I wanted his P45 from the first day I heard of him and said so on here
I cannot and will not condone such disgusting views
I see this minister also said the recruitment process needs to be "looked at".
No it doesn't need to be reviewed or looked at. It just needs to be taken out of Cummings's hands and given back to the standard HR recruitment processes.
Had to get the line from Cummings first, no doubt.
A bit like the BBC license fee story - the press are reporting that "senior Downing St sources are determined that it will be abolished"... while the PM is reportedly lukewarm on the idea.
"Senior Downing St sources" are apparently running the country now.
Yep. Johnson is in real danger of becoming a laughing stock as the jokes about him being a puppet controlled by Dom gather pace.
Adonis is like a Corbynista of the centre (whose continuing association with Labour baffles me other than as serving as a flag of convenience.) Continuing to back his man in the face of objective evidence that he is deeply unpopular and thus that renewed association with him would be a major drag on Labour's electoral prospects. And going on and on and on about it.
Back in the Spring of 2017 there was a poll that found that amongst the electorate as a whole, Blair had a net favourability rating of -51, compared to -27 with Corbyn then. There may be more recent polling, but it's hard to imagine that people have revised their view of Blair since. Corbyn's ratings have since plummeted to the ball park of 2017 Blair levels, so they really do have something in common now, and neither is the answer to Labour's woes.
No, the best candidate to make life hard for the Tories (which is not always the same thing as giving Labour the best electoral chance, but you have to do this to collect votes later) was Emily Thornberry.
She would have landed far more blows to the Tories and the leaders of the Tory party than any of the remaining candidates. She could have undertaken a substantial rebuild, refocus, reenergise and reconnect program for Labour.
You're right, if Lady Nugee had become Labour leader the Tories would have been in serious danger of laughing themselves to death.
We'll never know.
But you're wrong (and not a Tory so don't be like @HYUFD when he tells us what Lab and LD voters want or like).
I wanted his P45 from the first day I heard of him and said so on here
I cannot and will not condone such disgusting views
I see this minister also said the recruitment process needs to be "looked at".
No it doesn't need to be reviewed or looked at. It just needs to be taken out of Cummings's hands and given back to the standard HR recruitment processes.
It may be a forlorn hope, but this disgraceful appointment may have fired a warning shot to no 10 to get a grip on appointments
I wanted his P45 from the first day I heard of him and said so on here
I cannot and will not condone such disgusting views
Kwarteng's not quite that bad, surely ?
I assume you think that is amusing !!!!
The whole affair is utterly absurd - not least the way in which ministers had to wait for permission to express outrage - so worth the odd laugh, I think.
Clearly luck plays a part in anyone’s success. We all roll the dice every day.
People always are inclined to put their own successes down to hard work, and others down to good fortune. The reality is usually in the middle.
Absolutely, good health is usually a component in success. And that is large part down to luck. We’re all one random genetic mutation away from our grand plans and hard work being rudely interrupted.
I’d say it’s largely good fortune. I was lucky to have the parents I did, to grow up when the welfare state was in its prime, to meet the people I did and to go into business when I did. But I made the most of it!
I wouldn't.
If you're crap and you have good fortune that rarely works out. Unless someone very patient, who really loves you or your family, wants to do you a lifelong favour.
You have to have a decent level of competence and ability. Good fortune is then about being in the right place at the right time, and influencing the right people, to get that promotion, shot or opportunity to show what you can do and establish your reputation.
And, you have to keep working at it even then. You can't just switch off and go into autopilot or people (eventually) won't buy your products or hire you again.
All true, but what gives you a decent level of competence and ability? I credit mostly my parents (who taught me how to behave, engaged and stimulated me from an early age and encouraged my curiosity about the world around me) and also some of my teachers. Having the parents and teachers I had was pure luck.
It is both, I think. There are people with the same (or greater) innate ability that I have who would objectively be seen to be less successful (my parents for example, are very smart, but neither had the opportunity to go to university and ended up in jobs that used little of their ability) and people with less who have been more successful. But I have also worked to get where I am today.
I wanted his P45 from the first day I heard of him and said so on here
I cannot and will not condone such disgusting views
I see this minister also said the recruitment process needs to be "looked at".
No it doesn't need to be reviewed or looked at. It just needs to be taken out of Cummings's hands and given back to the standard HR recruitment processes.
Cummings/Johnson did full due diligence on Sabisky and they liked what they saw. But in their hubris and arrogance they forgot others would do due diligence, too. This will happen again and again.
Had to get the line from Cummings first, no doubt.
A bit like the BBC license fee story - the press are reporting that "senior Downing St sources are determined that it will be abolished"... while the PM is reportedly lukewarm on the idea.
"Senior Downing St sources" are apparently running the country now.
Why not simply make it free for Tory voters and double the price for the rest?
The race remains a shambles with too many candidates. In particular the moderate vote is split between Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden (who is hanging around like a bad smell) and, at least on paper, Bloomberg. This is giving Sanders wins with modest shares of the vote. The field needs winnowed and it needs it now.
The likes of Steyer is just another self indulgent distraction but Bloomberg is in danger of becoming the same. You cannot run a virtual campaign indefinitely. You need to get down and dirty, test your popularity and organisation, compete for votes and take part in the debates.
Klobuchar is the one in the right age bracket, adequately experienced and not geriatric but as I was saying yesterday her and Buttigieg are fighting for the same smallish pools of voters and in danger of knocking each other out.
Agree; perhaps a shame Buttigeig is another Mid-Westerner; he and Klobuchar might otherwise have made a good ticket. However, I dot suspect that there needs to be a bit more diversity among the candidates.
Whilst I can see that point many of the key states which Trump won by a hair's breadth are in that area. A ticket with strong roots there might be well placed.
Your point is noted, and, TBH, agreed with; time will, no doubt, tell.
Had to get the line from Cummings first, no doubt.
A bit like the BBC license fee story - the press are reporting that "senior Downing St sources are determined that it will be abolished"... while the PM is reportedly lukewarm on the idea.
"Senior Downing St sources" are apparently running the country now.
Why not simply make it free for Tory voters and double the price for the rest?
Oh dear, another Labour idea. In this case, one of Tony Blair’s.
Adonis is like a Corbynista of the centre (whose continuing association with Labour baffles me other than as serving as a flag of convenience.) Continuing to back his man in the face of objective evidence that he is deeply unpopular and thus that renewed association with him would be a major drag on Labour's electoral prospects. And going on and on and on about it.
Back in the Spring of 2017 there was a poll that found that amongst the electorate as a whole, Blair had a net favourability rating of -51, compared to -27 with Corbyn then. There may be more recent polling, but it's hard to imagine that people have revised their view of Blair since. Corbyn's ratings have since plummeted to the ball park of 2017 Blair levels, so they really do have something in common now, and neither is the answer to Labour's woes.
Clearly luck plays a part in anyone’s success. We all roll the dice every day.
People always are inclined to put their own successes down to hard work, and others down to good fortune. The reality is usually in the middle.
Absolutely, good health is usually a component in success. And that is large part down to luck. We’re all one random genetic mutation away from our grand plans and hard work being rudely interrupted.
I’d say it’s largely good fortune. I was lucky to have the parents I did, to grow up when the welfare state was in its prime, to meet the people I did and to go into business when I did. But I made the most of it!
I wouldn't.
If you're crap and you have good fortune that rarely works out. Unless someone very patient, who really loves you or your family, wants to do you a lifelong favour.
You have to have a decent level of competence and ability. Good fortune is then about being in the right place at the right time, and influencing the right people, to get that promotion, shot or opportunity to show what you can do and establish your reputation.
And, you have to keep working at it even then. You can't just switch off and go into autopilot or people (eventually) won't buy your products or hire you again.
I just don’t believe I am the smartest, hardest-working member of my family ever born. I just think I have been the luckiest. Give my parents, grandparents and those before them the opportunities and circumstances I had and they would have taken them, too.
Agree; there's a lot to be said for being in the right place at the right time. And for being qualified to be there.
