politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I’ve taken the 5/1 on Trump not to visit the UK in 2017 an
Comments
-
So, presumably it does not apply to any UK citizen. Right ? Why not say that ?williamglenn said:
Yes, but if you take the other interpretation then this part of Boris's statement doesn't make sense:RobD said:
Yeah, it all hinges on the definition of the word "from"williamglenn said:
This is the text of the order:RobD said:
What an utter mess!DanSmith said:
I doubt the UK government are making this up. Boris has spoken directly to Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon.RobD said:
That page is wrong, surely? It suggests that the order only applies to people travelling from those countries. That is not the case?DanSmith said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/presidential-executive-order-on-inbound-migration-to-usRobD said:
I think that just looks worse, as if the UK is complicit.dr_spyn said:
No special exemption for the UK.
I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html
If you are a UK national who happens to be travelling from one of those countries to the US, then the order does not apply to you – even if you were born in one of those countries.0 -
They say it may anger people into hating the west, but on the other hand it may provoke moderates into distancing themselves further from extremists than before?Sandpit said:Somewhat brave and measured leader from the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/01/29/donald-trumps-answer-immigration-wrong-right-problem-solve/
"Donald Trump's answer on immigration is questionable, but he's right that there is a problem to solve"0 -
In reality, nobody has a f##king clue what are the exact rules.
Reince Priebus on US TV this morning said green card holder aren't affected, but there are reports that they have been. But even his answer was vague and unclear, as he said those green card holders travelling from the 7 countries should expect to be questioned, but that had nothing to do with the EO but because the security services wanted to ask more questions of why US resident individuals choose to return regularly to their homeland.
I actually wonder if Mr Dilbert is on to something, that they are basically using this as an "opening offer", which the courts will limit and then they will say this is the line and roll their tanks up to it.
With Team Trump it is just impossible to say.0 -
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php0 -
So God is now retired?Luckyguy1983 said:
Mercury, transfats, radiation, modern working/sleep patterns, nitrogen fertilisers, pesticides, soy, hormone-treated meat, refined sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, smoking, air pollution - which one is God responsible for?Ishmael_Z said:
No, that doesn't wotk. I said, why allow cancer and death camps, and you said "God doesn't deny man free will." How is the existence of cancer explained by the fact that people have free will?Luckyguy1983 said:
I can only really ask you to ponder the stupidity of that response.Ishmael_Z said:
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?Luckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T0 -
Whether you agree with grammar schools or not ( I'm open to persuasion) the announcements were a complete cock up and tbh she should be making sure that the existing schools are both adequately and fairly funded ( which they aren't) rather than chucking red meat to the right of her party.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
Whether Brown would've won by more than Blair in 2005 is irrelevant to how personable May icomes across as ( not very).
0 -
You'd think Le Pen shouldn't have made the final two in 2002, but he did, so I wouldn't count on too much switching.Essexit said:
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php0 -
Someone betting heavily on UKIP in stoke.
Is there a poll?0 -
Chirac was more "acceptable" than Fillon.tlg86 said:
You'd think Le Pen shouldn't have made the final two in 2002, but he did, so I wouldn't count on too much switching.Essexit said:
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php0 -
Churchill 1950, the small matter of 4.3%?surbiton said:
You can mock as much as you like. But it was the highest increase since the war. Labour in 1955, 1974(F). Tories: 1966, 1974 (O), 2001.Sean_F said:
The increase was either in safe Labour seats or safe Conservative seats, or Lib Dem seats. Labour fell back where it mattered.surbiton said:
Ed should be thanked by Labour for many reasons. But one stands out. His Labour party in 2015 increased the vote share of the party losing in the previous election by the biggest % ever.TheScreamingEagles said:
He's wanting to be Labour leader again, he knew he could never beat David Cameron but Mrs May is eminently beatable, I think the's right.Casino_Royale said:I agree with Alastair: Ed Miliband looks to be on manoeuvres.
Of what form, I'm not sure, but it's very interesting.
The fact I tipped him at 200/1 as next Labour leader in a thread header is just mere coincidence.
In fact, since the war, this has happened only twice. Hague achieved it in 2001 with a small increase.
Labour in 2015 won 30.4% against 29% in 2010 when it lost. This despite getting massacred in Scotland.
