd rather go with the "it was a stupid lie" defence than that.
I don’t blame Corbyn for not answering the romance question . What a stupid question . And if you answer it then most might reach for the sick bag .
It's so disappointing that he didn't reply that the most romantic sort of wild and reckless thing he'd ever done was whisk the young Diane Abbott off on a motorcycle tour of the state-owned factories of East Germany.
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
East Lothian is one of only three constituencies that Labour holds in the Scottish Parliament (Iain Gray) so I agree that it must be one of their better chances for a hold. Just wonder whether SCon voters would be able to bear voting for Corbyn. Will be an interesting one - as SCon had a v good result in a fairly recent council by-election in this seat, going from third to first.
I don’t blame Corbyn for not answering the romance question . What a stupid question . And if you answer it then most might reach for the sick bag .
It's so disappointing that he didn't reply that the most romantic sort of wild and reckless thing he'd ever done was whisk the young Diane Abbott off on a motorcycle tour of the state-owned factories of East Germany.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
What is so funny? Because you don't like her? I am not sure she is my cup of tea, but I think her appearance of honesty might contrast very well with Johnson, and she is from the midlands and doesn't sound as though she has a whole tree full of plums up her arse. The only reason Johnson has a chance of winning this election is because Labour are headed by Mr Thicky. Remove Mr Thicky and it will be bye bye Boris next election.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
I suspect his advisers told him that he had to say he did, because they were worried that it might play into the narrative / suspicions (especially among Northern voters) that he isn't really much of a fan of Britain.
That’s because he’s really not a fan of Britain, and especially not of its institutions.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
Its just like Gordon Brown pretending that he like the Arctic Monkeys.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
Its just like Gordon Brown pretending that he like the Arctic Monkeys.
Why do politicians do this shit. Nobody decides their vote on Gordon Brown because he says he likes R3 rather than Arctic Monkeys, or that Cameron isn't really a footie fan.
Given that the Royal family are planning to have a low profile for a while, for obvious reasons it's probably not wise to mention them too often.
Queens Speech? Dim memory of watching that some 40years ago, is it still on the television around Christmas time. Sorry if I missed something important here.I might have dozed through it as most of us do.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
Its just like Gordon Brown pretending that he like the Arctic Monkeys.
No it isn't. It's like Gordon Brown not knowing what biscuits he prefers.
Status quo of UK - US trade is WTO terms. What dire scenario are you imagining that a UK PM and majority of Parliament are prepared to end their careers by yielding on this point in order to get a trade deal in place?
This is puerile playground stuff.
The scenario would be where we genuinely need the deal because its successful implementation is expected to bring great benefits. In which case a PM with the national interest at heart - and with the next election perhaps years away - might not allow the sacred cow status of the NHS to get in the away. Course if we don't need the deal, that is wholly different.
Question 1) Does Canada have a free trade agreement with the US?
Question 2) What is the relative price of pharmaceuticals in Canada versus the US?
If you get both these answers right, your prize is the wisdom to ignore the bullshit coming out of Labour and vote for someone else.
Brexit Party not to win a seat 5/4 Brexit party to win Heywood & Middleton 33/1 Lib Dem’s 10-19 seats 4/1 Conservatives under 340.5 seats 11/10 Con maj 4/5
Serously Isam - is that all you have bet on this GE? I`m on my third side of A4.
Yes I haven’t really got involved at all. I made a mistake there, I laid NOM at 5/4 rather than backed Con maj at 4/5
Where did you get Lib Dem's 10-19 seats 4/1? Best I could find is 13/5 with Paddy Power.
It was a while ago on Betfair Exchange. I thought the Lib Dem’s would be hyped to kingdom come and flatter to deceive, And intended to oppose them, but the hype stopped earlier than I expected, so I only got that one bet on.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
I expect he'll be along in a minute. Meanwhile let's hear it from you about the lying charlatan who is currently PM.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
Its just like Gordon Brown pretending that he like the Arctic Monkeys.
Why do politicians do this shit. Nobody decides their vote on Gordon Brown because he says he likes R3 rather than Arctic Monkeys, or that Cameron isn't really a footie fan.
but they when they think the guy is a lying little shit. Boruis is a liar but he does it better. Corbyn looks shifty all the time. McDonnell saying he would give no 11 to a homeless person, just makes him look an even bigger prat.
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
Kilmarnock is a safe SNP seat (SNP currently 1/20). You mean Kirkcaldy, on the other side of the country, in Fife. Lesley Laird, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, has no SNP opponent. The party have withdrawn support.
Crowdfunding campaigns for this seat:
Mullin (SNP) 2015 £2,235 Mullin (SNP) 2017 £2,625 ScotGreen 2017 £707 to date Lesley Laird (LAB) 2017 £1,425 to date Neale Hanvey (IND, former SNP) 2017 £6,090 in 5 days since being de-selected
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
Its just like Gordon Brown pretending that he like the Arctic Monkeys.
I am sure that is why the journos like to ask these questions. They know that most politicians will come up with something really cringey, and therefore memorable because they don't have the guts to say anything either witty, self depreciating or tell the interviewer they aren't answering. I remember Cameron and Davis in the Conservative leadership campaign being asked what type of underwear they wore, boxers or briefs ffs! Davis said briefs and I needed the mind bleach!
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
Its just like Gordon Brown pretending that he like the Arctic Monkeys.
Why do politicians do this shit. Nobody decides their vote on Gordon Brown because he says he likes R3 rather than Arctic Monkeys, or that Cameron isn't really a footie fan.
but they when they think the guy is a lying little shit. Boruis is a liar but he does it better. Corbyn looks shifty all the time. McDonnell saying he would give no 11 to a homeless person, just makes him look an even bigger prat.