Adonis is like a Corbynista of the centre (whose continuing association with Labour baffles me other than as serving as a flag of convenience.) Continuing to back his man in the face of objective evidence that he is deeply unpopular and thus that renewed association with him would be a major drag on Labour's electoral prospects. And going on and on and on about it.
Back in the Spring of 2017 there was a poll that found that amongst the electorate as a whole, Blair had a net favourability rating of -51, compared to -27 with Corbyn then. There may be more recent polling, but it's hard to imagine that people have revised their view of Blair since. Corbyn's ratings have since plummeted to the ball park of 2017 Blair levels, so they really do have something in common now, and neither is the answer to Labour's woes.
Blair was also not the only Labour leader ever to win a general election.
Wilson, who Starmer named, won 4, Attlee won 3 and MacDonald won 1
I make it Wilson 4, Blair 3, Attlee 2, McDonald 2 (including 1923).
That's based on who gets to be PM afterwards rather than seat or popular vote shares.
You can’t really say McDonald ‘won’ in 1923. 67 fewer seats and unable to form a government until the following year. It wasn’t clear for some time that the Unionists would stand on tariffs rather than try for a Liberal alliance.
Edit - although if I were feeling mischievous, I might add 1931 to McDonald’s electoral record...
Only 29% of Northern Irish voters support a United Ireland according to a new poll compared to 52% who want to stay in the UK, 99% of DUP and UUP voters want to stay in the UK as crucially do 70% of Alliance voters.
92% of Sinn Fein voters and 81% of SDLP voters still back a United Ireland though
And they are the ones most dismayed by Johnson creating a regulatorily unitary entity of the island of Ireland.
In retrospect it now looks a genius move by Boris, got the Withdrawal Agreement through and delivered Brexit, while preserving the Good Friday Agreement and keeping Alliance voters backing the Union and thus majority support in Northern Ireland for staying in the UK
It looks like an interesting move to establish a unitary entity of the island of Ireland which creates a direct pathway to a united Ireland.
Not that I am against a united Ireland but I thought you might be less enthusiastic.
The opposite, had Boris gone for a hard border with n enjoy both a soft Brexit and still technically staying within the UK to keep Unionists appeased
You are misunderstanding the dynamics. Perhaps not helped by what I hope was an enjoyable visit to the Bushmills distillery when you were last visiting.
Boris has made a deeper, strategic move towards a united Ireland because for all intents and purposes we will be treating the island of Ireland and Great Britain as two separate entities. There will be different regulatory regimes and therefore checks between the two. A bird in the hand, as they say.
This will mean that over time those who want a united Ireland will have facts on the ground on their side which will increasingly come to strengthen their position.
Wrong, as the poll shows Alliance voters are the key swing voters in Northern Ireland and by avoiding a hard border with the Republic of Ireland they remain firmly behind the Union. Had Boris imposed a hard Brexit on Northern Ireland like GB and a hard border with the Republic of Ireland they would likely have swung behind a United Ireland.
Given staying in the single market which was the only way to keep the whole UK aligned was untenable for most Leavers and for Boris he got the best deal he could for NI. If Starmer became PM the whole UK might rejoin the single market which would solve that problem anyway but Boris has delivered a Brexit that satisfies his Leave base and preserves NI in the UK
Had to get the line from Cummings first, no doubt.
A bit like the BBC license fee story - the press are reporting that "senior Downing St sources are determined that it will be abolished"... while the PM is reportedly lukewarm on the idea.
"Senior Downing St sources" are apparently running the country now.
Why not simply make it free for Tory voters and double the price for the rest?
Oh dear, another Labour idea. In this case, one of Tony Blair’s.
To be fair that was at a time when over 75s were significantly poorer than today, and there were fewer of them. Probably still a mistake back then, but a policy that gets worse each year as the households with over 75s get richer and more numerous.
Meanwhile the rest of the country laughs at leftist, remain, green Cambridge getting inconvenienced by XRs.
Judging by the reactions on here, the rest of the country can't decide whether to be amused or outraged.
False dichotomy. Amused at how spineless the local police and council are, to the extent you have to wonder whether ER are paying them, and outraged at what these self important stuck up stupid hypocrites are getting away with.
Adonis is like a Corbynista of the centre (whose continuing association with Labour baffles me other than as serving as a flag of convenience.) Continuing to back his man in the face of objective evidence that he is deeply unpopular and thus that renewed association with him would be a major drag on Labour's electoral prospects. And going on and on and on about it.
Back in the Spring of 2017 there was a poll that found that amongst the electorate as a whole, Blair had a net favourability rating of -51, compared to -27 with Corbyn then. There may be more recent polling, but it's hard to imagine that people have revised their view of Blair since. Corbyn's ratings have since plummeted to the ball park of 2017 Blair levels, so they really do have something in common now, and neither is the answer to Labour's woes.
No, the best candidate to make life hard for the Tories (which is not always the same thing as giving Labour the best electoral chance, but you have to do this to collect votes later) was Emily Thornberry.
She would have landed far more blows to the Tories and the leaders of the Tory party than any of the remaining candidates. She could have undertaken a substantial rebuild, refocus, reenergise and reconnect program for Labour.
You're right, if Lady Nugee had become Labour leader the Tories would have been in serious danger of laughing themselves to death.
We'll never know.
But you're wrong (and not a Tory so don't be like @HYUFD when he tells us what Lab and LD voters want or like).
I am a Tory. I'm a Conservative not a conservative.
Whats all this about Nicola Sturgeon.. is it serious?
The Salmond trial is next month. There is at least a suspicion that some of the complainers might well have gone to her for help and support and basically been swept under the carpet. She was deputy leader, her husband was running the SNP, she was closely involved with Salmond for decades, if the allegations against Salmond stand up it seems very, very unlikely that she didn't know and condoned this for the greater good.
She commented at the weekend that the #metoo campaign had opened up her eyes to male behaviour that she had tolerated when she shouldn't have done. She seemed to be talking about a journalist at the time but Salmond can't have been far from her thoughts.
That's not what the "cannot be published for legal reasons" rumour the Sun printed though.
This is the wacky stuff about Sturgeon living a double life at night.
oo er missus.. one is intrigued.. Does she play duplicate in the evenings?
As well as highlighting her apparent injunction, the commenters under the original Scottish Sun article have helpfully described at least the outline of some rumour beneath the article.
And the Sun has helpfully decided that allowing these to sit published beneath the article isn't as serious as putting the rumours in the article in the first place.
It hasn't been a great few days for Doris. The Sabinsky thing probably is a bit Westminster bubble and the current honeymoon will absorb most of the Saj saga, so I expect the political damage to be negligible. Nevertheless, Doris is starting to look both cocky and accident prone, which might prove deadly if there are rougher waters ahead.
It hasn't been a great few days for Doris. The Sabinsky thing probably is a bit Westminster bubble and the current honeymoon will absorb most of the Saj saga, so I expect the political damage to be negligible. Nevertheless, Doris is starting to look both cocky and accident prone, which might prove deadly if there are rougher waters ahead.
Lol @ 'starting'; clearly you haven't been following his career.
Only 29% of Northern Irish voters support a United Ireland according to a new poll compared to 52% who want to stay in the UK, 99% of DUP and UUP voters want to stay in the UK as crucially do 70% of Alliance voters.
92% of Sinn Fein voters and 81% of SDLP voters still back a United Ireland though
And they are the ones most dismayed by Johnson creating a regulatorily unitary entity of the island of Ireland.
In retrospect it now looks a genius move by Boris, got the Withdrawal Agreement through and delivered Brexitn Northern Ireland for staying in the UK
It looks like an interunited Ireland.
Not that I am against a united Ireland but I thought you might be less enthusiastic.
The opposite, had Boris gone for a hard border with n enjoy both a soft Brexit and still technically staying within the UK to keep Unionists appeased
You are misunderstanding the dynamics. Perhaps not helped by what I hope was an enjoyable visit to the Bushmills distillery when you were last visiting.