The 1.4% increase in vote share remains the biggest increase by any party in the election after it lost. Of course, in England, the increase was even more.0 -
All of 'em?Luckyguy1983 said:
Mercury, transfats, radiation, modern working/sleep patterns, nitrogen fertilisers, pesticides, soy, hormone-treated meat, refined sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, smoking, air pollution - which one is God responsible for?Ishmael_Z said:
No, that doesn't wotk. I said, why allow cancer and death camps, and you said "God doesn't deny man free will." How is the existence of cancer explained by the fact that people have free will?Luckyguy1983 said:
I can only really ask you to ponder the stupidity of that response.Ishmael_Z said:
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?Luckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T0 -
There is a whole theology of suffering, but the issues are explored in this interesting filmIshmael_Z said:
I don't think the death camp victims exercised much free will about it. Were they collateral damage in an exercise to explore the free will of their killers? That seems a bit unfair. Can you really imagine a God who could see the holocaust unfold in real time and think "I am ultimately responsible for this and I could stop it in a moment. But I won't." Really?Luckyguy1983 said:
And in the Flood, and numerous times in the OT. I will admit I struggle with that aspect to God. But the point stands that God gave man free will - what would be the point in a creating a race toy robots? We are free to choose good or the other, that's why we are capable of doing great evil to each other.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But didn't he intervene at Sodom and Gomorrah?Luckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer ?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
And please explain how people die of cancer of their own free will.
https://youtu.be/0W9uRPuo7hc
Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov is another thoughtful rumination, but the Book of Job is a good place to start.
There is a long religious tradition of pre-destination as opposed to free will also.
0 -
hmmm well everyone here is focussing on because they are brown or they are muslim so here is an alternative point of view
These places are dystopian shit holes with a culture antithetical to ours. We are a product largely of our environment. Why the hell do we want to import people who are preprogrammed to think this is the way things happen. It isn't just about terrorism
These people have been brought up in an environment unlike ours, when they come over they bring their world views with them which is why we get honour killings, fgm, rotherham, somali gangs, cologne
When they become civillised let them in otherwise let them wallow in it0 -
As someone who doesn't know enough about French politics to be betting on their election, I still get the feeling that there's another chapter or two in this story still to come. What would happen if Hamon and Le Pen make the runoff, for example?tlg86 said:
You'd think Le Pen shouldn't have made the final two in 2002, but he did, so I wouldn't count on too much switching.Essexit said:
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php0 -
All of them, you monumental idiot. And in case you think yebbut man was part of the causal chain which got them into the environment, have a think about the horrible bacterial and viral diseases out there which not even cranks like you claim are caused by HFCS.Luckyguy1983 said:
Mercury, transfats, radiation, modern working/sleep patterns, nitrogen fertilisers, pesticides, soy, hormone-treated meat, refined sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, smoking, air pollution - which one is God responsible for?Ishmael_Z said:
No, that doesn't wotk. I said, why allow cancer and death camps, and you said "God doesn't deny man free will." How is the existence of cancer explained by the fact that people have free will?Luckyguy1983 said:
I can only really ask you to ponder the stupidity of that response.Ishmael_Z said:
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?Luckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T0 -
While over in the Labour Party...
Labour MP writes message slamming the 'ludicrous, nonsensical, pretend, unreal, b******s position' of the party - then shares it on WhatsApp with the colleagues she's criticising
...3 guesses who the Labour MP is?0 -
Interesting scenario and not totally out of the question. Hamon has already made noises to Melenchon about having one candidate on the left and as Hamon is ahead at the moment, it would make sense to be Hamon if that was agreed.Sandpit said:
As someone who doesn't know enough about French politics to be betting on their election, I still get the feeling that there's another chapter or two in this story still to come. What would happen if Hamon and Le Pen make the runoff, for example?tlg86 said:
You'd think Le Pen shouldn't have made the final two in 2002, but he did, so I wouldn't count on too much switching.Essexit said:
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php
In that scenario I think you would probably be looking at President Hamon, because Macron's supporters would probably, in the main vote for Hamon rather than Le Pen. But it would be close because Fillon's supporters are likely either to abstain or vote Le Pen rather than vote for a hard left candidate.0 -
Le Pen has a chance of winning in that scenario, though it is very unlikelySandpit said:
As someone who doesn't know enough about French politics to be betting on their election, I still get the feeling that there's another chapter or two in this story still to come. What would happen if Hamon and Le Pen make the runoff, for example?tlg86 said:
You'd think Le Pen shouldn't have made the final two in 2002, but he did, so I wouldn't count on too much switching.Essexit said:
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php0 -
Those new Hamon voters are mainly coming from the hard left Melenchon so don't count on them switching to the Blairite MacronEssexit said:
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php0 -
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.0 -
The head to head between Macron and Fillon shows just how much the momentum is with Macron.