When you say Boris Trump 'does it better', do you mean he tells bigger whoppers, more brazenly or manages a nicer smile whilst lying? Or maybe a combination of all three?
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
Kilmarnock is a safe SNP seat (SNP currently 1/20). You mean Kirkcaldy, on the other side of the country, in Fife. Lesley Laird, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, has no SNP opponent. The party have withdrawn support.
Crowdfunding campaigns for this seat: Years corrected!
Mullin (SNP) 2015 £2,235 Mullin (SNP) 2017 £2,625 ScotGreen 2019 £707 to date Lesley Laird (LAB) 2019 £1,425 to date Neale Hanvey (IND, former SNP) 2017 £6,090 in 5 days since being de-selected
What is so funny? Because you don't like her? I am not sure she is my cup of tea, but I think her appearance of honesty might contrast very well with Johnson, and she is from the midlands and doesn't sound as though she has a whole tree full of plums up her arse. The only reason Johnson has a chance of winning this election is because Labour are headed by Mr Thicky. Remove Mr Thicky and it will be bye bye Boris next election.
Appearance of honesty is right. Whereas in fact she stages things to make points like the so-called confrontation with Johnson. Or the 'my staff are barricaded in' with the guy who knocked on the windows (whom she laughed and joked with at his hearing). That, and I detest women politicians who do photo shoots. Its extremely tacky. As was Rees Moggs for Tatler tbf. Plus she has zero shadow ministerial experience.
And that is another thing. I for one do not have a favourite biscuit.
Me neither. Nobody does in truth. But if I'm faced with the question - unless it's posed in a menacing way - I will come up with something. Reason being that it's flattering to be asked.
What is so funny? Because you don't like her? I am not sure she is my cup of tea, but I think her appearance of honesty might contrast very well with Johnson, and she is from the midlands and doesn't sound as though she has a whole tree full of plums up her arse. The only reason Johnson has a chance of winning this election is because Labour are headed by Mr Thicky. Remove Mr Thicky and it will be bye bye Boris next election.
Pretty much what Ken Clarke said at his talk, and the Big Beast usually calls it pretty straight.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Now it's Boris who sounds petulant and rattled when asked a perfectly reasonable question (albeit one not related to the NATO summit):
Q: Did you make it clear to Trump that the NHS would not be on the table in trade talks? If so, does that mean this time next year the UK could be leaving the transition with no EU trade deal and no US trade deal?
Johnson says the questions are now scrapping the bottom of the barrel. He will wrap up. He ends with a riff about the choice at the election: between getting Brexit done, and having two referendums.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
Its just like Gordon Brown pretending that he like the Arctic Monkeys.
Why do politicians do this shit. Nobody decides their vote on Gordon Brown because he says he likes R3 rather than Arctic Monkeys, or that Cameron isn't really a footie fan.
but they when they think the guy is a lying little shit. Boruis is a liar but he does it better. Corbyn looks shifty all the time. McDonnell saying he would give no 11 to a homeless person, just makes him look an even bigger prat.
When you say Boris Trump 'does it better', do you mean he tells bigger whoppers, more brazenly or manages a nicer smile whilst lying? Or maybe a combination of all three?
For me its a case of Boris being Boris, I don't like him. I am only voting for him to keep Corbyn out. He does not instill the feeling of utter loathing I have for Corbyn.
If Brexit was not on the horizon I would not vote for either main party, most likely abstain, given Swinson's lack of capability in the job.
What is so funny? Because you don't like her? I am not sure she is my cup of tea, but I think her appearance of honesty might contrast very well with Johnson, and she is from the midlands and doesn't sound as though she has a whole tree full of plums up her arse. The only reason Johnson has a chance of winning this election is because Labour are headed by Mr Thicky. Remove Mr Thicky and it will be bye bye Boris next election.
Appearance of honesty is right. Whereas in fact she stages things to make points like the so-called confrontation with Johnson. Or the 'my staff are barricaded in' with the guy who knocked on the windows (whom she laughed and joked with at his hearing). That, and I detest women politicians who do photo shoots. Its extremely tacky. As was Rees Moggs for Tatler tbf. Plus she has zero shadow ministerial experience.
I think using her kid to make a political stunt is what will put people off Philipps.
Just say no, its not difficult. I don't, I'd rather spend the time with my family. No reason not to say that.
Sounds as if he is like most people who are not determined either to watch it or miss it. A lot of families will have the telly on all day and if HMQ happens to be on, then are they watching it?
Exactly. Most sane people will have sometimes watched it and other times not. Many will not know what time it is despite having watched it sometimes.
Bullshit...everybody knows the Queen speech is on in the afternoon. Even those that don't watch it, normally so as to make sure you have something else queued up for the moving picture box at that time.
Hold on. Surely the Queen's Speech used to be on in the morning -- but on the radio -- and then repeated on telly in the afternoon? Is that no longer the case?
First Queen's Speech was at 3.07pm, Christmas 1952
Yeah there was some bloke on the year before.
Corbyn is an epic lying little shit.. Is SO here to call him out on it.
Its just like Gordon Brown pretending that he like the Arctic Monkeys.
Why do politicians do this shit. Nobody decides their vote on Gordon Brown because he says he likes R3 rather than Arctic Monkeys, or that Cameron isn't really a footie fan.
but they when they think the guy is a lying little shit. Boruis is a liar but he does it better. Corbyn looks shifty all the time. McDonnell saying he would give no 11 to a homeless person, just makes him look an even bigger prat.
When you say Boris Trump 'does it better', do you mean he tells bigger whoppers, more brazenly or manages a nicer smile whilst lying? Or maybe a combination of all three?
