"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
It is an artificial divide. What does pro lockdown even mean? And even the GB declaration mob are planning to quarantine around a quarter of the population. The reality is that almost everyone is along the 50 shades of grey.
As I said few sportsmen are professional standard at more than one sport.
Yes. Have you discounted the ones who never bothered to try?
What is really wrong with your point is that we are talking about career choices made by the very young, so established sportsmen moonlighting at something else are kinda not relevant.
Perhaps you could name some who could have played at professional level at different sports.
Phil Neville was apparently a fine cricketer and Ian Botham could have been a rugged central defender (though not of international class).
How many more ? A few certainly.
And that's what I said to begin with.
No, look: the subject of discussion was what sport is likely to give the best prospects for a young Caribbean bloke deciding on a career path. The question is whether if the young Viv Richards had never heard of cricket and was born in a baseball or basketball culture he would have excelled. The argument is an a fortiori one: if he (and C B Fry) can manage a career as an international footballer in his spare time when he is basically a cricketer, he could sure as fck make it big as a baseball or tennis player (both closer to cricket than football is) if he had devoted himself to those sports from the get go. Do you think Americans are *genetically* predisposed to baseball, or that they take innate talent and turn it to what happens to be available?
As I say 13 people have played both cricket and football for England. CB Fry also held the world long jump record.
How many of them were at the very pinnacle of either sport while still playing the other? The last of those 13, Arthur Milton, was capped once for football and eight times for cricket. He was essentially a good solid county cricketer who earned extra money in the off season by playing for a London club (I forget which) and was called up for football in an injury crisis. Generally, to reach the top of a sport you have to fully commit to it.
I would have thought the closest thing to a modern sportsman who excelled in multiple disciplines would be AB de Villiers, but Kyle Edmund and the Neville brothers both played under-19 cricket.
Among women, of course, Ellyse Perry is something of a dazzling exception but I think she’s given up football now.
That is exactly the point. If even those by no means fully commited to their second sport can get that far in it, that is a powerful argument for the fungibility of athletic talent.
As I said few sportsmen are professional standard at more than one sport.
Yes. Have you discounted the ones who never bothered to try?
What is really wrong with your point is that we are talking about career choices made by the very young, so established sportsmen moonlighting at something else are kinda not relevant.
Perhaps you could name some who could have played at professional level at different sports.
Phil Neville was apparently a fine cricketer and Ian Botham could have been a rugged central defender (though not of international class).
How many more ? A few certainly.
And that's what I said to begin with.
No, look: the subject of discussion was what sport is likely to give the best prospects for a young Caribbean bloke deciding on a career path. The question is whether if the young Viv Richards had never heard of cricket and was born in a baseball or basketball culture he would have excelled. The argument is an a fortiori one: if he (and C B Fry) can manage a career as an international footballer in his spare time when he is basically a cricketer, he could sure as fck make it big as a baseball or tennis player (both closer to cricket than football is) if he had devoted himself to those sports from the get go. Do you think Americans are *genetically* predisposed to baseball, or that they take innate talent and turn it to what happens to be available?
As I say 13 people have played both cricket and football for England. CB Fry also held the world long jump record.
Revealing that you keep harking back to CB Fry.
A man whose sporting achievements were pre 1914, in some cases pre 1900.
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
It is an artificial divide. What does pro lockdown even mean? And even the GB declaration mob are planning to quarantine around a quarter of the population. The reality is that almost everyone is along the 50 shades of grey.
I wonder how many people are shy anti-lockdowners. Or lockdowns-are-great-except-I-want-to-go-to-toga-parties...
As I said few sportsmen are professional standard at more than one sport.
Yes. Have you discounted the ones who never bothered to try?
What is really wrong with your point is that we are talking about career choices made by the very young, so established sportsmen moonlighting at something else are kinda not relevant.
Perhaps you could name some who could have played at professional level at different sports.
Phil Neville was apparently a fine cricketer and Ian Botham could have been a rugged central defender (though not of international class).
How many more ? A few certainly.
And that's what I said to begin with.
No, look: the subject of discussion was what sport is likely to give the best prospects for a young Caribbean bloke deciding on a career path. The question is whether if the young Viv Richards had never heard of cricket and was born in a baseball or basketball culture he would have excelled. The argument is an a fortiori one: if he (and C B Fry) can manage a career as an international footballer in his spare time when he is basically a cricketer, he could sure as fck make it big as a baseball or tennis player (both closer to cricket than football is) if he had devoted himself to those sports from the get go. Do you think Americans are *genetically* predisposed to baseball, or that they take innate talent and turn it to what happens to be available?
As I say 13 people have played both cricket and football for England. CB Fry also held the world long jump record.
How many of them were at the very pinnacle of either sport while still playing the other? The last of those 13, Arthur Milton, was capped once for football and eight times for cricket. He was essentially a good solid county cricketer who earned extra money in the off season by playing for a London club (I forget which) and was called up for football in an injury crisis. Generally, to reach the top of a sport you have to fully commit to it.