https://twitter.com/pierrebri/status/8258077036919152680 -
Blairites and Cleggites are basically the same thing apart from the latter opposed the Iraq War but backed spending cutsBudG said:HYUFD said:
Why would the French left back a Blairite like Macron in round 1? At best they will hold their noses for him in round 2 if he manages to get there
@HYUFD Now you have me confused, is Macron a Blairite or a Cleggite?HYUFD said:
There already is one, Macron is basically a Cleggite LD candidate0 -
Sunil_Prasannan said:
So God is now retired?Luckyguy1983 said:
Mercury, transfats, radiation, modern working/sleep patterns, nitrogen fertilisers, pesticides, soy, hormone-treated meat, refined sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, smoking, air pollution - which one is God responsible for?Ishmael_Z said:
No, that doesn't wotk. I said, why allow cancer and death camps, and you said "God doesn't deny man free will." How is the existence of cancer explained by the fact that people have free will?Luckyguy1983 said:
I can only really ask you to ponder the stupidity of that response.Ishmael_Z said:
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?Luckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
On the seventh day He rested.
0 -
If that stupid woman was alone on a desert island, she would find some way to insult the palm trees so they threw coconuts at her.FrancisUrquhart said:While over in the Labour Party...
Labour MP writes message slamming the 'ludicrous, nonsensical, pretend, unreal, b******s position' of the party - then shares it on WhatsApp with the colleagues she's criticising
...3 guesses who the Labour MP is?
It's worrying that she and Hunt were the best Labour could manage for the Education brief, but it's scarcely less worrying than the fact that despite her disastrous mishandling of the 2015 election she is still listened to.0 -
I know the answer. She's part of the Ed Miliband tribute band that seems to be formingFrancisUrquhart said:...3 guesses who the Labour MP is?
0 -
I happen to believe allowing some new grammars along with new academies and free schools was entirely sensible while being strongly backed by Tory voters but I do not want to get into that argument now. May was never as rude to her backbenchers as Cameron wasmidwinter said:
Whether you agree with grammar schools or not ( I'm open to persuasion) the announcements were a complete cock up and tbh she should be making sure that the existing schools are both adequately and fairly funded ( which they aren't) rather than chucking red meat to the right of her party.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
Whether Brown would've won by more than Blair in 2005 is irrelevant to how personable May icomes across as ( not very).0 -
I think they're saying that while the aims of the policy may be sound, they've gone about it in a less than optimum manner - to the point of upsetting many moderates (Sir Mo Farah etc) that they should really be trying to keep onside.isam said:
They say it may anger people into hating the west, but on the other hand it may provoke moderates into distancing themselves further from extremists than before?Sandpit said:Somewhat brave and measured leader from the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/01/29/donald-trumps-answer-immigration-wrong-right-problem-solve/
"Donald Trump's answer on immigration is questionable, but he's right that there is a problem to solve"0 -
PP offer the best odds on EdM becoming the next Labour Leader at 66/1, whereas Betfair who list literally dozens of candidates don't even include him.Scott_P said:
I know the answer. She's part of the Ed Miliband tribute band that seems to be formingFrancisUrquhart said:...3 guesses who the Labour MP is?
0 -
Second round polls are all very interesting but academic given on that poll Macron will still fail to reach round 2 despite a bad week for Fillon and Valls not being P.S. nominee. A Fillon v Macron race is also the least likely of the 3williamglenn said:The head to head between Macron and Fillon shows just how much the momentum is with Macron.