For me its a case of Boris being Boris, I don't like him. I am only voting for him to keep Corbyn out. He does not instill the feeling of utter loathing I have for Corbyn.
If Brexit was not on the horizon I would not vote for either main party, most likely abstain, given Swinson's lack of capability in the job.
If you want to vote for a liar and a charlatan, just say so. No need to try and justify it.
Status quo of UK - US trade is WTO terms. What dire scenario are you imagining that a UK PM and majority of Parliament are prepared to end their careers by yielding on this point in order to get a trade deal in place?
This is puerile playground stuff.
The scenario would be where we genuinely need the deal because its successful implementation is expected to bring great benefits. In which case a PM with the national interest at heart - and with the next election perhaps years away - might not allow the sacred cow status of the NHS to get in the away. Course if we don't need the deal, that is wholly different.
Question 1) Does Canada have a free trade agreement with the US?
Question 2) What is the relative price of pharmaceuticals in Canada versus the US?
If you get both these answers right, your prize is the wisdom to ignore the bullshit coming out of Labour and vote for someone else.
I`m guessing: 1) No 2) Canada higher prices I`d say - they tax the fuck out of everything there.
Given that the Royal family are planning to have a low profile for a while, for obvious reasons it's probably not wise to mention them too often.
Queens Speech? Dim memory of watching that some 40years ago, is it still on the television around Christmas time. Sorry if I missed something important here.I might have dozed through it as most of us do.
I don't think that anyone cares about Corbyn not watching it. It's the lying to pretend he is patriotic which hurts. It both cuts through a previous strength ("he tells things as he sees them") while reinforcing a negative (wouldn't sing the National Anthem, opposes NATO, coddles up to Britain's enemies).
Status quo of UK - US trade is WTO terms. What dire scenario are you imagining that a UK PM and majority of Parliament are prepared to end their careers by yielding on this point in order to get a trade deal in place?
This is puerile playground stuff.
The scenario would be where we genuinely need the deal because its successful implementation is expected to bring great benefits. In which case a PM with the national interest at heart - and with the next election perhaps years away - might not allow the sacred cow status of the NHS to get in the away. Course if we don't need the deal, that is wholly different.
Question 1) Does Canada have a free trade agreement with the US?
Question 2) What is the relative price of pharmaceuticals in Canada versus the US?
If you get both these answers right, your prize is the wisdom to ignore the bullshit coming out of Labour and vote for someone else.
I`m guessing: 1) No 2) Canada higher prices I`d say - they tax the fuck out of everything there.
It's Yes although Trump doesn't like it Canada has lower prices than the USA.
What is so funny? Because you don't like her? I am not sure she is my cup of tea, but I think her appearance of honesty might contrast very well with Johnson, and she is from the midlands and doesn't sound as though she has a whole tree full of plums up her arse. The only reason Johnson has a chance of winning this election is because Labour are headed by Mr Thicky. Remove Mr Thicky and it will be bye bye Boris next election.
Appearance of honesty is right. Whereas in fact she stages things to make points like the so-called confrontation with Johnson. Or the 'my staff are barricaded in' with the guy who knocked on the windows (whom she laughed and joked with at his hearing). That, and I detest women politicians who do photo shoots. Its extremely tacky. As was Rees Moggs for Tatler tbf. Plus she has zero shadow ministerial experience.
I think using her kid to make a political stunt is what will put people off Philipps.
Yes indeed - much worse than anything that nice Mr Johnson and sweet old Corbyn have done. Priorities eh, Gab?
I don’t blame Corbyn for not answering the romance question . What a stupid question . And if you answer it then most might reach for the sick bag .
It's so disappointing that he didn't reply that the most romantic sort of wild and reckless thing he'd ever done was whisk the young Diane Abbott off on a motorcycle tour of the state-owned factories of East Germany.
That actually sounds kind of fun, a nice balance of romantic and weird.
Status quo of UK - US trade is WTO terms. What dire scenario are you imagining that a UK PM and majority of Parliament are prepared to end their careers by yielding on this point in order to get a trade deal in place?
This is puerile playground stuff.
The scenario would be where we genuinely need the deal because its successful implementation is expected to bring great benefits. In which case a PM with the national interest at heart - and with the next election perhaps years away - might not allow the sacred cow status of the NHS to get in the away. Course if we don't need the deal, that is wholly different.
Question 1) Does Canada have a free trade agreement with the US?
Question 2) What is the relative price of pharmaceuticals in Canada versus the US?
If you get both these answers right, your prize is the wisdom to ignore the bullshit coming out of Labour and vote for someone else.
I`m guessing: 1) No 2) Canada higher prices I`d say - they tax the fuck out of everything there.
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
East Lothian is one of only three constituencies that Labour holds in the Scottish Parliament (Iain Gray) so I agree that it must be one of their better chances for a hold. Just wonder whether SCon voters would be able to bear voting for Corbyn. Will be an interesting one - as SCon had a v good result in a fairly recent council by-election in this seat, going from third to first.
Almost impossible for Unionists to know who to vote for in East Lothian. On paper, SLab are strongest, but all recent data points to the SCons being a stronger challenger to the SNP.
Naturally, this lack of clarity heavily favours the SNP. Best prices:
Status quo of UK - US trade is WTO terms. What dire scenario are you imagining that a UK PM and majority of Parliament are prepared to end their careers by yielding on this point in order to get a trade deal in place?
This is puerile playground stuff.
The scenario would be where we genuinely need the deal because its successful implementation is expected to bring great benefits. In which case a PM with the national interest at heart - and with the next election perhaps years away - might not allow the sacred cow status of the NHS to get in the away. Course if we don't need the deal, that is wholly different.