I would have thought the closest thing to a modern sportsman who excelled in multiple disciplines would be AB de Villiers, but Kyle Edmund and the Neville brothers both played under-19 cricket.
Among women, of course, Ellyse Perry is something of a dazzling exception but I think she’s given up football now.
Historically playing for England was the pinnacle of most sports.
(I guess this was only a little compromised in the 60s, a bit more in the 70s, and to where it is today in the 80/90s)
That Premier League plan sounds awful. Even as a supporter of a big six club I'm hugely against it. Get rid of the league cup if there's fixture congestion a 20 team league is a must have.
There is no need to get rid of the league cup due to fixture congestion. Teams who are concerned about that can and do play a mix of reserves and youth players who benefit from the game time.
The real reason the big 6 want to get rid of the league cup is to allow more UEFA club games.
It probably increases rather than reduces the impact of congestion on the players as clubs will be less likely to rotate for those extra UEFA games.
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
It is an artificial divide. What does pro lockdown even mean? And even the GB declaration mob are planning to quarantine around a quarter of the population. The reality is that almost everyone is along the 50 shades of grey.
I wonder how many people are shy anti-lockdowners. Or lockdowns-are-great-except-I-want-to-go-to-toga-parties...
Looking around at my neighbours suggests there are a lot of people who say they are pro-lockdown but don't take a blind bit of notice of the rules.
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
It is an artificial divide. What does pro lockdown even mean? And even the GB declaration mob are planning to quarantine around a quarter of the population. The reality is that almost everyone is along the 50 shades of grey.
I wonder how many people are shy anti-lockdowners. Or lockdowns-are-great-except-I-want-to-go-to-toga-parties...
Looking around at my neighbours suggests there are a lot of people who say they are pro-lockdown but don't take a blind bit of notice of the rules.
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
It is an artificial divide. What does pro lockdown even mean? And even the GB declaration mob are planning to quarantine around a quarter of the population. The reality is that almost everyone is along the 50 shades of grey.
I wonder how many people are shy anti-lockdowners. Or lockdowns-are-great-except-I-want-to-go-to-toga-parties...
Looking around at my neighbours suggests there are a lot of people who say they are pro-lockdown but don't take a blind bit of notice of the rules.
Quite, the nation is in favour of locking down everyone else but them.
Man Utd and Liverpool put forward a joint proposal to reduce the Premier League to 18 teams and the clubs to have much more say on matters including the league cup and in return will support the lower leagues with 250 million
Seems it has support and looks like the start of something good for all football
Well done to the two of them
Sorry, but you're wrong. What these scumbag owners are proposing is disgraceful. I'm unlikely to be able to go any time soon, but if Arsenal are supporting this, I will no longer be supporting them.
What do you object to so fervently?
Supporting lower league clubs more and giving 25% of PL income to the rest of the football pyramid on an ongoing basis seems like a healthy move.
I oppose the Big 6 banning anyone else from challenging them.
Sounds like a first step towards a USA style franchise league with high cost barrier to joining or substituting for existing.
That Premier League plan sounds awful. Even as a supporter of a big six club I'm hugely against it. Get rid of the league cup if there's fixture congestion a 20 team league is a must have.
There is no need to get rid of the league cup due to fixture congestion. Teams who are concerned about that can and do play a mix of reserves and youth players who benefit from the game time.
The real reason the big 6 want to get rid of the league cup is to allow more UEFA club games.
It probably increases rather than reduces the impact of congestion on the players as clubs will be less likely to rotate for those extra UEFA games.
Which is fine, but we still only need one domestic cup.
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
It is an artificial divide. What does pro lockdown even mean? And even the GB declaration mob are planning to quarantine around a quarter of the population. The reality is that almost everyone is along the 50 shades of grey.
I wonder how many people are shy anti-lockdowners. Or lockdowns-are-great-except-I-want-to-go-to-toga-parties...
Looking around at my neighbours suggests there are a lot of people who say they are pro-lockdown but don't take a blind bit of notice of the rules.
Quite, the nation is in favour of locking down everyone else but them.
Man Utd and Liverpool put forward a joint proposal to reduce the Premier League to 18 teams and the clubs to have much more say on matters including the league cup and in return will support the lower leagues with 250 million
Seems it has support and looks like the start of something good for all football
Well done to the two of them
Sorry, but you're wrong. What these scumbag owners are proposing is disgraceful. I'm unlikely to be able to go any time soon, but if Arsenal are supporting this, I will no longer be supporting them.
What do you object to so fervently?
Supporting lower league clubs more and giving 25% of PL income to the rest of the football pyramid on an ongoing basis seems like a healthy move.
I oppose the Big 6 banning anyone else from challenging them.
Sounds like a first step towards a USA style franchise league with high cost barrier to joining or substituting for existing.
No, that US system is good, if different. The Dallas Cowboys is the most valuable sports brand in the world. But they've still only won four post-season matches in the last 24 years.
It's the main reason that I don't think a European Super League will happen. If it did, it would only ever be won by Barcelona, Real Madrid or Bayern Munich. The rest would be there to make up the numbers.