https://twitter.com/pierrebri/status/8258077036919152680 -
Thanks for that, I was thinking along similar lines that Hamon (Rather than Fillon or Macron) as the opponent gives the highest probablilty of President Le Pen.BudG said:
Interesting scenario and not totally out of the question. Hamon has already made noises to Melenchon about having one candidate on the left and as Hamon is ahead at the moment, it would make sense to be Hamon if that was agreed.Sandpit said:
As someone who doesn't know enough about French politics to be betting on their election, I still get the feeling that there's another chapter or two in this story still to come. What would happen if Hamon and Le Pen make the runoff, for example?tlg86 said:
You'd think Le Pen shouldn't have made the final two in 2002, but he did, so I wouldn't count on too much switching.Essexit said:
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php
In that scenario I think you would probably be looking at President Hamon, because Macron's supporters would probably, in the main vote for Hamon rather than Le Pen. But it would be close because Fillon's supporters are likely either to abstain or vote Le Pen rather than vote for a hard left candidate.0 -
Is Helen Cochrane the new house cartoonist for PB.com?0
-
Interesting too that Macron beats Le Pen by a bigger margin than the margin by which Fillon beats Le Pen.0
-
The fact that those things cause cancer? That cancer is even a thing?Luckyguy1983 said:
Mercury, transfats, radiation, modern working/sleep patterns, nitrogen fertilisers, pesticides, soy, hormone-treated meat, refined sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, smoking, air pollution - which one is God responsible for?Ishmael_Z said:
No, that doesn't wotk. I said, why allow cancer and death camps, and you said "God doesn't deny man free will." How is the existence of cancer explained by the fact that people have free will?Luckyguy1983 said:
I can only really ask you to ponder the stupidity of that response.Ishmael_Z said:
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?Luckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T
Marie Curie developed cancer through over exposure to radiation, because she didn't know the risks involved: how is that 'free will' if the rules are hidden?
0 -
I was going to pick @Luckyguy1983 up for his comments on religion but @Ishmael_X is doing such a great job of deconstructing his argument there is little I can addLuckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T0 -
Interesting, if Melenchon dropped out it could well be Le Pen v Hamon which would come down to whether more Fillon voters vote Le Pen than Macron voters vote HamonBudG said:
Interesting scenario and not totally out of the question. Hamon has already made noises to Melenchon about having one candidate on the left and as Hamon is ahead at the moment, it would make sense to be Hamon if that was agreed.Sandpit said:
As someone who doesn't know enough about French politics to be betting on their election, I still get the feeling that there's another chapter or two in this story still to come. What would happen if Hamon and Le Pen make the runoff, for example?tlg86 said:
You'd think Le Pen shouldn't have made the final two in 2002, but he did, so I wouldn't count on too much switching.Essexit said:
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php
In that scenario I think you would probably be looking at President Hamon, because Macron's supporters would probably, in the main vote for Hamon rather than Le Pen. But it would be close because Fillon's supporters are likely either to abstain or vote Le Pen rather than vote for a hard left candidate.0 -
What has Lucy Powell been saying ?Scott_P said:
I know the answer. She's part of the Ed Miliband tribute band that seems to be formingFrancisUrquhart said:...3 guesses who the Labour MP is?
0 -
Cameron was better at PMQs than May yes, though not as good as Hague waspeter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.0 -
Pow! Bulls-eye. A really good use for royalty.MikeSmithson said:
The Queen could unfortunately have a "cold" and it could be postponedDanSmith said:There's no way May can revoke the invite. All comes down to if Trump wants to press ahead and I think he will.