Question 1) Does Canada have a free trade agreement with the US?
Question 2) What is the relative price of pharmaceuticals in Canada versus the US?
If you get both these answers right, your prize is the wisdom to ignore the bullshit coming out of Labour and vote for someone else.
I`m guessing: 1) No 2) Canada higher prices I`d say - they tax the fuck out of everything there.
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
East Lothian is one of only three constituencies that Labour holds in the Scottish Parliament (Iain Gray) so I agree that it must be one of their better chances for a hold. Just wonder whether SCon voters would be able to bear voting for Corbyn. Will be an interesting one - as SCon had a v good result in a fairly recent council by-election in this seat, going from third to first.
Almost impossible for Unionists to know who to vote for in East Lothian. On paper, SLab are strongest, but all recent data points to the SCons being a stronger challenger to the SNP.
Naturally, this lack of clarity heavily favours the SNP. Best prices:
SNP 8/11 SLab 3/1 SCon 16/5 SLD 125/1
I enjoy your posts - they focus on the betting. How many total SNP seats do you reckon?
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
Kilmarnock is a safe SNP seat (SNP currently 1/20). You mean Kirkcaldy, on the other side of the country, in Fife. Lesley Laird, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, has no SNP opponent. The party have withdrawn support.
Crowdfunding campaigns for this seat:
Mullin (SNP) 2015 £2,235 Mullin (SNP) 2017 £2,625 ScotGreen 2017 £707 to date Lesley Laird (LAB) 2017 £1,425 to date Neale Hanvey (IND, former SNP) 2017 £6,090 in 5 days since being de-selected
If Neale Hanvey wins, will bookies pay out on SNP bets?
Status quo of UK - US trade is WTO terms. What dire scenario are you imagining that a UK PM and majority of Parliament are prepared to end their careers by yielding on this point in order to get a trade deal in place?
This is puerile playground stuff.
The scenario would be where we genuinely need the deal because its successful implementation is expected to bring great benefits. In which case a PM with the national interest at heart - and with the next election perhaps years away - might not allow the sacred cow status of the NHS to get in the away. Course if we don't need the deal, that is wholly different.
Question 1) Does Canada have a free trade agreement with the US?
Question 2) What is the relative price of pharmaceuticals in Canada versus the US?
If you get both these answers right, your prize is the wisdom to ignore the bullshit coming out of Labour and vote for someone else.
I`m guessing: 1) No 2) Canada higher prices I`d say - they tax the fuck out of everything there.
It's Yes although Trump doesn't like it Canada has lower prices than the USA.
Ding ding!
So we have established that there is no ratified trade deal between the EU and US. So the status quo for the UK is trading under WTO tariff schedule. Nothing has to be done to end up where we are now with respect to our US trading arrangement.
Should both parties decide it optimal to reduce barriers to trade, precedent says it is perfectly possible to agree a trade deal with the US that will not lead to rampant inflation in drugs prices for the NHS.
So we can conclude that this component of Labour’s campaign is a concocted nonsense.
Hence Boris’s comment today about the subject “scraping the bottom of the barrel”.
Bear in mind their core vote is capable of weapons grade mawkishness about how we fund our hospitals. For some that's a substitute for the monarchy but a large demographic reveres both in parallel.
btw John Mcdonnell on WATO sounding 150% as old, querulous, past it and out of his depth as Jezza. Not a good day for team red.
Ivan Lewis has conceded he cant win Bury South and endorses the Tories
Wow - he`s ex Labour isn`t he?
He was one of the indies that quit labour. He says he is sorry he left it late but having received anti semitic abuse from a senior unite official and talking to voters he has concluded Tory is the best way to stop Corbyn.
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
East Lothian is one of only three constituencies that Labour holds in the Scottish Parliament (Iain Gray) so I agree that it must be one of their better chances for a hold. Just wonder whether SCon voters would be able to bear voting for Corbyn. Will be an interesting one - as SCon had a v good result in a fairly recent council by-election in this seat, going from third to first.
Almost impossible for Unionists to know who to vote for in East Lothian. On paper, SLab are strongest, but all recent data points to the SCons being a stronger challenger to the SNP.
Naturally, this lack of clarity heavily favours the SNP. Best prices:
SNP 8/11 SLab 3/1 SCon 16/5 SLD 125/1
I enjoy your posts - they focus on the betting. How many total SNP seats do you reckon?
Low 40s.
If pushed for an exact figure: 41.
(If I’m miles out, in my defence, there are a hell of a lot of marginals.)
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
East Lothian is one of only three constituencies that Labour holds in the Scottish Parliament (Iain Gray) so I agree that it must be one of their better chances for a hold. Just wonder whether SCon voters would be able to bear voting for Corbyn. Will be an interesting one - as SCon had a v good result in a fairly recent council by-election in this seat, going from third to first.
Almost impossible for Unionists to know who to vote for in East Lothian. On paper, SLab are strongest, but all recent data points to the SCons being a stronger challenger to the SNP.
Naturally, this lack of clarity heavily favours the SNP. Best prices:
SNP 8/11 SLab 3/1 SCon 16/5 SLD 125/1
I enjoy your posts - they focus on the betting. How many total SNP seats do you reckon?
Low 40s.
If pushed for an exact figure: 41.
(If I’m miles out, in my defence, there are a hell of a lot of marginals.)
It is a nightmare to call, I think I've settled on 43 but fear I am being overly optimistic.
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
East Lothian is one of only three constituencies that Labour holds in the Scottish Parliament (Iain Gray) so I agree that it must be one of their better chances for a hold. Just wonder whether SCon voters would be able to bear voting for Corbyn. Will be an interesting one - as SCon had a v good result in a fairly recent council by-election in this seat, going from third to first.