Boris has made a deeper, strategic move towardsthey say.
This will mean that over time those who want a united Ireland will have facts on the ground on their side which will increasingly come to strengthen their position.
Wrong, as the poll shows Alliance voters are the key swing voters in Northern Ireland and by avoiding a hard border with the Republic of Ireland they remain firmly behind the Union. Had Boris imposed a hard Brexit on Northern Ireland like GB and a hard border with the Republic of Ireland they would likely have swung behind a United Ireland.
Given staying in the single market which was the only way to keep the whole UK aligned was untenable for most Leavers and for Boris he got the best deal he could for NI. If Starmer became PM the whole UK might rejoin the single market which would solve that problem anyway but Boris has delivered a Brexit that satisfies his Leave base and preserves NI in the UK
We only avoid a hard border if Johnson does not renege on the WA. If we don't renege, Topping is right: the island of Ireland becomes a unitary customs and trading union with its rules largely set in Dublin and Brussels. Interesting times.
Meanwhile the rest of the country laughs at leftist, remain, green Cambridge getting inconvenienced by XRs.
Judging by the reactions on here, the rest of the country can't decide whether to be amused or outraged.
False dichotomy. Amused at how spineless the local police and council are, to the extent you have to wonder whether ER are paying them, and outraged at what these self important stuck up stupid hypocrites are getting away with.
You need a good education and a good family, yes, but it mostly comes from applying yourself and self-discipline.
There isn't a single exam, university module or career promotion I didn't achieve by working hard (there are no short-cuts) and deferring gratification whilst I did so. If I hadn't, despite all my advantages, I'd probably be working in an estate agent now in a provincial town. The work was interesting, frustrating, voluminous, intense, often stressful, and sometimes boring, but I got there. And it's taken about 25 years to (almost) hit a senior consultancy grade and a £90k salary. Several career moves I made were dead-ends, so I jumped ship, and then argued myself up a level. The best things I were taught were resilience, perseverance, that nothing in life is handed to you on a plate: you have to be your own best advocate.
We shouldn't delude ourselves that luck is something that 'just happens' to privileged people. It doesn't. The real misfortune of less privileged people is that they don't necessarily have a stable family (key for emotional resilience) or teachers (key for development) that encourage them to be ambitious, with both indicating to them that the world may deal you many hands of cards, but all of them can be played. That's my problem with "luck": it suggests we are all passive recipients of chances in life that are unfairly doled out, and you'll either get it if you're privileged, or won't if you're not. In reality, such an attitude all but guarantees less privileged people will be unlucky. Because they will think it's pointless to try.
What we mean by luck is opportunities that pay off. Not just open-door opportunities "there for the taking" - opportunities are rarely like this - but recognising where an opportunity might lie and working hard to develop and sell it. And, when it doesn't work out, where else it might lie. You can manage your own 'luck' by doing this. It sometimes get confused with "hard work" - which is undoubtedly the key ingredient - but it's not like the national lottery: luck is where opportunity meets preparation.
You have to be taught how to recognise and exploit the opportunities, and you never will if you don't prepare. This is the best thing we do to support social mobility; not banging on about class privilege.
Clearly luck plays a part in anyone’s success. We all roll the dice every day.
People always are inclined to put their own successes down to hard work, and others down to good fortune. The reality is usually in the middle.
Absolutely, good health is usually a component in success. And that is large part down to luck. We’re all one random genetic mutation away from our grand plans and hard work being rudely interrupted.
I’d say it’s largely good fortune. I was lucky to have the parents I did, to grow up when the welfare state was in its prime, to meet the people I did and to go into business when I did. But I made the most of it!
I wouldn't.
If you're crap and you have good fortune that rarely works out. Unless someone very patient, who really loves you or your family, wants to do you a lifelong favour.
You have to have a decent level of competence and ability. Good fortune is then about being in the right place at the right time, and influencing the right people, to get that promotion, shot or opportunity to show what you can do and establish your reputation.
And, you have to keep working at it even then. You can't just switch off and go into autopilot or people (eventually) won't buy your products or hire you again.
I just don’t believe I am the smartest, hardest-working member of my family ever born. I just think I have been the luckiest. Give my parents, grandparents and those before them the opportunities and circumstances I had and they would have taken them, too.
You don't know that - everyone is different. And you might be being too harsh on yourself. Building a business is far from easy.
I think luck does apply (where it's about circumstances entirely beyond your control, such as asset growth in the housing market) but for career and personal success luck can be magnified and managed.
Rest of the world TV (Other than BBC) either uses an advertising or subscription model. How about sticking adverts on the BBC, which disappear if you pay a subscription ? So for a football match (Or any sporting event) you'd either get half time waffle or the normal car, holiday, sofa ads. Movies - These are the worst for adverts (Channel 4 movies are horrendous in particular) - so with the sub the movie would just run through, without you get ad interruptions. Regular programs could switch back to the news (There's always rolling news !) after the scheduled show is complete for the sub payers - or if there is a sufficient gap, have an "extra" show scheduled (Making of movie or show e.g.) Sub could give you a bigger on demand collection too - which aside from live sporting events and rolling news is where entertainment is all heading.
Adonis is like a Corbynista of the centre (whose continuing association with Labour baffles me other than as serving as a flag of convenience.) Continuing to back his man in the face of objective evidence that he is deeply unpopular and thus that renewed association with him would be a major drag on Labour's electoral prospects. And going on and on and on about it.
Back in the Spring of 2017 there was a poll that found that amongst the electorate as a whole, Blair had a net favourability rating of -51, compared to -27 with Corbyn then. There may be more recent polling, but it's hard to imagine that people have revised their view of Blair since. Corbyn's ratings have since plummeted to the ball park of 2017 Blair levels, so they really do have something in common now, and neither is the answer to Labour's woes.
No, the best candidate to make life hard for the Tories (which is not always the same thing as giving Labour the best electoral chance, but you have to do this to collect votes later) was Emily Thornberry.
She would have landed far more blows to the Tories and the leaders of the Tory party than any of the remaining candidates. She could have undertaken a substantial rebuild, refocus, reenergise and reconnect program for Labour.
You're right, if Lady Nugee had become Labour leader the Tories would have been in serious danger of laughing themselves to death.
We'll never know.
But you're wrong (and not a Tory so don't be like @HYUFD when he tells us what Lab and LD voters want or like).
I am a Tory. I'm a Conservative not a conservative.
I'm a Shire Tory - y'know, tweed-jackets, labradors, horses, hunts, shoots, CofE and monarchy.
So, I'm a Conservative and a conservative.
The most unconservative thing I've done is to refuse to join a Gentleman's club in London: the last thing I wanted to do on a Friday night is hang around solely with middle-aged men reading the Telegraph.
You need a good education and a good family, yes, but it mostly comes from applying yourself and self-discipline.
There isn't a single exam, university module or career promotion I didn't achieve by working hard (there are no short-cuts) and deferring gratification whilst I did so. If I hadn't, despite all my advantages, I'd probably be working in an estate agent now in a provincial town. The work was interesting, frustrating, voluminous, intense, often stressful, and sometimes boring, but I got there. And it's taken about 25 years to (almost) hit a senior consultancy grade and a £90k salary. Several career moves I made were dead-ends, so I jumped ship, and then argued myself up a level. The best things I were taught were resilience, perseverance, that nothing in life is handed to you on a plate: you have to be your own
What we mean by luck is opportunities that pay off. Not just open-door opportunities "there for the taking" - opportunities are rarely like this - but recognising where an opportunity might lie and working hard to develop and sell it. And, when it doesn't work out, where else it might lie. You can manage your own 'luck' by doing this. It sometimes get confused with "hard work" - which is undoubtedly the key ingredient - but it's not like the national lottery: luck is where opportunity meets preparation.
You have to be taught how to recognise and exploit the opportunities, and you never will if you don't prepare. This is the best thing we do to support social mobility; not banging on about class privilege.