But I wonder/doubt whether Trump would get the drift.0 -
Yes, Cameron on form at PMQs was something to behold, he is a naturally gifted orator and had the advantage of a full five years doing the LotO role before he became PM. By comparison Mrs May commands the stage well but is clearly out of her comfort zone - the scripted jokes and jibes seem much more scripted in their delivery.peter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
Unfortunately, we all saw the other side of David Cameron, when last February he messed up the EU negotiations then tried to tell us he'd done the best deal ever. It was the end of him.0 -
Yes, if you are betting on Le Pen, Hamon would give you your best chance. However, if you are a Le Pen backer and hoping for that match-up to win your bet, then you would probably be better putting your money on Hamon at very high odds, rather than Le Pen and then evening out befoire the final round.Sandpit said:
Thanks for that, I was thinking along similar lines that Hamon (Rather than Fillon or Macron) as the opponent gives the highest probablilty of President Le Pen.BudG said:
Interesting scenario and not totally out of the question. Hamon has already made noises to Melenchon about having one candidate on the left and as Hamon is ahead at the moment, it would make sense to be Hamon if that was agreed.Sandpit said:
As someone who doesn't know enough about French politics to be betting on their election, I still get the feeling that there's another chapter or two in this story still to come. What would happen if Hamon and Le Pen make the runoff, for example?tlg86 said:
You'd think Le Pen shouldn't have made the final two in 2002, but he did, so I wouldn't count on too much switching.Essexit said:
How big of a thing is tactical voting in France? Some of those Hamon voters might switch to Macron.HYUFD said:New French first round presidential poll
Le Pen 25% Fillon 22% Macron 21% Hamon 15% Melenchon 10%
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/29/97001-20170129FILWWW00198-sondage-exclusif-fillon-et-macron-au-coude-a-coude-le-pen-en-tete-au-premier-tour-de-la-presidentielle.php
In that scenario I think you would probably be looking at President Hamon, because Macron's supporters would probably, in the main vote for Hamon rather than Le Pen. But it would be close because Fillon's supporters are likely either to abstain or vote Le Pen rather than vote for a hard left candidate.0 -
In short, all style and no substanceSandpit said:
Yes, Cameron on form at PMQs was something to behold, he is a naturally gifted orator and had the advantage of a full five years doing the LotO role before he became PM. By comparison Mrs May commands the stage well but is clearly out of her comfort zone - the scripted jokes and jibes seem much more scripted in their delivery.peter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
Unfortunately, we all saw the other side of David Cameron, when last February he messed up the EU negotiations then tried to tell us he'd done the best deal ever. It was the end of him.0 -
@HallieJackson: Senior admin. official confirms SCOTUS pick could be announced as early as tmrw or Tuesday - rather than Thursday, as originally expected.0
-
Finally someone has found a use for them! I have often wondered. Yes a royal snub for Trumpton would almost be worth the billions of pounds of gold-plated welfare payments we have lavished on a single family over the past few hundred years.Toms said:
Pow! Bulls-eye. A really good use for royalty.MikeSmithson said:
The Queen could unfortunately have a "cold" and it could be postponedDanSmith said:There's no way May can revoke the invite. All comes down to if Trump wants to press ahead and I think he will.
But I wonder/doubt whether Trump would get the drift.0 -
Yes, stay quiet and leave the talking to the adults.Jobabob said:
I was going to pick @Luckyguy1983 up for his comments on religion but @Ishmael_X is doing such a great job of deconstructing his argument there is little I can addLuckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T0 -
A reverse squirrel?Scott_P said:@HallieJackson: Senior admin. official confirms SCOTUS pick could be announced as early as tmrw or Tuesday - rather than Thursday, as originally expected.
0 -
Didn't know you were a "Republican"!Jobabob said:
Finally someone has found a use for them! I have often wondered. Yes a royal snub for Trumpton would almost be worth the billions of pounds of gold-plated welfare payments we have lavished on a single family over the past few hundred years.Toms said:
Pow! Bulls-eye. A really good use for royalty.MikeSmithson said:
The Queen could unfortunately have a "cold" and it could be postponedDanSmith said:There's no way May can revoke the invite. All comes down to if Trump wants to press ahead and I think he will.
But I wonder/doubt whether Trump would get the drift.0 -
Bet he got a belter of a pension scheme....Sunil_Prasannan said:
So God is now retired?Luckyguy1983 said:
Mercury, transfats, radiation, modern working/sleep patterns, nitrogen fertilisers, pesticides, soy, hormone-treated meat, refined sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup, smoking, air pollution - which one is God responsible for?Ishmael_Z said:
No, that doesn't wotk. I said, why allow cancer and death camps, and you said "God doesn't deny man free will." How is the existence of cancer explained by the fact that people have free will?Luckyguy1983 said:
I can only really ask you to ponder the stupidity of that response.Ishmael_Z said:
People die of cancer and get murdered in death camps of their own free will, do they?Luckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T0 -
I imagine Labour would fancy their chances of beating May rather than Cameron in an election if only because the Tory right in their infinite wisdom managed to simultaneously detoxify the Lib Dems and remind voters of the freaks on the Tory right during the referendum.Sandpit said:
Yes, Cameron on form at PMQs was something to behold, he is a naturally gifted orator and had the advantage of a full five years doing the LotO role before he became PM. By comparison Mrs May commands the stage well but is clearly out of her comfort zone - the scripted jokes and jibes seem much more scripted in their delivery.peter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
Unfortunately, we all saw the other side of David Cameron, when last February he messed up the EU negotiations then tried to tell us he'd done the best deal ever. It was the end of him.0 -
I really hope not as (already, below) I really don't get the messages in any of them at all.peter_from_putney said:Is Helen Cochrane the new house cartoonist for PB.com?