Almost impossible for Unionists to know who to vote for in East Lothian. On paper, SLab are strongest, but all recent data points to the SCons being a stronger challenger to the SNP.
Naturally, this lack of clarity heavily favours the SNP. Best prices:
SNP 8/11 SLab 3/1 SCon 16/5 SLD 125/1
I enjoy your posts - they focus on the betting. How many total SNP seats do you reckon?
Low 40s.
If pushed for an exact figure: 41.
(If I’m miles out, in my defence, there are a hell of a lot of marginals.)
I reckon trying to pick the Scottish seats is the trickiest aspect of this election by miles. Tories could be anywhere from 3 to 16.
Well that's what really matters in this election - not Brexit, not the NHS, not Pensions, NATO, not anything like that. It's The Queen's Speech!
I am not saying this will change anything, but the strangest things do....think Ed and his bacon sandwich and the Ed Stone definitely hurt Labour.
I suspect people who are 'persuaded' by that sort of thing are only looking for a way to justify their tribal views. It's depressingly trivial and banal, but people who are open to persuasion wouldn't be troubled or influenced by such nonsense.
Boris is pretty good at the PM press conference lark.
Cleared a date for Andrew Neill yet?
If I was Boris, I'd avoid one too. Zero upside from doing it.
Sure, and it's ok for Brave Sir Boris to run away, but if anybody else did it.....
I don't think so.
Pretty sure many a politician has avoided Neil at election times. In fact I can't recall any election ever where the PM was interviewed by Neil and went on to win a majority.
Unless I am mistaken I don't recall Cameron ever being interviewed by Neil at election time and I don't recall you or others making a big deal about that.
Well that's what really matters in this election - not Brexit, not the NHS, not Pensions, NATO, not anything like that. It's The Queen's Speech!
But it's not really about the Queens Speech per se is it? Its about the fact that even on something as trivial as what he watches on Christmas Day Jezza appears evasive and untrustworthy...
This is the sort of thing that will cut through with voters (much more so than the ins and outs of Brexit etc)
Status quo of UK - US trade is WTO terms. What dire scenario are you imagining that a UK PM and majority of Parliament are prepared to end their careers by yielding on this point in order to get a trade deal in place?
This is puerile playground stuff.
The scenario would be where we genuinely need the deal because its successful implementation is expected to bring great benefits. In which case a PM with the national interest at heart - and with the next election perhaps years away - might not allow the sacred cow status of the NHS to get in the away. Course if we don't need the deal, that is wholly different.
Question 1) Does Canada have a free trade agreement with the US?
Question 2) What is the relative price of pharmaceuticals in Canada versus the US?
If you get both these answers right, your prize is the wisdom to ignore the bullshit coming out of Labour and vote for someone else.
I`m guessing: 1) No 2) Canada higher prices I`d say - they tax the fuck out of everything there.
1. Yes. 2. Massively cheaper, thanks to Canada having what Americans call a ‘single payer’ system that involves (as happens in the U.K.) a single negotiation for the whole country’s drug supply, and doesn’t involve pharmaceutical companies taking doctors on holiday and advertising prescription-only drugs on TV.
Been out - what's the Queen's Speech thing please?
Jezza's just crashed the clown car again.
He got caught lying, claiming he watches the Queen's speech in the morning....then went on to say he would give Chequers over to the homeless and couldn't list a single thing he has ever done that is romantic.
Status quo of UK - US trade is WTO terms. What dire scenario are you imagining that a UK PM and majority of Parliament are prepared to end their careers by yielding on this point in order to get a trade deal in place?
This is puerile playground stuff.
The scenario would be where we genuinely need the deal because its successful implementation is expected to bring great benefits. In which case a PM with the national interest at heart - and with the next election perhaps years away - might not allow the sacred cow status of the NHS to get in the away. Course if we don't need the deal, that is wholly different.
Question 1) Does Canada have a free trade agreement with the US?
Question 2) What is the relative price of pharmaceuticals in Canada versus the US?
If you get both these answers right, your prize is the wisdom to ignore the bullshit coming out of Labour and vote for someone else.
I`m guessing: 1) No 2) Canada higher prices I`d say - they tax the fuck out of everything there.
1. Yes. 2. Massively cheaper, thanks to Canada having what Americans call a ‘single payer’ system that involves (as happens in the U.K.) a single negotiation for the whole country’s drug supply, and doesn’t involve pharmaceutical companies taking doctors on holiday and advertising prescription-only drugs on TV.
Twitter really is like an alternative reality....I just gone on and absolutely Queen's speech is a huge media smear about how Jezza doesn't watch the it.
I'm hearing Jeremy Corbyn will announce his resignation at 3.15pm today and then voluntarily run the gauntlet at 10 different British Legion clubs before sitting in some stocks to be pelted by Sun-reading Millwall fans.
Defending the NHS, abolishing tuition fees, and renationalising rail are one thing, but not standing to attention and saluting Her Majesty and asking God to bless the entire royal family before tucking into Christmas dinner is a disgrace and snap polls were showing a 15% swing from Labour to the Tories.
Well that's what really matters in this election - not Brexit, not the NHS, not Pensions, NATO, not anything like that. It's The Queen's Speech!
You’ll rarely get a better example of how divorced some PBers are from reality. This place is a weird bubble. The inhabitants are not normal. They wildly exaggerate tiny variables on voting behaviour and totally ignore huge variables affecting voting behaviour.
Boris is pretty good at the PM press conference lark.
Cleared a date for Andrew Neill yet?
If I was Boris, I'd avoid one too. Zero upside from doing it.