All true - but having the right parents and teachers is a matter of complete luck. Being born in 1964 as opposed to 1912 is also entirely down to fortune. You have to make most of what chance creates, but it is all down to chance in the first place. As for the politics, I may have achieved what I have without the welfare state, but it would have been a far tougher road with many more obstacles. I got help and benefits the generations before me could never have dreamed of. Actually, that’s not right: they did dream of them, which is how they happened.
Adonis is like a Corbynista of the centre (whose continuing association with Labour baffles me other than as serving as a flag of convenience.) Continuing to back his man in the face of objective evidence that he is deeply unpopular and thus that renewed association with him would be a major drag on Labour's electoral prospects. And going on and on and on about it.
Back in the Spring of 2017 there was a poll that found that amongst the electorate as a whole, Blair had a net favourability rating of -51, compared to -27 with Corbyn then. There may be more recent polling, but it's hard to imagine that people have revised their view of Blair since. Corbyn's ratings have since plummeted to the ball park of 2017 Blair levels, so they really do have something in common now, and neither is the answer to Labour's woes.
No, the best candidate to make life hard for the Tories (which is not always the same thing as giving Labour the best electoral chance, but you have to do this to collect votes later) was Emily Thornberry.
She would have landed far more blows to the Tories and the leaders of the Tory party than any of the remaining candidates. She could have undertaken a substantial rebuild, refocus, reenergise and reconnect program for Labour.
You're right, if Lady Nugee had become Labour leader the Tories would have been in serious danger of laughing themselves to death.
We'll never know.
But you're wrong (and not a Tory so don't be like @HYUFD when he tells us what Lab and LD voters want or like).
I am a Tory. I'm a Conservative not a conservative.
I'm a Shire Tory - y'know, tweed-jackets, labradors, horses, hunts, shoots, CofE and monarchy.
So, I'm a Conservative and a conservative.
The most unconservative thing I've done is to refuse to join a Gentleman's club in London: the last thing I wanted to do on a Friday night is hang around solely with middle-aged men reading the Telegraph.
I wanted to flirt with young women*.
(*I wasn't wearing a tweed-jacket for this)
Try not to let that daytime drinking with a toddler in tow hold you back....
It hasn't been a great few days for Doris. The Sabinsky thing probably is a bit Westminster bubble and the current honeymoon will absorb most of the Saj saga, so I expect the political damage to be negligible. Nevertheless, Doris is starting to look both cocky and accident prone, which might prove deadly if there are rougher waters ahead.
It’s just possible that come May there will be a serious opposition for the first time in many years.
You need a good education and a good family, yes, but it mostly comes from applying yourself and self-discipline
What we mean by luck is opportunities that pay off. Not just open-door opportunities "there for the taking" - opportunities are rarely like this - but recognising where an opportunity might lie and working hard to develop and sell it. And, when it doesn't work out, where else it might lie. You can manage your own 'luck' by doing this. It sometimes get confused with "hard work" - which is undoubtedly the key ingredient - but it's not like the national lottery: luck is where opportunity meets preparation.
You have to be taught how to recognise and exploit the opportunities, and you never will if you don't prepare. This is the best thing we do to support social mobility; not banging on about class privilege.
All true - but having the right parents and teachers is a matter of complete luck. Being born in 1964 as opposed to 1912 is also entirely down to fortune. You have to make most of what chance creates, but it is all down to chance in the first place. As for the politics, I may have achieved what I have without the welfare state, but it would have been a far tougher road with many more obstacles. I got help and benefits the generations before me could never have dreamed of. Actually, that’s not right: they did dream of them, which is how they happened.
I partly agree. Parents, yes. But you can of course move house or school. You are steering a yacht on a bumpy ocean that you can either drift on (or sadly sink on) or learn to pilot around the choppier, or into the calmer waters; but you can’t control the ocean.
However, that’s why I’d argue it’s so important to vote for a stable competent Government that manages a resilient economy.
That’s one way you can make the ocean more navigable for all!
It hasn't been a great few days for Doris. The Sabinsky thing probably is a bit Westminster bubble and the current honeymoon will absorb most of the Saj saga, so I expect the political damage to be negligible. Nevertheless, Doris is starting to look both cocky and accident prone, which might prove deadly if there are rougher waters ahead.
It’s just possible that come May there will be a serious opposition for the first time in many years.
More significantly, the budget date (unchanged since The Saj set it) is another thing, like Sabisky, on which the government could not comment yesterday or over the weekend but has now found its voice.
More significantly, the budget date (unchanged since The Saj set it) is another thing, like Sabisky, on which the government could not comment yesterday or over the weekend but has now found its voice.
What are we going to do if future scientific research proves that, say, East Asians are slightly more intelligent on average than Europeans?
Accept it and move on?
Seriously, there will be a difference in average intelligence by any characteristic you care to name. Ethnic group, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, party voted for at last election, favourite sport, favourite football team.
The problems emerge when those differences are interpreted as general rules, with discrimination against the 'less intelligent' group. The reality is that the variation within any group will be much greater than the variations between groups and so looking at someone's ethnic group, sex etc tells you absolutely nothing useful about how intelligent that person is.
Adonis is like a Corbynista of the centre (whose continuing association with Labour baffles me other than as serving as a flag of convenience.) Continuing to back his man in the face of objective evidence that he is deeply unpopular and thus that renewed association with him would be a major drag on Labour's electoral prospects. And going on and on and on about it.
Back in the Spring of 2017 there was a poll that found that amongst the electorate as a whole, Blair had a net favourability rating of -51, compared to -27 with Corbyn then. There may be more recent polling, but it's hard to imagine that people have revised their view of Blair since. Corbyn's ratings have since plummeted to the ball park of 2017 Blair levels, so they really do have something in common now, and neither is the answer to Labour's woes.
No, the best candidate to make life hard for the Tories (which is not always the same thing as giving Labour the best electoral chance, but you have to do this to collect votes later) was Emily Thornberry.
She would have landed far more blows to the Tories and the leaders of the Tory party than any of the remaining candidates. She could have undertaken a substantial rebuild, refocus, reenergise and reconnect program for Labour.
You're right, if Lady Nugee had become Labour leader the Tories would have been in serious danger of laughing themselves to death.
We'll never know.
But you're wrong (and not a Tory so don't be like @HYUFD when he tells us what Lab and LD voters want or like).
I am a Tory. I'm a Conservative not a conservative.
I'm a Shire Tory - y'know, tweed-jackets, labradors, horses, hunts, shoots, CofE and monarchy.
So, I'm a Conservative and a conservative.
The most unconservative thing I've done is to refuse to join a Gentleman's club in London: the last thing I wanted to do on a Friday night is hang around solely with middle-aged men reading the Telegraph.
I wanted to flirt with young women*.
(*I wasn't wearing a tweed-jacket for this)
Try not to let that daytime drinking with a toddler in tow hold you back....
Love the way you now think I'm an alchy.
I was finishing off the Valentine's Day fizz from the night before. Not downing white lighting and every stella in the house!
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
You need a good education and a good family, yes, but it mostly comes from applying yourself and self-discipline
What we mean by luck is opportunities that pay off. Not just open-door opportunities "there for the taking" - opportunities are rarely like this - but recognising where an opportunity might lie and working hard to develop and sell it. And, when it doesn't work out, where else it might lie. You can manage your own 'luck' by doing this. It sometimes get confused with "hard work" - which is undoubtedly the key ingredient - but it's not like the national lottery: luck is where opportunity meets preparation.
You have to be taught how to recognise and exploit the opportunities, and you never will if you don't prepare. This is the best thing we do to support social mobility; not banging on about class privilege.
All true - but having the right parents and teachers is a matter of complete luck. Being born in 1964 as opposed to 1912 is also entirely down to fortune. You have to make most of what chance creates, but it is all down to chance in the first place. As for the politics, I may have achieved what I have without the welfare state, but it would have been a far tougher road with many more obstacles. I got help and benefits the generations before me could never have dreamed of. Actually, that’s not right: they did dream of them, which is how they happened.