If we must use them then an explanation would help.
Or maybe it's a trial of a new PB competition?0 -
Well if he's not clubbable---one must keep up standards you know.Jobabob said:
Finally someone has found a use for them! I have often wondered. Yes a royal snub for Trumpton would almost be worth the billions of pounds of gold-plated welfare payments we have lavished on a single family over the past few hundred years.Toms said:
Pow! Bulls-eye. A really good use for royalty.MikeSmithson said:
The Queen could unfortunately have a "cold" and it could be postponedDanSmith said:There's no way May can revoke the invite. All comes down to if Trump wants to press ahead and I think he will.
But I wonder/doubt whether Trump would get the drift.0 -
Hague was very very good against Blair, and continues to make good money on the after dinner circuit as a fine speaker. He should have waited five years though, he was only 36 in 1997 and up against a landslide.HYUFD said:
Cameron was better at PMQs than May yes, though not as good as Hague waspeter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
In an alternative history he'd have been elected leader in 2003, managed to survive the 2005 election to become PM in 2008 as Brown choked.0 -
Was he? I'm not sure Cameron was that fast on his feet at PMQs. He was more like Mrs Thatcher, in that he'd mastered the brief, just like revising for an exam. Provided the question had been anticipated, the answer was in his head or at worst in his folder. If not, Cameron would often bluster or even lose his temper. We had a long period where for both sides, the stand-ins were better than their leaders at PMQs: Hague and Harman.peter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.0 -
BRING BACK MARF!GeoffM said:
I really hope not as (already, below) I really don't get the messages in any of them at all.peter_from_putney said:Is Helen Cochrane the new house cartoonist for PB.com?
If we must use them then an explanation would help.
Or maybe it's a trial of a new PB competition?0 -
Boris in HOC answering urgent question tomorrow from Emily Thornberry should be fun.0
-
Only in very recent years I have become so. I have found it impossible to square my meritocratic principles with the monarchy, Britain's richest welfare family, as I have got older. Also, the monarchy have become more annoying (Liz getting involved in the Indy Ref, Brexit) and dull (Kate and William are proper young fogeys, the sort of dreary greys you avoid at parties). If we had Harry and Meghan in charge I could be persuaded on the grounds of entertainment.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Didn't know you were a "Republican"!Jobabob said:
Finally someone has found a use for them! I have often wondered. Yes a royal snub for Trumpton would almost be worth the billions of pounds of gold-plated welfare payments we have lavished on a single family over the past few hundred years.Toms said:
Pow! Bulls-eye. A really good use for royalty.MikeSmithson said:
The Queen could unfortunately have a "cold" and it could be postponedDanSmith said:There's no way May can revoke the invite. All comes down to if Trump wants to press ahead and I think he will.
But I wonder/doubt whether Trump would get the drift.0 -
So the Dead Cat Strategy has made it over the Pond then? What's the bets that his first choice for SC will completely outrage all but the hardcore Republicans?Scott_P said:@HallieJackson: Senior admin. official confirms SCOTUS pick could be announced as early as tmrw or Tuesday - rather than Thursday, as originally expected.
I think Mr Dilbert has it right, Trump is basically doing his negotiating in public with the American people, in the same way he campaigned and run his business beforehand. I think he's trying to turn the outrage up to 11 in a way that will let the real agenda slide through underneath, supported by the Republicans in Congress. Very smart if he pulls it off.0 -
I thought you were a Democrat, not a RepublicanJobabob said:
Only in very recent years I have become so. I have found it impossible to square my meritocratic principles with the monarchy, Britain's richest welfare family, as I have got older. Also, the monarchy have become more annoying (Liz getting involved in the Indy Ref, Brexit) and dull (Kate and William are proper young fogeys, the sort of dreary greys you avoid at parties). If we had Harry and Meghan in charge I could be persuaded on the grounds of entertainment.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Didn't know you were a "Republican"!Jobabob said:
Finally someone has found a use for them! I have often wondered. Yes a royal snub for Trumpton would almost be worth the billions of pounds of gold-plated welfare payments we have lavished on a single family over the past few hundred years.Toms said:
Pow! Bulls-eye. A really good use for royalty.MikeSmithson said:
The Queen could unfortunately have a "cold" and it could be postponedDanSmith said:There's no way May can revoke the invite. All comes down to if Trump wants to press ahead and I think he will.