Sure, and it's ok for Brave Sir Boris to run away, but if anybody else did it.....
I don't think so.
Pretty sure many a politician has avoided Neil at election times. In fact I can't recall any election ever where the PM was interviewed by Neil and went on to win a majority.
Unless I am mistaken I don't recall Cameron ever being interviewed by Neil at election time and I don't recall you or others making a big deal about that.
Cameron refused to face Paxo after the first time; he mentions it in his book.
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
Kilmarnock is a safe SNP seat (SNP currently 1/20). You mean Kirkcaldy, on the other side of the country, in Fife. Lesley Laird, the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, has no SNP opponent. The party have withdrawn support.
Crowdfunding campaigns for this seat:
Mullin (SNP) 2015 £2,235 Mullin (SNP) 2017 £2,625 ScotGreen 2017 £707 to date Lesley Laird (LAB) 2017 £1,425 to date Neale Hanvey (IND, former SNP) 2017 £6,090 in 5 days since being de-selected
If Neale Hanvey wins, will bookies pay out on SNP bets?
Well that's what really matters in this election - not Brexit, not the NHS, not Pensions, NATO, not anything like that. It's The Queen's Speech!
But it's not really about the Queens Speech per se is it? Its about the fact that even on something as trivial as what he watches on Christmas Day Jezza appears evasive and untrustworthy...
This is the sort of thing that will cut through with voters (much more so than the ins and outs of Brexit etc)
Yes, much more influential than somebody saying they would never allow Brexit to put our border in the Irish Sea and then doing just that. That sort of lie is much more difficult for people to get their heads around.
What I am of course saying, Gin, is what I am sure you understand already. People who don't want to vote for one side will seize on anything, however trivial, to justify it whilst ignoring the most preposterous lies on their own side.
Cuts both ways of course. You would accept that, no?
Scottish Labour are currently FAV in just 2 of the country’s 59 seats (3.4%):
Edinburgh South 3/10 Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 8/11
In the other 5 current SLab seats the SNP are FAV. Here are the SLab prices:
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill 2/1 East Lothian 3/1 Glasgow North East 7/2 Midlothian 7/2 Rutherglen and Hamilton West 7/2
East Lothian stands out as a great price, due to the huge residual /SLD vote (18,278 at GE17) in that area. Surely a few thousand will hold their noses and cast a vote for their Better Together pals?
I'm pretty sure East Lothian is Labour's second-best prospect rather than Kilmarnock.
East Lothian is one of only three constituencies that Labour holds in the Scottish Parliament (Iain Gray) so I agree that it must be one of their better chances for a hold. Just wonder whether SCon voters would be able to bear voting for Corbyn. Will be an interesting one - as SCon had a v good result in a fairly recent council by-election in this seat, going from third to first.
Almost impossible for Unionists to know who to vote for in East Lothian. On paper, SLab are strongest, but all recent data points to the SCons being a stronger challenger to the SNP.
Naturally, this lack of clarity heavily favours the SNP. Best prices:
SNP 8/11 SLab 3/1 SCon 16/5 SLD 125/1
I enjoy your posts - they focus on the betting. How many total SNP seats do you reckon?
Low 40s.
If pushed for an exact figure: 41.
(If I’m miles out, in my defence, there are a hell of a lot of marginals.)
Well that's what really matters in this election - not Brexit, not the NHS, not Pensions, NATO, not anything like that. It's The Queen's Speech!
But it's not really about the Queens Speech per se is it? Its about the fact that even on something as trivial as what he watches on Christmas Day Jezza appears evasive and untrustworthy...
This is the sort of thing that will cut through with voters (much more so than the ins and outs of Brexit etc)
If only Boris could be caught on fibbing in a similar way.
He hasn't actually provided any results though, has he?
Anybody that does follow his advice and look at the postal votes is the one in the shit! lol!
I suspect he means look at the level of returns. Is it illegal to say how many postals have been returned?
How would he know either how many votes have been returned or who has voted which way?
It is remarkable if that is normal practice that the candidates get to see such data during the election. Do the independent candidates get offered the same? Might be worth standing in a marginal to use the data for betting!
Well that's what really matters in this election - not Brexit, not the NHS, not Pensions, NATO, not anything like that. It's The Queen's Speech!
But it's not really about the Queens Speech per se is it? Its about the fact that even on something as trivial as what he watches on Christmas Day Jezza appears evasive and untrustworthy...
This is the sort of thing that will cut through with voters (much more so than the ins and outs of Brexit etc)
Yes, much more influential than somebody saying they would never allow Brexit to put our border in the Irish Sea and then doing just that. That sort of lie is much more difficult for people to get their heads around.
What I am of course saying, Gin, is what I am sure you understand already. People who don't want to vote for one side will seize on anything, however trivial, to justify it whilst ignoring the most preposterous lies on their own side.
Cuts both ways of course. You would accept that, no?
You're prepared to put an avowed anti-Semite in power, just because you want to reverse a democratic vote to Brexit.
Been out - what's the Queen's Speech thing please?
An stupid blunder by Corbyn which normally would have been a matter for slight hilarity but which is now being blown up into something major because we are all bored waiting for the next polls.
And I DETEST Corbyn and would sell my own children* if it meant he wouldn't end up as PM. But even I think it is all a but silly.
*If my children are reading this don't worry, I would only sell one of you, picked at random by shortest straw.
Twitter really is like an alternative reality....I just gone on and absolutely Queen's speech is a huge media smear about how Jezza doesn't watch the it.
Too many people on it forget how exceptional their/our interest levels are. You could put this on the front page of tomorrow's Sun and most people wouldn't care, and unless it gets that kind of coverage almost no-one will even know it happened.