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
I don't think being anti lockdown correlates much to how people view the EU . I for instance don't get worked up by much in politics but the two things that have had me vexed recently have been that I believe that lockdown was wrong and also that I think leaving the EU was stupid. If I had to link why I had those views it would be a belief in the individual being better at leading their own life's than a state collective and both lockdown and Brexit reduce individual opportunity and freedom especially for the young and ambitious.
I was wrong about Hulkenberg and points, but also about how many cars would end up retiring. Verstappen bet ended up mildly profitable, but that's fine.
As I said few sportsmen are professional standard at more than one sport.
Yes. Have you discounted the ones who never bothered to try?
What is really wrong with your point is that we are talking about career choices made by the very young, so established sportsmen moonlighting at something else are kinda not relevant.
Perhaps you could name some who could have played at professional level at different sports.
Phil Neville was apparently a fine cricketer and Ian Botham could have been a rugged central defender (though not of international class).
How many more ? A few certainly.
And that's what I said to begin with.
No, look: the subject of discussion was what sport is likely to give the best prospects for a young Caribbean bloke deciding on a career path. The question is whether if the young Viv Richards had never heard of cricket and was born in a baseball or basketball culture he would have excelled. The argument is an a fortiori one: if he (and C B Fry) can manage a career as an international footballer in his spare time when he is basically a cricketer, he could sure as fck make it big as a baseball or tennis player (both closer to cricket than football is) if he had devoted himself to those sports from the get go. Do you think Americans are *genetically* predisposed to baseball, or that they take innate talent and turn it to what happens to be available?
As I say 13 people have played both cricket and football for England. CB Fry also held the world long jump record.
Revealing that you keep harking back to CB Fry.
A man whose sporting achievements were pre 1914, in some cases pre 1900.
Fry's antiquity is actually a point against you. What has changed between then and now? The answer is professionalism and intensity of training, implying that it is those factors - not innate adaptation to one sport over another - which make it harder to do now than it was then.
Also, Lord Botham PBUH is still with us and Clare Taylor is younger than I am.
This is an "even if" argument. If actual professional cricketers in their 30s (enough of them to establish that they are not freaks) can play another sport at international level effectively as a hobby and in their spare time, it is ludicrous to suggest that they could not do so if they had specialised in that sport instead of cricket in the first place.
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
It is an artificial divide. What does pro lockdown even mean? And even the GB declaration mob are planning to quarantine around a quarter of the population. The reality is that almost everyone is along the 50 shades of grey.
I wonder how many people are shy anti-lockdowners. Or lockdowns-are-great-except-I-want-to-go-to-toga-parties...
Looking around at my neighbours suggests there are a lot of people who say they are pro-lockdown but don't take a blind bit of notice of the rules.
Yes, lockdown is the same as higher taxes, something for other people.
That Premier League plan sounds awful. Even as a supporter of a big six club I'm hugely against it. Get rid of the league cup if there's fixture congestion a 20 team league is a must have.
There is no need to get rid of the league cup due to fixture congestion. Teams who are concerned about that can and do play a mix of reserves and youth players who benefit from the game time.
The real reason the big 6 want to get rid of the league cup is to allow more UEFA club games.
It probably increases rather than reduces the impact of congestion on the players as clubs will be less likely to rotate for those extra UEFA games.
Which is fine, but we still only need one domestic cup.
There is no "need" for any domestic cup. Whether we have none, one, two, or more is a matter of preference which will vary. Personally I dont have a strong view between one or two, the league cup has become a developmental competition to see young players come through which seems fine. I am more surprised the non big 6 premier league teams don't even take the FA cup seriously, even when they are safely mid table.
The discussions would be easier if the big 6 were honest about their motivation imo.
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
I don't think being anti lockdown correlates much to how people view the EU . I for instance don't get worked up by much in politics but the two things that have had me vexed recently have been that I believe that lockdown was wrong and also that I think leaving the EU was stupid. If I had to link why I had those views it would be a belief in the individual being better at leading their own life's than a state collective and both lockdown and Brexit reduce individual opportunity and freedom
I'm also pro-EU and anti-lockdown and seem to be in learned company
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Would this be the first change of PM/President of a major country during the pandemic? It will serve as a nice way of showing whether the solutions, and their implementation, are as easy as the opposition said.
Indeed. I predict he will be little better than Trump in effect, though he will talk slightly more coherently. Most of the decisions are made at state level, for a start.
You can't "end a pandemic". It's a storm which must be endured - and the damage mitigated, in various ways.
Of course you can end a pandemic. It might take years or even decades to achieve. When was the last time anyone contracted Spanish flu?
Pandemics generally end themselves. They burn out, like wildfires. They are not "ended" by humans.
"To this day, smallpox is the only human infectious disease to have been completely eradicated"
Sure, but lots of other infectious diseases - mumps, measles, rubella, polio, chicken pox, whopping cough - have been effectively eliminated in developed countries
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
I don't think being anti lockdown correlates much to how people view the EU . I for instance don't get worked up by much in politics but the two things that have had me vexed recently have been that I believe that lockdown was wrong and also that I think leaving the EU was stupid.