But I wonder/doubt whether Trump would get the drift.
0 -
Thank you for your support Geoff!GeoffM said:
Yes, stay quiet and leave the talking to the adults.Jobabob said:
I was going to pick @Luckyguy1983 up for his comments on religion but @Ishmael_X is doing such a great job of deconstructing his argument there is little I can addLuckyguy1983 said:
Well that one's pretty basic. God doesn't deny man free will. Otherwise what would be the point?Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't the feasibility of it so much as the sheer misdirected twattery. Why let h sapiens evolve and then do nothing for 50 000 years before playing silly tricks for a handful of borderline illiterate peasants in the Levant? If he can do that kind of shit why not arrange for cancer not to be a thing, or at least enforce a rule whereby, I don't know, no one aged under 18 had to die at Auschwitz?Luckyguy1983 said:
Atheists' fixation with the miracles described in the Gospels is something I've always found distinctly odd. If there is an all-powerful intelligent creator, why on earth would his earthly manifestation not be able to turn water into wine, either by suspending the laws of nature, or by science we don't yet understand?Jobabob said:
While I agree with you that the world would be a better and easier place to live in if people stopped believing in fairy stories about blokes who can turn water into a nice Barolo and orgies with 17 virgins in heaven, your central contention that all liberals are atheists is demonstrably false (alas).SeanT said:And, yes, the key problem in liberal western circles is their feeble understanding of the power of religion. The solace of faith. Liberal lefties are all helpless, decomposing atheists. They think everyone else feels the same anomie and ennui as them, or will come to feel it, once they've bought enough 3D TV's
THEY WON'T0 -
-
Oh dear, I see you don't understand the Crown estates either. Is there anything you're not against?Jobabob said:
Finally someone has found a use for them! I have often wondered. Yes a royal snub for Trumpton would almost be worth the billions of pounds of gold-plated welfare payments we have lavished on a single family over the past few hundred years.Toms said:
Pow! Bulls-eye. A really good use for royalty.MikeSmithson said:
The Queen could unfortunately have a "cold" and it could be postponedDanSmith said:There's no way May can revoke the invite. All comes down to if Trump wants to press ahead and I think he will.
But I wonder/doubt whether Trump would get the drift.
Would love to see some polling on the monarchy - pretty sure the common ground is very pro...0 -
Oh that's helpful.Sunil_Prasannan said:
BRING BACK MARF!GeoffM said:
I really hope not as (already, below) I really don't get the messages in any of them at all.peter_from_putney said:Is Helen Cochrane the new house cartoonist for PB.com?
If we must use them then an explanation would help.
Or maybe it's a trial of a new PB competition?
The cartoon pic has been re-uploaded with a second line of text at the bottom.
That makes the meaning clear-ish now.
Cheers!0 -
Last night I went to an absolutely splendid Burns Night at the Casino Calpe (cascalpe.gi)
One of the other guests was Paul Cartwright. He's one of the 9 litigants led by Gina Miller who won in the Supreme Court the other day.
We had a lengthy, good humoured and very challenging conversation on what is still very much a burning hot topic here in Gib. Sensibly the conversation moved on to other things as the whisky began to flow ... no sense in prematurely curtailing a potential friendship with late evening alcohol fuelled political arm waving, obviously.
For a rounded post; here's his blog on why he wants to stop Brexit - a position I respect him holding although of course I completely disagree with it.
http://want2stay.com/i-am-the-96/
We're going to continue our conversation next in the cold light of day. Even though we won't move a step towards each other its good to flesh out the arguments against an opposing true believer in a polite and mutually respectful way - unlike the constant unpleasantness and negativity on here coming from Meeks, PasteBoy and the other one.