Guido suggesting that the ‘Advance Together’ independent in Esther and Walton is a well-known Lib Dem activist, and that they’re not quite as independent as they seem. This being the guy with some interesting anti-Raab leaflets going through doors today. https://order-order.com/2019/12/04/former-lib-dems-kamikaze-campaign-raab/
Given that the Royal family are planning to have a low profile for a while, for obvious reasons it's probably not wise to mention them too often.
Queens Speech? Dim memory of watching that some 40years ago, is it still on the television around Christmas time. Sorry if I missed something important here.I might have dozed through it as most of us do.
Oh Rose, come on now.
Jez should just have said something like: 'Christmas Day is a wonderful, hectic time where, like most families, there isn't a free minute so I rarely get the opportunity'.
Question instantly forgotten about.
Instead because he knew telling the truth would create another hook for voters to hang their doubts on he fumbled around and came up with a ridiculous story that a 5 year old could see through.
Should both parties decide it optimal to reduce barriers to trade, precedent says it is perfectly possible to agree a trade deal with the US that will not lead to rampant inflation in drugs prices for the NHS.
So we can conclude that this component of Labour’s campaign is a concocted nonsense.
Canada is America's next door neighbour. US businesses have millions of reasons for wanting no friction within their US/Canada trade area. So US Big Pharma has to take its place in the queue of US businesses wanting concessions out of Canada. US businesses are less fussed about most British sales opportunities. But the NHS is the world's biggest single customer for drugs, and US Big Pharma wants to make more money - because the NHS treats US Big Pharma the same way that WalMart treats Coca-Cola. It negotiates. So making more money out of pharma sales to the UK (by making buyer-led price negotiation as illegal in the UK as it is in the US) is high on America's list of objectives from any UK trade deal: indeed the only other two of any substance are: - for US agribusiness to sell the UK food made in conformity with US rules, which are incompatible with the EU's rules - for US aerospace - heavily subsidised by the US government - not to have to cope with competition from Airbus, which receives more or less the same subsidies from Euro-governments that US planemakers get from theirs.
Without UK concessions on planes, pharma or agribusiness, there's no UK-US trade deal. Trump has no countervailing concessions to offer back.
So the commercial illiterates who see a US trade deal (NOT a US free trade deal, because Trump's insistent on LESS free trade) simply don't understand the damage the US wants to do to the UK.
So we can conclude that this element of Brexiteers' campaign is the kind of nonsense you have to be astronomically ignorant of commercial realities to believe.
Well that's what really matters in this election - not Brexit, not the NHS, not Pensions, NATO, not anything like that. It's The Queen's Speech!
But it's not really about the Queens Speech per se is it? Its about the fact that even on something as trivial as what he watches on Christmas Day Jezza appears evasive and untrustworthy...
This is the sort of thing that will cut through with voters (much more so than the ins and outs of Brexit etc)
If only Boris could be caught on fibbing in a similar way.
Unfortunately Boris gets away with being a bit of a fibber. Jezza doesn't.
That's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes and lets face it Labur had a good run with Teflon Tony and his "pretty straight kinda guy" shtick.
Twitter really is like an alternative reality....I just gone on and absolutely Queen's speech is a huge media smear about how Jezza doesn't watch the it.
Too many people on it forget how exceptional their/our interest levels are. You could put this on the front page of tomorrow's Sun and most people wouldn't care, and unless it gets that kind of coverage almost no-one will even know it happened.
A twitter storm on such a subject, which very few people would care about, must be contrived.
Twitter really is like an alternative reality....I just gone on and absolutely Queen's speech is a huge media smear about how Jezza doesn't watch the it.
Too many people on it forget how exceptional their/our interest levels are. You could put this on the front page of tomorrow's Sun and most people wouldn't care, and unless it gets that kind of coverage almost no-one will even know it happened.
Most likely....although as I say, the weirdest things cut through. It is often the non-political lies that seem to get some traction. Brown biscuit gate / arctic monkeys, Cameron West Ham Villa.
Comments
The diagonal upwards eye movements and what they mean when they are to the left and right: that isn't from a 1990s film; it's from neurolinguistic programming which will almost certainly be where that film got it from. See Bandler and Grinder's book Frogs into Princes from the 1970s.
As for upward left meaning remembered visual and upward right meaning constructed visual, left-handed people mostly do it the other way round.
Jeremy Corbyn probably doesn't watch the queen's speech at Christmas and remember every word fondly all the time until the following year, any more than he enjoys reading the Sun with his breakfast toast. He's a politician aiming to win votes. Anybody who has a rock solid objection to politicians acting like politicians shouldn't vote. Look on the bright side - at least he can eat a bag of chips like a human being, unlike Theresa May.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.164425963
I'd rather go with the "it was a stupid lie" defence than that.
Every normal person has bought the wrong gift, lost their keys, arranged a dinner and their partner come home from work being terrible ill.
https://fantasy-election.com/
https://twitter.com/cjterry/status/1201996734458716166?s=21
Queens Speech? Dim memory of watching that some 40years ago, is it still on the television around Christmas time. Sorry if I missed something important here.I might have dozed through it as most of us do.
Question 2) What is the relative price of pharmaceuticals in Canada versus the US?
If you get both these answers right, your prize is the wisdom to ignore the bullshit coming out of Labour and vote for someone else.
Fair's fair now.
Mullin (SNP) 2015 £2,235
Mullin (SNP) 2017 £2,625
ScotGreen 2017 £707 to date
Lesley Laird (LAB) 2017 £1,425 to date
Neale Hanvey (IND, former SNP) 2017 £6,090 in 5 days since being de-selected
That, and I detest women politicians who do photo shoots. Its extremely tacky. As was Rees Moggs for Tatler tbf.