Seems that the underlying primary consideration in your two positions is economics - EU good for the economy, lockdown bad for the economy.
Change primary consideration, you get different results. Prime concern 1. individual agency => EU bad, lockdown bad 2. communitarianism => EU good, lockdown good 3. UK sovereignty => EU bad, lockdown good or bad depending on the will of the people, so currently good.
That Premier League plan sounds awful. Even as a supporter of a big six club I'm hugely against it. Get rid of the league cup if there's fixture congestion a 20 team league is a must have.
There is no need to get rid of the league cup due to fixture congestion. Teams who are concerned about that can and do play a mix of reserves and youth players who benefit from the game time.
The real reason the big 6 want to get rid of the league cup is to allow more UEFA club games.
It probably increases rather than reduces the impact of congestion on the players as clubs will be less likely to rotate for those extra UEFA games.
Which is fine, but we still only need one domestic cup.
There is no "need" for any domestic cup. Whether we have none, one, two, or more is a matter of preference which will vary. Personally I dont have a strong view between one or two, the league cup has become a developmental competition to see young players come through which seems fine. I am more surprised the non big 6 premier league teams don't even take the FA cup seriously, even when they are safely mid table.
The discussions would be easier if the big 6 were honest about their motivation imo.
Yes for 14 premier league clubs the FA cup /League Cup is the only trophy they can realistically ever win. At least lower league teams can win their league. I have no idea why mid tier premier league teams dont play their strongest teams in the FA Cup at least either
As I said few sportsmen are professional standard at more than one sport.
Yes. Have you discounted the ones who never bothered to try?
What is really wrong with your point is that we are talking about career choices made by the very young, so established sportsmen moonlighting at something else are kinda not relevant.
Perhaps you could name some who could have played at professional level at different sports.
Phil Neville was apparently a fine cricketer and Ian Botham could have been a rugged central defender (though not of international class).
How many more ? A few certainly.
And that's what I said to begin with.
No, look: the subject of discussion was what sport is likely to give the best prospects for a young Caribbean bloke deciding on a career path. The question is whether if the young Viv Richards had never heard of cricket and was born in a baseball or basketball culture he would have excelled. The argument is an a fortiori one: if he (and C B Fry) can manage a career as an international footballer in his spare time when he is basically a cricketer, he could sure as fck make it big as a baseball or tennis player (both closer to cricket than football is) if he had devoted himself to those sports from the get go. Do you think Americans are *genetically* predisposed to baseball, or that they take innate talent and turn it to what happens to be available?
As I say 13 people have played both cricket and football for England. CB Fry also held the world long jump record.
How many of them were at the very pinnacle of either sport while still playing the other? The last of those 13, Arthur Milton, was capped once for football and eight times for cricket. He was essentially a good solid county cricketer who earned extra money in the off season by playing for a London club (I forget which) and was called up for football in an injury crisis. Generally, to reach the top of a sport you have to fully commit to it.
I would have thought the closest thing to a modern sportsman who excelled in multiple disciplines would be AB de Villiers, but Kyle Edmund and the Neville brothers both played under-19 cricket.
Among women, of course, Ellyse Perry is something of a dazzling exception but I think she’s given up football now.
That is exactly the point. If even those by no means fully commited to their second sport can get that far in it, that is a powerful argument for the fungibility of athletic talent.
That Premier League plan sounds awful. Even as a supporter of a big six club I'm hugely against it. Get rid of the league cup if there's fixture congestion a 20 team league is a must have.
Really odd that Liverpool are briefing that Rick Parry is driving it - Sounds like PR/a stitch up - why would the head of the EFL be proposing a power grab by nine clubs in the Premier League while the EFL is at its most vulnerable? I think the Football League clubs might start asking themselves exactly who Rick Parry is working for.
I don't think being anti lockdown correlates much to how people view the EU . I for instance don't get worked up by much in politics but the two things that have had me vexed recently have been that I believe that lockdown was wrong and also that I think leaving the EU was stupid.
Seems that the underlying primary consideration in your two positions is economics - EU good for the economy, lockdown bad for the economy.
Change primary consideration, you get different results. Prime concern 1. individual agency => EU bad, lockdown bad 2. communitarianism => EU good, lockdown good 3. UK sovereignty => EU bad, lockdown good or bad depending on the will of the people, so currently good.
and so on ...
I view the EU has being good for the individual not bad - free movement etc. Never been a fan of nationalism or insular looking countries (of which the UK has now become)
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
He's not deranged and he can read a speech.
Basically he's a clapped out politico overdue for retirement.
Do the Democrats not have a single Governor who is 40-60, sensible, competent ?
That, to me, is the most disappointing aspect.
The problem the Democrats had this year is that they had about a dozen candidates in the "centre lane", and Bernie and Elizabeth on the Left.
This meant that none of the other centrists (except perhaps Buttigieg and Bloomberg) really got any airtime.
If the Iowa count had not been messed up, than Buttigieg may have ridden victory there to a win in New Hampshire, and this election might have been very different.