I partly agree. Parents, yes. But you can of course move house or school. You are steering a yacht on a bumpy ocean that you can either drift on (or sadly sink on) or learn to pilot around the choppier, or into the calmer waters; but you can’t control the ocean.
However, that’s why I’d argue it’s so important to vote for a stable competent Government that manages a resilient economy.
That’s one way you can make the ocean more navigable for all!
Children can move neither house nor school; nor can they choose their own parents who might make these changes.
Last year, I read a number of biographies of politicians and the odd prominent businessman and was struck by the number of times doors were opened for them. Do they even realise this is not the experience of most people?
Rest of the world TV (Other than BBC) either uses an advertising or subscription model. How about sticking adverts on the BBC, which disappear if you pay a subscription ? So for a football match (Or any sporting event) you'd either get half time waffle or the normal car, holiday, sofa ads. Movies - These are the worst for adverts (Channel 4 movies are horrendous in particular) - so with the sub the movie would just run through, without you get ad interruptions. Regular programs could switch back to the news (There's always rolling news !) after the scheduled show is complete for the sub payers - or if there is a sufficient gap, have an "extra" show scheduled (Making of movie or show e.g.) Sub could give you a bigger on demand collection too - which aside from live sporting events and rolling news is where entertainment is all heading.
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
No, not every day. Thursdays like you say. Sometimes Fridays too.
I’m not doing sobriety. I like and enjoy a drink, get the balance right and am healthy.
What are we going to do if future scientific research proves that, say, East Asians are slightly more intelligent on average than Europeans?
Accept it and move on?
Seriously, there will be a difference in average intelligence by any characteristic you care to name. Ethnic group, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, party voted for at last election, favourite sport, favourite football team.
The problems emerge when those differences are interpreted as general rules, with discrimination against the 'less intelligent' group. The reality is that the variation within any group will be much greater than the variations between groups and so looking at someone's ethnic group, sex etc tells you absolutely nothing useful about how intelligent that person is.
Post of the day! Either East Asians are slightly more intelligent on average than Europeans or vice versa. It is unlikely to be ever proven either way and even more unlikely that it is an exact tie. But it doesnt really matter because as you say it tells us virtually nothing about an individual. If we really want to base our society more around intelligence (and imo we shouldnt) there are far better ways to do this than starting with race.
You need a good education and a good family, yes, but it mostly comes from applying yourself and self-discipline
What we mean by luck is opportunities that pay off. Not just open-door opportunities "there for the taking" - opportunities are rarely like this - but recognising where an opportunity might lie and working hard to develop and sell it. And, when it doesn't work out, where else it might lie. You can manage your own 'luck' by doing this. It sometimes get confused with "hard work" - which is undoubtedly the key ingredient - but it's not like the national lottery: luck is where opportunity meets preparation.
You have to be taught how to recognise and exploit the opportunities, and you never will if you don't prepare. This is the best thing we do to support social mobility; not banging on about class privilege.
All true - but having the right parents and teachers is a matter of complete luck. Being born in 1964 as opposed to 1912 is also entirely down to fortune
I partly agree. Parents, yes. But you can of course move house or school. You are steering a yacht on a bumpy ocean that you can either drift on (or sadly sink on) or learn to pilot around the choppier, or into the calmer waters; but you can’t control the ocean.
However, that’s why I’d argue it’s so important to vote for a stable competent Government that manages a resilient economy.
That’s one way you can make the ocean more navigable for all!
Children can move neither house nor school; nor can they choose their own parents who might make these changes.
Last year, I read a number of biographies of politicians and the odd prominent businessman and was struck by the number of times doors were opened for them. Do they even realise this is not the experience of most people?
Their parents can and they can also lobby their parents to that effect.
Rest of the world TV (Other than BBC) either uses an advertising or subscription model. How about sticking adverts on the BBC, which disappear if you pay a subscription ? So for a football match (Or any sporting event) you'd either get half time waffle or the normal car, holiday, sofa ads. Movies - These are the worst for adverts (Channel 4 movies are horrendous in particular) - so with the sub the movie would just run through, without you get ad interruptions. Regular programs could switch back to the news (There's always rolling news !) after the scheduled show is complete for the sub payers - or if there is a sufficient gap, have an "extra" show scheduled (Making of movie or show e.g.) Sub could give you a bigger on demand collection too - which aside from live sporting events and rolling news is where entertainment is all heading.
That is a genuinely brilliant idea and I am amazed I have not heard anyone suggest it before. As another_richard says below it is the youtube model and also the model used by online radio stations like Planet Rock. Hopefully someone will actually pick that up and run with it.
Meanwhile the rest of the country laughs at leftist, remain, green Cambridge getting inconvenienced by XRs.
Judging by the reactions on here, the rest of the country can't decide whether to be amused or outraged.
False dichotomy. Amused at how spineless the local police and council are, to the extent you have to wonder whether ER are paying them, and outraged at what these self important stuck up stupid hypocrites are getting away with.
Not all are as clear minded as you, though.
But he's wrong.
The amusement is at how the leftist voting people of Cambridge are being inconvenienced by the people their leftism has encouraged.
What are we going to do if future scientific research proves that, say, East Asians are slightly more intelligent on average than Europeans?
Accept it and move on?
Seriously, there will be a difference in average intelligence by any characteristic you care to name. Ethnic group, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, party voted for at last election, favourite sport, favourite football team.
The problems emerge when those differences are interpreted as general rules, with discrimination against the 'less intelligent' group. The reality is that the variation within any group will be much greater than the variations between groups and so looking at someone's ethnic group, sex etc tells you absolutely nothing useful about how intelligent that person is.
Good post.
Now, I must do some work. Or I fear my luck may run out with my existing job, let alone future ones.
What are we going to do if future scientific research proves that, say, East Asians are slightly more intelligent on average than Europeans?
Accept it and move on?
Seriously, there will be a difference in average intelligence by any characteristic you care to name. Ethnic group, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, party voted for at last election, favourite sport, favourite football team.
The problems emerge when those differences are interpreted as general rules, with discrimination against the 'less intelligent' group. The reality is that the variation within any group will be much greater than the variations between groups and so looking at someone's ethnic group, sex etc tells you absolutely nothing useful about how intelligent that person is.
Probably also that intelligence is over-valued by academia and the intelligentsia. If you think intelligence is the most important characteristic, of course it is offensive to imply group A is deficient. I suspect most people when they rub the magic lamp would ask the genie for more height or charisma, or hair or youth or beauty rather than a few extra IQ points. Most people are not theoretical physicists, and in the nature of things are quite bright enough for whatever it is they do.
Michael Bloomberg Surges in Poll and Qualifies for Democratic Debate in Las Vegas The billionaire will share the stage with his Democratic rivals for the first time on Wednesday night after a national poll showed him with 19 percent support. He is certain to be a target of onstage criticism.
So sabisky has resigned and Chelsea lost.. a good 10hrs....
VAR MOTM, what a defender, stopped 2 certain goals and happily missed a rather unfortunately placed kick by Maguire. Even as a United fan you have to question if this is adding or detracting from the entertainment.
The last couple of days have shown the problem with VAR. Martin Tyler moans that it takes away but doesn't give back, and that's a fair criticism. As Paul Gardner in World Soccer magazine says, the football authorities are pro-defence. VAR quite happily chalked off the Chelsea goal for the push by Azpilicueta, but it wouldn't give the penalty for the push by Fred.
That goal should def have been given, and Maguire shown a red, but Giroud was offside, no debate there
What exactly was the point of Sabisky? What was he going to do and what were his qualifications for doing it? So far as I can see he is just another "edgy" self-publicist. Is there evidence he has correctly forecast let alone super-forecast anything? Was he asked, as they say on the Betfair forums, to "post your bets"?
What exactly was the point of Sabisky? What was he going to do and what were his qualifications for doing it? So far as I can see he is just another "edgy" self-publicist. Is there evidence he has correctly forecast let alone super-forecast anything? Was he asked, as they say on the Betfair forums, to "post your bets"?