Plus she has zero shadow ministerial experience.
Q: Did you make it clear to Trump that the NHS would not be on the table in trade talks? If so, does that mean this time next year the UK could be leaving the transition with no EU trade deal and no US trade deal?
Johnson says the questions are now scrapping the bottom of the barrel. He will wrap up. He ends with a riff about the choice at the election: between getting Brexit done, and having two referendums.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/dec/04/general-election-tories-juggle-trump-nato-and-campaigning-live
If Brexit was not on the horizon I would not vote for either main party, most likely abstain, given Swinson's lack of capability in the job.
1) No
2) Canada higher prices I`d say - they tax the fuck out of everything there.
Canada has lower prices than the USA.
OK, so maybe I'm not an average sample...
Naturally, this lack of clarity heavily favours the SNP. Best prices:
SNP 8/11
SLab 3/1
SCon 16/5
SLD 125/1
Wonder why Abbott's son story is only in the Mail and Telegraph? Anyone got eyes on the legal letters comrade Diane sent out?
How many total SNP seats do you reckon?
So we have established that there is no ratified trade deal between the EU and US. So the status quo for the UK is trading under WTO tariff schedule. Nothing has to be done to end up where we are now with respect to our US trading arrangement.
Should both parties decide it optimal to reduce barriers to trade, precedent says it is perfectly possible to agree a trade deal with the US that will not lead to rampant inflation in drugs prices for the NHS.
So we can conclude that this component of Labour’s campaign is a concocted nonsense.
Hence Boris’s comment today about the subject “scraping the bottom of the barrel”.
btw John Mcdonnell on WATO sounding 150% as old, querulous, past it and out of his depth as Jezza. Not a good day for team red.
If pushed for an exact figure: 41.
(If I’m miles out, in my defence, there are a hell of a lot of marginals.)
I suspect he means look at the level of returns. Is it illegal to say how many postals have been returned?
Pretty sure many a politician has avoided Neil at election times. In fact I can't recall any election ever where the PM was interviewed by Neil and went on to win a majority.
Unless I am mistaken I don't recall Cameron ever being interviewed by Neil at election time and I don't recall you or others making a big deal about that.
This is the sort of thing that will cut through with voters (much more so than the ins and outs of Brexit etc)
2. Massively cheaper, thanks to Canada having what Americans call a ‘single payer’ system that involves (as happens in the U.K.) a single negotiation for the whole country’s drug supply, and doesn’t involve pharmaceutical companies taking doctors on holiday and advertising prescription-only drugs on TV.
He got caught lying, claiming he watches the Queen's speech in the morning....then went on to say he would give Chequers over to the homeless and couldn't list a single thing he has ever done that is romantic.
Defending the NHS, abolishing tuition fees, and renationalising rail are one thing, but not standing to attention and saluting Her Majesty and asking God to bless the entire royal family before tucking into Christmas dinner is a disgrace and snap polls were showing a 15% swing from Labour to the Tories.
What I am of course saying, Gin, is what I am sure you understand already. People who don't want to vote for one side will seize on anything, however trivial, to justify it whilst ignoring the most preposterous lies on their own side.
Cuts both ways of course. You would accept that, no?
He's successfully swerved Andrew Neil, thanks to a False Flag Zio-Nazi attack, sorry, Islamist assault on our narwhals.
He's tip-toed neatly and intact through a festival of landmines, AKA the NATO summit with Trump,
Instead we are talking about Corbyn's total inability to tell a decent lie, despite lying all his life, often to himself.
We're in the home straight.
It is remarkable if that is normal practice that the candidates get to see such data during the election. Do the independent candidates get offered the same? Might be worth standing in a marginal to use the data for betting!
Buy a mirror. This is not your noblest hour.
And I DETEST Corbyn and would sell my own children* if it meant he wouldn't end up as PM. But even I think it is all a but silly.
*If my children are reading this don't worry, I would only sell one of you, picked at random by shortest straw.
https://order-order.com/2019/12/04/former-lib-dems-kamikaze-campaign-raab/
Jez should just have said something like: 'Christmas Day is a wonderful, hectic time where, like most families, there isn't a free minute so I rarely get the opportunity'.
Question instantly forgotten about.
Instead because he knew telling the truth would create another hook for voters to hang their doubts on he fumbled around and came up with a ridiculous story that a 5 year old could see through.
Now the story has legs.
US businesses are less fussed about most British sales opportunities. But the NHS is the world's biggest single customer for drugs, and US Big Pharma wants to make more money - because the NHS treats US Big Pharma the same way that WalMart treats Coca-Cola. It negotiates. So making more money out of pharma sales to the UK (by making buyer-led price negotiation as illegal in the UK as it is in the US) is high on America's list of objectives from any UK trade deal: indeed the only other two of any substance are:
- for US agribusiness to sell the UK food made in conformity with US rules, which are incompatible with the EU's rules
- for US aerospace - heavily subsidised by the US government - not to have to cope with competition from Airbus, which receives more or less the same subsidies from Euro-governments that US planemakers get from theirs.
Without UK concessions on planes, pharma or agribusiness, there's no UK-US trade deal. Trump has no countervailing concessions to offer back.
So the commercial illiterates who see a US trade deal (NOT a US free trade deal, because Trump's insistent on LESS free trade) simply don't understand the damage the US wants to do to the UK.
So we can conclude that this element of Brexiteers' campaign is the kind of nonsense you have to be astronomically ignorant of commercial realities to believe.
That's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes and lets face it Labur had a good run with Teflon Tony and his "pretty straight kinda guy" shtick.