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
I find it peculiar how he can be so very dominant on clay. I mean, he's no slouch on other surfaces, but no one can get close to him on clay. What about his style of play makes the difference on clay more than anything else, that no one can adapt to?
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
I find it peculiar how he can be so very dominant on clay. I mean, he's no slouch on other surfaces, but no one can get close to him on clay. What about his style of play makes the difference on clay more than anything else, that no one can adapt to?
I don't claim to be an expert, but I think it's specifically the Parisian Clay that he is ridiculously dominant on. I think it's the bounce and spin he can generate on it.
I find it peculiar how he can be so very dominant on clay. I mean, he's no slouch on other surfaces, but no one can get close to him on clay. What about his style of play makes the difference on clay more than anything else, that no one can adapt to?
clay slows the ball to the extent that the best touch tennis player wins I suppose . Negates the big serving which is a separate skill in itself.
As I said few sportsmen are professional standard at more than one sport.
Yes. Have you discounted the ones who never bothered to try?
What is really wrong with your point is that we are talking about career choices made by the very young, so established sportsmen moonlighting at something else are kinda not relevant.
Perhaps you could name some who could have played at professional level at different sports.
Phil Neville was apparently a fine cricketer and Ian Botham could have been a rugged central defender (though not of international class).
How many more ? A few certainly.
And that's what I said to begin with.
Isnt the answer to a quiz question Ian Botham in that if you ask who is the only England Captain to play for Scunthorpe?
Also Daley Thompson (not content with being good at 10 events) also played football for Mansfield for a couple of appearances i think
It is but the answer is wrong! Ray Clemence has done both as well. And Keegan as well.
Jim Cumbes? Baggies and Villa Keeper, also played cricket, medium pace bowler Lancs and Surrey, I think. Baggies first choice goalkeeper for a time. I seem to remember Worcs. in the cricket mix too.
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
He's not deranged and he can read a speech.
Basically he's a clapped out politico overdue for retirement.
Do the Democrats not have a single Governor who is 40-60, sensible, competent ?
That, to me, is the most disappointing aspect.
The problem the Democrats had this year is that they had about a dozen candidates in the "centre lane", and Bernie and Elizabeth on the Left.
This meant that none of the other centrists (except perhaps Buttigieg and Bloomberg) really got any airtime.
If the Iowa count had not been messed up, than Buttigieg may have ridden victory there to a win in New Hampshire, and this election might have been very different.
I find it peculiar how he can be so very dominant on clay. I mean, he's no slouch on other surfaces, but no one can get close to him on clay. What about his style of play makes the difference on clay more than anything else, that no one can adapt to?
clay slows the ball to the extent that the best touch tennis player wins I suppose . Negates the big serving which is a separate skill in itself.
Actually, I think clay favours big hitters in terms of ground shots. Henman didn't have a huge serve, but his touch at the net meant he could compete on the grass at Wimbledon. Although, oddly, I actually think his best chance to win a slam was the 04 French.
Sadly, Wimbledon doesn't play like it did pre-2002. The ball bounces more than it used to which means the baseline bashers don't have to adapt their game. One thing Federer has that Nadal and Djokovic don't is that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon.
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
Biden has cost me a little bit in confounding expectations. I'm baffled in that to my mind he was the only Democratic candidate that was worse than Trump. I still think he is worse than Trump.
I find it peculiar how he can be so very dominant on clay. I mean, he's no slouch on other surfaces, but no one can get close to him on clay. What about his style of play makes the difference on clay more than anything else, that no one can adapt to?
clay slows the ball to the extent that the best touch tennis player wins I suppose . Negates the big serving which is a separate skill in itself.
Also emphasises his truly phenomenal stamina with longer points and greater emphasis on tactical awareness than raw power (not that he's particularly bad at that either).
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
It is an artificial divide. What does pro lockdown even mean? And even the GB declaration mob are planning to quarantine around a quarter of the population. The reality is that almost everyone is along the 50 shades of grey.
I wonder how many people are shy anti-lockdowners. Or lockdowns-are-great-except-I-want-to-go-to-toga-parties...
Looking around at my neighbours suggests there are a lot of people who say they are pro-lockdown but don't take a blind bit of notice of the rules.
Quite, the nation is in favour of locking down everyone else but them.
Which, with a majority of active voters being pensioners, puts the finger right on the nub of the matter.
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Not really. There is a large pro-lockdown majority, which must include lots of Leavers (though I accept the p[oint in the last thread that being pro-lockdown is easier if you're not affected). The new division is between "robust libertarians" (a subset of Leave) and more or less everyone else.
It is an artificial divide. What does pro lockdown even mean? And even the GB declaration mob are planning to quarantine around a quarter of the population. The reality is that almost everyone is along the 50 shades of grey.
I wonder how many people are shy anti-lockdowners. Or lockdowns-are-great-except-I-want-to-go-to-toga-parties...
Looking around at my neighbours suggests there are a lot of people who say they are pro-lockdown but don't take a blind bit of notice of the rules.
Quite, the nation is in favour of locking down everyone else but them.
Which, with a majority of active voters being pensioners, puts the finger right on the nub of the matter.