You are obviously not a super intelligent, hyper forecasting maverick if you don't understand the point
It's not going to be an impartial account though, is it?
Certainly not. It will be from his point of view. But OJ is not a hack propagandist and he is IMO worth reading for people who are not of the modern metropolitan Left but wish to gain a non-caricatured insight into its values and aspirations.
Rest of the world TV (Other than BBC) either uses an advertising or subscription model.
This is not true. Many countries have have a state TV broadcaster, some of them are funded by taxes, some by residents via a fee and some are allowed to use advertising to top up this up.
What are we going to do if future scientific research proves that, say, East Asians are slightly more intelligent on average than Europeans?
Accept it and move on?
Seriously, there will be a difference in average intelligence by any characteristic you care to name. Ethnic group, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, party voted for at last election, favourite sport, favourite football team.
The problems emerge when those differences are interpreted as general rules, with discrimination against the 'less intelligent' group. The reality is that the variation within any group will be much greater than the variations between groups and so looking at someone's ethnic group, sex etc tells you absolutely nothing useful about how intelligent that person is.
I was surprised that the Sabisky row focused on his comments on race and IQ.
Yes, that showed his ignorance of the debate over the validity and utility of IQ tests, and of socioeconomic factors. There is also a fairly strong suggestion from Ben Goldacre that Sabisky appears to have based his views on fraudulent research.
But a lot of the write-ups bury the lead, which was his call for compulsory contraception (effectively sterilisation) for poor people. It seems to me that was more shocking in a policy adviser because it was not only ignorant regarding the science, but proposed a policy solution involving a grotesque invasion of people's personal lives.
Michael Bloomberg Surges in Poll and Qualifies for Democratic Debate in Las Vegas The billionaire will share the stage with his Democratic rivals for the first time on Wednesday night after a national poll showed him with 19 percent support. He is certain to be a target of onstage criticism.
Old geezer too rich for anybody to disagree with him at any point in the last 7 years vs a bunch of sharp practicing politicians who have been doing this every month since last June.
What are we going to do if future scientific research proves that, say, East Asians are slightly more intelligent on average than Europeans?
Accept it and move on?
Seriously, there will be a difference in average intelligence by any characteristic you care to name. Ethnic group, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, party voted for at last election, favourite sport, favourite football team.
The problems emerge when those differences are interpreted as general rules, with discrimination against the 'less intelligent' group. The reality is that the variation within any group will be much greater than the variations between groups and so looking at someone's ethnic group, sex etc tells you absolutely nothing useful about how intelligent that person is.
I was surprised that the Sabisky row focused on his comments on race and IQ.
Yes, that showed his ignorance of the debate over the validity and utility of IQ tests, and of socioeconomic factors. There is also a fairly strong suggestion from Ben Goldacre that Sabisky appears to have based his views on fraudulent research.
But a lot of the write-ups bury the lead, which was his call for compulsory contraception (effectively sterilisation) for poor people. It seems to me that was more shocking in a policy adviser because it was not only ignorant regarding the science, but proposed a policy solution involving a grotesque invasion of people's personal lives.
What I find odd is how interventionist some of these people are.
Whats all this about Nicola Sturgeon.. is it serious?
The Salmond trial is next month. There is at least a suspicion that some of the complainers might well have gone to her for help and support and basically been swept under the carpet. She was deputy leader, her husband was running the SNP, she was closely involved with Salmond for decades, if the allegations against Salmond stand up it seems very, very unlikely that she didn't know and condoned this for the greater good.
She commented at the weekend that the #metoo campaign had opened up her eyes to male behaviour that she had tolerated when she shouldn't have done. She seemed to be talking about a journalist at the time but Salmond can't have been far from her thoughts.
That's not what the "cannot be published for legal reasons" rumour the Sun printed though.
This is the wacky stuff about Sturgeon living a double life at night.
oo er missus.. one is intrigued.. Does she play duplicate in the evenings?
Time to shave the beard off ?
Knuckle dragging unionists don't like successful women.
Adonis is like a Corbynista of the centre (whose continuing association with Labour baffles me other than as serving as a flag of convenience.) Continuing to back his man in the face of objective evidence that he is deeply unpopular and thus that renewed association with him would be a major drag on Labour's electoral prospects. And going on and on and on about it.
Back in the Spring of 2017 there was a poll that found that amongst the electorate as a whole, Blair had a net favourability rating of -51, compared to -27 with Corbyn then. There may be more recent polling, but it's hard to imagine that people have revised their view of Blair since. Corbyn's ratings have since plummeted to the ball park of 2017 Blair levels, so they really do have something in common now, and neither is the answer to Labour's woes.
No, the best candidate to make life hard for the Tories (which is not always the same thing as giving Labour the best electoral chance, but you have to do this to collect votes later) was Emily Thornberry.
She would have landed far more blows to the Tories and the leaders of the Tory party than any of the remaining candidates. She could have undertaken a substantial rebuild, refocus, reenergise and reconnect program for Labour.
You're right, if Lady Nugee had become Labour leader the Tories would have been in serious danger of laughing themselves to death.
We'll never know.
But you're wrong (and not a Tory so don't be like @HYUFD when he tells us what Lab and LD voters want or like).
I am a Tory. I'm a Conservative not a conservative.
I'm a Shire Tory - y'know, tweed-jackets, labradors, horses, hunts, shoots, CofE and monarchy.
So, I'm a Conservative and a conservative.
The most unconservative thing I've done is to refuse to join a Gentleman's club in London: the last thing I wanted to do on a Friday night is hang around solely with middle-aged men reading the Telegraph.
I wanted to flirt with young women*.
(*I wasn't wearing a tweed-jacket for this)
The only bits of that which sound interesting to me are the labradors, horses and young women*.
Whats all this about Nicola Sturgeon.. is it serious?
The Salmond trial is next month. There is at least a suspicion that some of the complainers might well have gone to her for help and support and basically been swept under the carpet. She was deputy leader, her husband was running the SNP, she was closely involved with Salmond for decades, if the allegations against Salmond stand up it seems very, very unlikely that she didn't know and condoned this for the greater good.
She commented at the weekend that the #metoo campaign had opened up her eyes to male behaviour that she had tolerated when she shouldn't have done. She seemed to be talking about a journalist at the time but Salmond can't have been far from her thoughts.
That's not what the "cannot be published for legal reasons" rumour the Sun printed though.
This is the wacky stuff about Sturgeon living a double life at night.
oo er missus.. one is intrigued.. Does she play duplicate in the evenings?
It is the SUN, so you can be sure it is absolute bollox
Not sure Malc. I have heard rumours from multiple sources but I have no idea where this goes
I must be an innocent , I have heard nothing other than puerile innuendo from the unionist rags who just hate SNP.
No, not every day. Thursdays like you say. Sometimes Fridays too.
I’m not doing sobriety. I like and enjoy a drink, get the balance right and am healthy.
Ah OK, sounds like you're on top of things atm then. Good luck and hope it continues. It does need watching, the demon drink, if you have a taste for it. And lots of us do, let's face it.
Whats all this about Nicola Sturgeon.. is it serious?
The Salmond trial is next month. There is at least a suspicion that some of the complainers might well have gone to her for help and support and basically been swept under the carpet. She was deputy leader, her husband was running the SNP, she was closely involved with Salmond for decades, if the allegations against Salmond stand up it seems very, very unlikely that she didn't know and condoned this for the greater good.
She commented at the weekend that the #metoo campaign had opened up her eyes to male behaviour that she had tolerated when she shouldn't have done. She seemed to be talking about a journalist at the time but Salmond can't have been far from her thoughts.
Robertson would be a much better FM than her and much much better for independence.
I agree and he is a much better advocate than Blackford
Has to be someone in Holyrood in any case, hence why he is going there I suspect.
Michael Bloomberg Surges in Poll and Qualifies for Democratic Debate in Las Vegas The billionaire will share the stage with his Democratic rivals for the first time on Wednesday night after a national poll showed him with 19 percent support. He is certain to be a target of onstage criticism.