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
The accidental genius of the Biden choice is that almost no one hates him. He has also assembled what looks to be a truly excellent campaign team, which hopefully augurs well for being able to so the same in the White House.
Add to that an ability to work with broad coalitions of those who disagree with him, and the fact that he’s very likely to retire after a single term, and he’s really not a terrible choice if you’re looking to offer an alternative to the administrative chaos of Trump.
It would be interesting to run a poll asking what the average person thought Johnson’s election message meant. I wonder if many thought he meant no deal
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
The accidental genius of the Biden choice is that almost no one hates him. He has also assembled what looks to be a truly excellent campaign team, which hopefully augurs well for being able to so the same in the White House.
Add to that an ability to work with broad coalitions of those who disagree with him, and the fact that he’s very likely to retire after a single term, and he’s really not a terrible choice if you’re looking to offer an alternative to the administrative chaos of Trump.
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
Biden has cost me a little bit in confounding expectations. I'm baffled in that to my mind he was the only Democratic candidate that was worse than Trump. I still think he is worse than Trump.
I couldn't name a worse candidate than Trump. That is not to say he might not win.
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
The accidental genius of the Biden choice is that almost no one hates him. He has also assembled what looks to be a truly excellent campaign team, which hopefully augurs well for being able to so the same in the White House.
Add to that an ability to work with broad coalitions of those who disagree with him, and the fact that he’s very likely to retire after a single term, and he’s really not a terrible choice if you’re looking to offer an alternative to the administrative chaos of Trump.
I thought that was one of the main attractions of Biden the whole time, that he was inoffensive to most people.
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
The accidental genius of the Biden choice is that almost no one hates him. He has also assembled what looks to be a truly excellent campaign team, which hopefully augurs well for being able to so the same in the White House.
Add to that an ability to work with broad coalitions of those who disagree with him, and the fact that he’s very likely to retire after a single term, and he’s really not a terrible choice if you’re looking to offer an alternative to the administrative chaos of Trump.
A good point. I just hope it works out.
I don’t know how he’ll turn out as President - and I suspect much turns on whether or not the Democrats have a Senate majority - but my gut feel is that he’ll do OK.
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
The accidental genius of the Biden choice is that almost no one hates him. He has also assembled what looks to be a truly excellent campaign team, which hopefully augurs well for being able to so the same in the White House.
Add to that an ability to work with broad coalitions of those who disagree with him, and the fact that he’s very likely to retire after a single term, and he’s really not a terrible choice if you’re looking to offer an alternative to the administrative chaos of Trump.
A good point. I just hope it works out.
I don’t know how he’ll turn out as President - and I suspect much turns on whether or not the Democrats have a Senate majority - but my gut feel is that he’ll do OK.
My concern wasn't how well he does as President. I am still nervous that Trump remains resident in Trump Tower, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Incoming twattish journos with cases down x% (or do they only do that when it is a daily increase).
Well we must take any good (ish) news that we can. A few days ago it looked like we might be exploding just like France (they had an incredible 26,000 new cases yesterday). Perhaps, just perhaps, the 10pm curfews and so on are slowing it down. Inshallah!!
Incoming twattish journos with cases down x% (or do they only do that when it is a daily increase).
Well we must take any good (ish) news that we can. A few days ago it looked like we might be exploding just like France (they had an incredible 26,000 new cases yesterday). Perhaps, just perhaps, the 10pm curfews and so on are slowing it down. Inshallah!!
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
The accidental genius of the Biden choice is that almost no one hates him. He has also assembled what looks to be a truly excellent campaign team, which hopefully augurs well for being able to so the same in the White House.
Add to that an ability to work with broad coalitions of those who disagree with him, and the fact that he’s very likely to retire after a single term, and he’s really not a terrible choice if you’re looking to offer an alternative to the administrative chaos of Trump.
I thought that was one of the main attractions of Biden the whole time, that he was inoffensive to most people.
Yes, he’s the generic not-Trump choice. But I think the combination of being both very old and a team player might work quite well.
I find it peculiar how he can be so very dominant on clay. I mean, he's no slouch on other surfaces, but no one can get close to him on clay. What about his style of play makes the difference on clay more than anything else, that no one can adapt to?
clay slows the ball to the extent that the best touch tennis player wins I suppose . Negates the big serving which is a separate skill in itself.
Actually, I think clay favours big hitters in terms of ground shots. Henman didn't have a huge serve, but his touch at the net meant he could compete on the grass at Wimbledon. Although, oddly, I actually think his best chance to win a slam was the 04 French.
Sadly, Wimbledon doesn't play like it did pre-2002. The ball bounces more than it used to which means the baseline bashers don't have to adapt their game. One thing Federer has that Nadal and Djokovic don't is that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon.
I think that last comment is a bit unfair, given neither Nadal nor Djokovic were playing grand slam competitions when Sampras retired, so they never had a chance to beat him at Wimbledon. What is remarkable about Federer is how he is still able to play top level singles tennis in his late thirties.
Incoming twattish journos with cases down x% (or do they only do that when it is a daily increase).
Well we must take any good (ish) news that we can. A few days ago it looked like we might be exploding just like France (they had an incredible 26,000 new cases yesterday). Perhaps, just perhaps, the 10pm curfews and so on are slowing it down. Inshallah!!
Incoming twattish journos with cases down x% (or do they only do that when it is a daily increase).
Well we must take any good (ish) news that we can. A few days ago it looked like we might be exploding just like France (they had an incredible 26,000 new cases yesterday). Perhaps, just perhaps, the 10pm curfews and so on are slowing it down. Inshallah!!
Weekend, let's see what it is on Monday.
Of course. But I said, right now I'll take any goodish news wherever. Otherwise the outlook is unremittingly grim
"How closely linked are lockdown and Brexit? | The Spectator Patrick West
Once upon a time, a long time ago, this country was consumed by the matter of Brexit. Everywhere you turned, in every medium, even among friends and colleagues, you couldn't get away from the subject: everyone was talking about Brexit. We were obsessed by it. From 2016 to 2019 there was no escape.
All of this changed this year. With the pandemic, the rancorous matter of Brexit vanished, or at least stopped becoming the emotive, divisive matter of primary concern. It has been relegated to a pedestrian news story about trading rights. In the year of the coronavirus and all its horrors, paranoia and despair, Brexit has become a sideshow. Right?
Wrong. While the clamorous conflict between Leavers and Remainers has ostensibly ceased, in our collective subconscious the same cleavage in our society remains – only the subject matter has changed. As you may have concluded from newspapers and your social media feed, Remainer and Leave camps have merely metamorphosed into pro-lockdown and anti-lockdown tribes."
Strangely enough just spent an hour chatting to a bloke I haven't seen since before lockdown. He was an extreme Remainer and told everyone so. Turns out he's now a ferocious anti-lockdowner. And is equally forthcoming in his views.
I find it peculiar how he can be so very dominant on clay. I mean, he's no slouch on other surfaces, but no one can get close to him on clay. What about his style of play makes the difference on clay more than anything else, that no one can adapt to?
clay slows the ball to the extent that the best touch tennis player wins I suppose . Negates the big serving which is a separate skill in itself.
Actually, I think clay favours big hitters in terms of ground shots. Henman didn't have a huge serve, but his touch at the net meant he could compete on the grass at Wimbledon. Although, oddly, I actually think his best chance to win a slam was the 04 French.
Sadly, Wimbledon doesn't play like it did pre-2002. The ball bounces more than it used to which means the baseline bashers don't have to adapt their game. One thing Federer has that Nadal and Djokovic don't is that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon.
I think that last comment is a bit unfair, given neither Nadal nor Djokovic were playing grand slam competitions when Sampras retired, so they never had a chance to beat him at Wimbledon. What is remarkable about Federer is how he is still able to play top level singles tennis in his late thirties.
It is and it isn’t. Federer’s record needs to be viewed in the context of what he faced as a youngster. In 2001, he beat Sampras and then lost to Henman. That’s what Wimbledon used to be like.
The most important slide you'll see all day. Ask your MP to take a good look at it and then get into the chamber tomorrow and start asking some bloody hard questions of this administration.
Incoming twattish journos with cases down x% (or do they only do that when it is a daily increase).
Well we must take any good (ish) news that we can. A few days ago it looked like we might be exploding just like France (they had an incredible 26,000 new cases yesterday). Perhaps, just perhaps, the 10pm curfews and so on are slowing it down. Inshallah!!
Weekend, let's see what it is on Monday.
Tuesday surely?
Monday still has a lagged weekend effect. Tuesday is generally the day everyone suddenly is horrified.
And more that six months into the pandemic it would be nice if the media would eventually start reporting numbers versus same day last week and not versus yesterday.
Be interesting to see Biden's proposals on "ending the pandemic". Likewise his ideas for cancelling winter, and shifting the orbit of the Moon
Has Biden ever had any ideas beyond plagiarising Neil Kinnock ?
The Trumpers sound very downcast. Remember, Trump hasn't lost yet, by fair means or foul.
Perhaps you should be more accurate with your claims of Trumpers.
Still I see you can't disagree with the point I made.
Don't you think its a bit disappointing that Joe Biden is the best that the Democrats can come up with ?
Even at his peak Biden was viewed far behind the likes of Clinton, Gore, Dukakis and Gephardt.
Since Trump's Covid episode I have looked at Biden in some detail. I have watched his speeches and some interviews.
I was taken in by the Sleepy Joe notion created by Trump. The presentation of Biden's speeches (presumably written by speech writers- with a nod to Neil Kinnock!) are OK. He is no Obama or Bill Clinton, but he can hold his own.
No, its just an indication of how far things have fallen that a life long politician can read a speech is taken as he is doing well.
He was crap at the debate, it is just he was up against somebody who came across even worse.
Joe wouldn't be my choice as I have said down thread. We are where we are however.
Biden has cost me a little bit in confounding expectations. I'm baffled in that to my mind he was the only Democratic candidate that was worse than Trump. I still think he is worse than Trump.
There's an interesting counterfactual about what would have happened if Michael Bloomberg had not spent a few hundred million driving down the poll shares of the other centrist candidates.