Old geezer too rich for anybody to disagree with him at any point in the last 7 years vs a bunch of sharp practicing politicians who have been doing this every month since last June.
Whats all this about Nicola Sturgeon.. is it serious?
The Salmond trial is next month. There is at least a suspicion that some of the complainers might well have gone to her for help and support and basically been swept under the carpet. She was deputy leader, her husband was running the SNP, she was closely involved with Salmond for decades, if the allegations against Salmond stand up it seems very, very unlikely that she didn't know and condoned this for the greater good.
She commented at the weekend that the #metoo campaign had opened up her eyes to male behaviour that she had tolerated when she shouldn't have done. She seemed to be talking about a journalist at the time but Salmond can't have been far from her thoughts.
That's not what the "cannot be published for legal reasons" rumour the Sun printed though.
This is the wacky stuff about Sturgeon living a double life at night.
oo er missus.. one is intrigued.. Does she play duplicate in the evenings?
It is the SUN, so you can be sure it is absolute bollox
Not sure Malc. I have heard rumours from multiple sources but I have no idea where this goes
I must be an innocent , I have heard nothing other than puerile innuendo from the unionist rags who just hate SNP.
Well if there is anything in these rumours it will no doubt become public knowledge, but Salmond's trial will be very interesting as will be Nicola's evidence
What are we going to do if future scientific research proves that, say, East Asians are slightly more intelligent on average than Europeans?
Accept it and move on?
Seriously, there will be a difference in average intelligence by any characteristic you care to name. Ethnic group, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, party voted for at last election, favourite sport, favourite football team.
The problems emerge when those differences are interpreted as general rules, with discrimination against the 'less intelligent' group. The reality is that the variation within any group will be much greater than the variations between groups and so looking at someone's ethnic group, sex etc tells you absolutely nothing useful about how intelligent that person is.
I was surprised that the Sabisky row focused on his comments on race and IQ.
Yes, that showed his ignorance of the debate over the validity and utility of IQ tests, and of socioeconomic factors. There is also a fairly strong suggestion from Ben Goldacre that Sabisky appears to have based his views on fraudulent research.
But a lot of the write-ups bury the lead, which was his call for compulsory contraception (effectively sterilisation) for poor people. It seems to me that was more shocking in a policy adviser because it was not only ignorant regarding the science, but proposed a policy solution involving a grotesque invasion of people's personal lives.
Interesting podcast on race, intelligence, physical strength etc is 'How to Argue with a Racist' by Adam Rutherford.. It's on the BBC Sounds site. Don't agree with everything he says, but overall it's a complete answer to all the crap about such and such a race being more or less 'intelligent', or physically able than another.
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
Bollox , a couple of beers a day is perfectly all right, nothing worse than an evangalistic convert who could not control themselves preaching to sensible people the evils of a few beers. He will never get beyond sober on 2 beers you halfwit.
No, not every day. Thursdays like you say. Sometimes Fridays too.
I’m not doing sobriety. I like and enjoy a drink, get the balance right and am healthy.
Ah OK, sounds like you're on top of things atm then. Good luck and hope it continues. It does need watching, the demon drink, if you have a taste for it. And lots of us do, let's face it.
It’s also fun, Kinabalu. Like lots of things in life fun is necessary and just needs to be moderated. You can’t absolve all risk from life or it becomes monochrome and dull.
I wouldn’t have had nearly as many amazing parties or as much sex without it.
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
Bollox , a couple of beers a day is perfectly all right, nothing worse than an evangalistic convert who could not control themselves preaching to sensible people the evils of a few beers. He will never get beyond sober on 2 beers you halfwit.
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
Bollox , a couple of beers a day is perfectly all right, nothing worse than an evangalistic convert who could not control themselves preaching to sensible people the evils of a few beers. He will never get beyond sober on 2 beers you halfwit.
Risky arguing with you, I know, Malc, but for a 'real' alcoholic one beer is too many. If a drinker hasn't hit that level though, and can manage their drinking I'd agree with you. Mrs C and I have one alcohol-free day per week. Most of the time. Sometimes we have two, but that's unusual!!!!
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
Bollox , a couple of beers a day is perfectly all right, nothing worse than an evangalistic convert who could not control themselves preaching to sensible people the evils of a few beers. He will never get beyond sober on 2 beers you halfwit.
Risky arguing with you, I know, Malc, but for a 'real' alcoholic one beer is too many. If a drinker hasn't hit that level though, and can manage their drinking I'd agree with you. Mrs C and I have one alcohol-free day per week. Most of the time. Sometimes we have two, but that's unusual!!!!
An alcoholic won't stop at one or two, but if Casino is stopping at 1 or 2 then QED he is not an alcoholic so shouldn't be jumped upon about sobriety.
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
Bollox , a couple of beers a day is perfectly all right, nothing worse than an evangalistic convert who could not control themselves preaching to sensible people the evils of a few beers. He will never get beyond sober on 2 beers you halfwit.
Risky arguing with you, I know, Malc, but for a 'real' alcoholic one beer is too many. If a drinker hasn't hit that level though, and can manage their drinking I'd agree with you. Mrs C and I have one alcohol-free day per week. Most of the time. Sometimes we have two, but that's unusual!!!!
I just feel too dehydrated after 3-4 glasses or 4-5 pints so I am naturally self-regulating.
At uni I could knock ‘em back on a sports night or Friday and then endure a hangover for the best part of 36 hours.
That wasn’t being an alcoholic either. It was been a nineteen year old having fun in a big city.
On a serious note, you may be right that Jones' rambling could offer insight into the whirring hamster wheels at the heart of Corbynite madness.
Try your book? Perhaps one day I will.
But on Jones. He doesn't ramble. He does structured argument in clear and concise prose. One can acknowledge this whilst disliking his politics. Or at least one ought to be able to.
What exactly was the point of Sabisky? What was he going to do and what were his qualifications for doing it? So far as I can see he is just another "edgy" self-publicist. Is there evidence he has correctly forecast let alone super-forecast anything? Was he asked, as they say on the Betfair forums, to "post your bets"?
This looks to me like another example of Cummings being a strategic genius but tactically inept. A sure sign of someone with an overinflated ego who can see the big picture but has no time or inclination to involve himself in the detail - which as we all know is definitely where the devil lies.
Sabisky's historic postings were never going to survive the sort of normal scrutiny that everyone is subjected to these days and Cummings should have realised that straight away. But I get the impression he just didn't care.
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
No, not every day. Thursdays like you say. Sometimes Fridays too.
I’m not doing sobriety. I like and enjoy a drink, get the balance right and am healthy.
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Every day? That's not great. Trust me, I know. Not too late for you though. First try and limit to 2 pints and only on Thursdays. Then when that regime is stabilized think about the next step. Sobriety can be wonderful.
Bollox , a couple of beers a day is perfectly all right, nothing worse than an evangalistic convert who could not control themselves preaching to sensible people the evils of a few beers. He will never get beyond sober on 2 beers you halfwit.
Risky arguing with you, I know, Malc, but for a 'real' alcoholic one beer is too many. If a drinker hasn't hit that level though, and can manage their drinking I'd agree with you. Mrs C and I have one alcohol-free day per week. Most of the time. Sometimes we have two, but that's unusual!!!!
The idea that for alcoholics it's either complete abstinence or alcoholism is something of a myth popularized by Alcoholics Anonymous. There's no reason why a hard-core alcoholic shouldn't just become a moderate drinker. But, obviously, the danger is they'd be back on the slippery slope again.
It hasn't been a great few days for Doris. The Sabinsky thing probably is a bit Westminster bubble and the current honeymoon will absorb most of the Saj saga, so I expect the political damage to be negligible. Nevertheless, Doris is starting to look both cocky and accident prone, which might prove deadly if there are rougher waters ahead.
It’s just possible that come May there will be a serious opposition for the first time in many years.
Michael Bloomberg Surges in Poll and Qualifies for Democratic Debate in Las Vegas The billionaire will share the stage with his Democratic rivals for the first time on Wednesday night after a national poll showed him with 19 percent support. He is certain to be a target of onstage criticism.
Old geezer too rich for anybody to disagree with him at any point in the last 7 years vs a bunch of sharp practicing politicians who have been doing this every month since last June.
Comments
No it doesn't need to be reviewed or looked at. It just needs to be taken out of Cummings's hands and given back to the standard HR recruitment processes.
Steve Bannon didn't last, nor will Cummings.
But you're wrong (and not a Tory so don't be like @HYUFD when he tells us what Lab and LD voters want or like).
It is both, I think. There are people with the same (or greater) innate ability that I have who would objectively be seen to be less successful (my parents for example, are very smart, but neither had the opportunity to go to university and ended up in jobs that used little of their ability) and people with less who have been more successful. But I have also worked to get where I am today.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1229601216356913153?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-51523181
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-51496704
Meanwhile the rest of the country laughs at leftist, remain, green Cambridge getting inconvenienced by XRs.
That's based on who gets to be PM afterwards rather than seat or popular vote shares.
Edit - although if I were feeling mischievous, I might add 1931 to McDonald’s electoral record...
Given staying in the single market which was the only way to keep the whole UK aligned was untenable for most Leavers and for Boris he got the best deal he could for NI. If Starmer became PM the whole UK might rejoin the single market which would solve that problem anyway but Boris has delivered a Brexit that satisfies his Leave base and preserves NI in the UK
And the Sun has helpfully decided that allowing these to sit published beneath the article isn't as serious as putting the rumours in the article in the first place.
There isn't a single exam, university module or career promotion I didn't achieve by working hard (there are no short-cuts) and deferring gratification whilst I did so. If I hadn't, despite all my advantages, I'd probably be working in an estate agent now in a provincial town. The work was interesting, frustrating, voluminous, intense, often stressful, and sometimes boring, but I got there. And it's taken about 25 years to (almost) hit a senior consultancy grade and a £90k salary. Several career moves I made were dead-ends, so I jumped ship, and then argued myself up a level. The best things I were taught were resilience, perseverance, that nothing in life is handed to you on a plate: you have to be your own best advocate.
We shouldn't delude ourselves that luck is something that 'just happens' to privileged people. It doesn't. The real misfortune of less privileged people is that they don't necessarily have a stable family (key for emotional resilience) or teachers (key for development) that encourage them to be ambitious, with both indicating to them that the world may deal you many hands of cards, but all of them can be played. That's my problem with "luck": it suggests we are all passive recipients of chances in life that are unfairly doled out, and you'll either get it if you're privileged, or won't if you're not. In reality, such an attitude all but guarantees less privileged people will be unlucky. Because they will think it's pointless to try.
What we mean by luck is opportunities that pay off. Not just open-door opportunities "there for the taking" - opportunities are rarely like this - but recognising where an opportunity might lie and working hard to develop and sell it. And, when it doesn't work out, where else it might lie. You can manage your own 'luck' by doing this. It sometimes get confused with "hard work" - which is undoubtedly the key ingredient - but it's not like the national lottery: luck is where opportunity meets preparation.
You have to be taught how to recognise and exploit the opportunities, and you never will if you don't prepare. This is the best thing we do to support social mobility; not banging on about class privilege.
I think luck does apply (where it's about circumstances entirely beyond your control, such as asset growth in the housing market) but for career and personal success luck can be magnified and managed.
Average earnings back to pre crisis peak
So for a football match (Or any sporting event) you'd either get half time waffle or the normal car, holiday, sofa ads.
Movies - These are the worst for adverts (Channel 4 movies are horrendous in particular) - so with the sub the movie would just run through, without you get ad interruptions.
Regular programs could switch back to the news (There's always rolling news !) after the scheduled show is complete for the sub payers - or if there is a sufficient gap, have an "extra" show scheduled (Making of movie or show e.g.)
Sub could give you a bigger on demand collection too - which aside from live sporting events and rolling news is where entertainment is all heading.
So, I'm a Conservative and a conservative.
The most unconservative thing I've done is to refuse to join a Gentleman's club in London: the last thing I wanted to do on a Friday night is hang around solely with middle-aged men reading the Telegraph.
I wanted to flirt with young women*.
(*I wasn't wearing a tweed-jacket for this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DPXp_cXsIc
However, that’s why I’d argue it’s so important to vote for a stable competent Government that manages a resilient economy.
That’s one way you can make the ocean more navigable for all!
More significantly, the budget date (unchanged since The Saj set it) is another thing, like Sabisky, on which the government could not comment yesterday or over the weekend but has now found its voice.
Are the grown-ups back in charge?
Seriously, there will be a difference in average intelligence by any characteristic you care to name. Ethnic group, sex, hair colour, eye colour, height, party voted for at last election, favourite sport, favourite football team.
The problems emerge when those differences are interpreted as general rules, with discrimination against the 'less intelligent' group. The reality is that the variation within any group will be much greater than the variations between groups and so looking at someone's ethnic group, sex etc tells you absolutely nothing useful about how intelligent that person is.
I was finishing off the Valentine's Day fizz from the night before. Not downing white lighting and every stella in the house!
I barely have a pint or two after work during the week.
Last year, I read a number of biographies of politicians and the odd prominent businessman and was struck by the number of times doors were opened for them. Do they even realise this is not the experience of most people?
Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
I’m not doing sobriety. I like and enjoy a drink, get the balance right and am healthy.
Politics is a very unusual business.
The amusement is at how the leftist voting people of Cambridge are being inconvenienced by the people their leftism has encouraged.
Now, I must do some work. Or I fear my luck may run out with my existing job, let alone future ones.
The billionaire will share the stage with his Democratic rivals for the first time on Wednesday night after a national poll showed him with 19 percent support. He is certain to be a target of onstage criticism.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/bloomberg-debate-poll-numbers.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00GCAF2CI
Less bullshit, more jokes.
On a serious note, you may be right that Jones' rambling could offer insight into the whirring hamster wheels at the heart of Corbynite madness.
Don't bother to apply.
Yes, that showed his ignorance of the debate over the validity and utility of IQ tests, and of socioeconomic factors. There is also a fairly strong suggestion from Ben Goldacre that Sabisky appears to have based his views on fraudulent research.
But a lot of the write-ups bury the lead, which was his call for compulsory contraception (effectively sterilisation) for poor people. It seems to me that was more shocking in a policy adviser because it was not only ignorant regarding the science, but proposed a policy solution involving a grotesque invasion of people's personal lives.
https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1229479868011864065
Dawn Butler, speaking from a land where chromosomes don't exist.
It'll be like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgH_V5Mx-ME
If only Corbyn had listened more to Labour activist non-impartial self-identifying journalists everything would have been better?
* Before I was married.
"what it was up against"?
Voters?
Don't agree with everything he says, but overall it's a complete answer to all the crap about such and such a race being more or less 'intelligent', or physically able than another.
He will never get beyond sober on 2 beers you halfwit.
I wouldn’t have had nearly as many amazing parties or as much sex without it.
Mrs C and I have one alcohol-free day per week. Most of the time. Sometimes we have two, but that's unusual!!!!
At uni I could knock ‘em back on a sports night or Friday and then endure a hangover for the best part of 36 hours.
That wasn’t being an alcoholic either. It was been a nineteen year old having fun in a big city.
But on Jones. He doesn't ramble. He does structured argument in clear and concise prose. One can acknowledge this whilst disliking his politics. Or at least one ought to be able to.
Sabisky's historic postings were never going to survive the sort of normal scrutiny that everyone is subjected to these days and Cummings should have realised that straight away. But I get the impression he just didn't care.
That someone might be able to buy themselves the nomination with the odd billion dollars is unacceptable.
After all, it's not as though we aren't starting to turn up hard evidence for such nuance on gender:
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/cercor/bhz272/5669983