Comments
A man whose sporting achievements were pre 1914, in some cases pre 1900.
(I guess this was only a little compromised in the 60s, a bit more in the 70s, and to where it is today in the 80/90s)
The real reason the big 6 want to get rid of the league cup is to allow more UEFA club games.
It probably increases rather than reduces the impact of congestion on the players as clubs will be less likely to rotate for those extra UEFA games.
It's the main reason that I don't think a European Super League will happen. If it did, it would only ever be won by Barcelona, Real Madrid or Bayern Munich. The rest would be there to make up the numbers.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2020/10/germany-post-race-analysis-2020.html
I was wrong about Hulkenberg and points, but also about how many cars would end up retiring. Verstappen bet ended up mildly profitable, but that's fine.
Fry's antiquity is actually a point against you. What has changed between then and now? The answer is professionalism and intensity of training, implying that it is those factors - not innate adaptation to one sport over another - which make it harder to do now than it was then.
Also, Lord Botham PBUH is still with us and Clare Taylor is younger than I am.
This is an "even if" argument. If actual professional cricketers in their 30s (enough of them to establish that they are not freaks) can play another sport at international level effectively as a hobby and in their spare time, it is ludicrous to suggest that they could not do so if they had specialised in that sport instead of cricket in the first place.
The discussions would be easier if the big 6 were honest about their motivation imo.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/05/lord-sumption-theresa-may-deserves-respect-but-boris-johnsons-a-clown/
Change primary consideration, you get different results. Prime concern
1. individual agency => EU bad, lockdown bad
2. communitarianism => EU good, lockdown good
3. UK sovereignty => EU bad, lockdown good or bad depending on the will of the people, so currently good.
and so on ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Members'_Cup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletes
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-parry-project-big-picture-19086660
https://twitter.com/manyapan/status/1315286769915564032
I don't think being anti lockdown correlates much to how people view the EU . I for instance don't get worked up by much in politics but the two things that have had me vexed recently have been that I believe that lockdown was wrong and also that I think leaving the EU was stupid.
Seems that the underlying primary consideration in your two positions is economics - EU good for the economy, lockdown bad for the economy.
Change primary consideration, you get different results. Prime concern
1. individual agency => EU bad, lockdown bad
2. communitarianism => EU good, lockdown good
3. UK sovereignty => EU bad, lockdown good or bad depending on the will of the people, so currently good.
and so on ...
I view the EU has being good for the individual not bad - free movement etc. Never been a fan of nationalism or insular looking countries (of which the UK has now become)
This meant that none of the other centrists (except perhaps Buttigieg and Bloomberg) really got any airtime.
If the Iowa count had not been messed up, than Buttigieg may have ridden victory there to a win in New Hampshire, and this election might have been very different.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=joe+biden+acceptable+under+the+circumstances&view=detail&mid=E38681665652AB52FF07E38681665652AB52FF07&FORM=VIRE
Sadly, Wimbledon doesn't play like it did pre-2002. The ball bounces more than it used to which means the baseline bashers don't have to adapt their game. One thing Federer has that Nadal and Djokovic don't is that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon.
Surely that's not right?
He has also assembled what looks to be a truly excellent campaign team, which hopefully augurs well for being able to so the same in the White House.
Add to that an ability to work with broad coalitions of those who disagree with him, and the fact that he’s very likely to retire after a single term, and he’s really not a terrible choice if you’re looking to offer an alternative to the administrative chaos of Trump.
It would be interesting to run a poll asking what the average person thought Johnson’s election message meant. I wonder if many thought he meant no deal
Incoming twattish journos with cases down x% (or do they only do that when it is a daily increase).
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1315286236907667456
But I think the combination of being both very old and a team player might work quite well.
We just fail on those minor issues of fast sensitive testing and contact tracing.
He was an extreme Remainer and told everyone so.
Turns out he's now a ferocious anti-lockdowner. And is equally forthcoming in his views.
The shambles goes on...
New cases in the Netherlands: 6,350
Belgium: 7,950 - exploding
https://twitter.com/jimmcmanusph/status/1315238738872524800
Note how a working test and trace is important. Then look at the UK and the shambles that Harding and Hancock are running.
Possibly they don't trust the government not to actually shut the shops.
There's 46 EFL League games per season, plus FA Cup too, plus play offs. How can you fit that solely into weekends?
Jaime Harrison sets Senate fundraising record with $57 million haul in South Carolina
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/520517-jaime-harrison-sets-senate-fundraising-record-with-57-million-haul
Manchester is plague central at the moment with the two unis.
I find it really hard to believe Graham could actually lose but it would be very karmic justice if he does.
I thought when Jilly's became a Tesco express was heartbreaking, but this is on a whole new level.
That it makes you immune will be news to the increasing number of people who have caught the virus twice.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1315301410255310849/photo/2
Monday still has a lagged weekend effect. Tuesday is generally the day everyone suddenly is horrified.
And more that six months into the pandemic it would be nice if the media would eventually start reporting numbers versus same day last week and not versus yesterday.