Even though his view of things is diametrically opposed to mine he's a very articulate and interesting chap. I'm going to see if he will write a thread header for here.0 -
Reference the cartoon, remember that in the USA Federal Judges can only be removed by impeachment in the Senate by a two-thirds majority; otherwise they are appointed for life. Removal by impeachment has only happened once, early in the 19th century, when a judge who was literally mad was removed before he could do any more harm.0
-
Just the headline he wants
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/825822649519575040
Or maybe not
@RhonddaBryant: By merely seeking an exemption for dual national Britons May and Johnson have essentially endorsed Trump. Not good enough.0 -
Hague's mistake was to run himself in 1997 rather than backing Michael Howard as he originally plannedSandpit said:
Hague was very very good against Blair, and continues to make good money on the after dinner circuit as a fine speaker. He should have waited five years though, he was only 36 in 1997 and up against a landslide.HYUFD said:
Cameron was better at PMQs than May yes, though not as good as Hague waspeter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
In an alternative history he'd have been elected leader in 2003, managed to survive the 2005 election to become PM in 2008 as Brown choked.0 -
Some might say of course he would say that.Scott_P said:
@RhonddaBryant: By merely seeking an exemption for dual national Britons May and Johnson have essentially endorsed Trump. Not good enough.
0 -
Although unlike our current PM he did have the substance to describe Trumps plans to block Muslims entering the US as divisive, stupid and wrong.isam said:
In short, all style and no substanceSandpit said:
Yes, Cameron on form at PMQs was something to behold, he is a naturally gifted orator and had the advantage of a full five years doing the LotO role before he became PM. By comparison Mrs May commands the stage well but is clearly out of her comfort zone - the scripted jokes and jibes seem much more scripted in their delivery.peter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
Unfortunately, we all saw the other side of David Cameron, when last February he messed up the EU negotiations then tried to tell us he'd done the best deal ever. It was the end of him.0 -
Thanks GeoffM - that looks interesting. My dad's view is that if Gib is desperate to stay in the EU then we should hand it back to the Spanish.0
-
I was very much a Republican for years but recently my respect for the Queen has grown considerably.Mortimer said:
Oh dear, I see you don't understand the Crown estates either. Is there anything you're not against?Jobabob said:
Finally someone has found a use for them! I have often wondered. Yes a royal snub for Trumpton would almost be worth the billions of pounds of gold-plated welfare payments we have lavished on a single family over the past few hundred years.Toms said:
Pow! Bulls-eye. A really good use for royalty.MikeSmithson said:
The Queen could unfortunately have a "cold" and it could be postponedDanSmith said:There's no way May can revoke the invite. All comes down to if Trump wants to press ahead and I think he will.
But I wonder/doubt whether Trump would get the drift.
Would love to see some polling on the monarchy - pretty sure the common ground is very pro...
I remember her coronation in 1953 as being a street event with everyone coming into our house to watch it on our black and white tv with the curtains drawn (the only way you could see the picture). I used to get annoyed as my Grandmother kept on standing to attention as she was a fanatical Royalist.
I do believe that both her and Phillip's service to the Country has been unrivalled and I do worry at the void there will be once she has passed away.
I have no time for Charles and Camilla and I think that William and Catherine are too lazy at present to be a success. Maybe I will become a Republican again, who knows0 -
I think that's predictable. Fillon is a self described Thatcherite with echoes of Sarkozy on race/religion. Of course he's preferable to Le Pen, but as Clinton found out, there are parts of the left who are simply unwilling to vote on calculation, which in this case would be even more of a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. Plus part of Le Pen's pitch is a protectionist one aimed at what you might call the old left - who might vote for her over Fillon but might be open to Macron's entreaties. Macron's palatable enough to the left scoop up most of the PS vote, and probably some of the Melenchon vote while anyone on the right who doesn't want to tear up the EU has to vote for him. The question is, whether as someone trying to carve out a new constituency of centrists in a system which still has left-right loyalties as its basis, he can get into the second round. Probably depends on whether Fillon scandal rumbles on, and whether Hamon gets enough momentum to make him a serious contender, if not Macron can make the pitch to the left that he's the only man who can stop the horror of a Fillon Le Pen run-off.tlg86 said:Interesting too that Macron beats Le Pen by a bigger margin than the margin by which Fillon beats Le Pen.
0 -
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/825823217025691648
About McCain and Graham. Hard to fault him on this.0 -
It'll be Merrick Garland.Sandpit said:
So the Dead Cat Strategy has made it over the Pond then? What's the bets that his first choice for SC will completely outrage all but the hardcore Republicans?Scott_P said:@HallieJackson: Senior admin. official confirms SCOTUS pick could be announced as early as tmrw or Tuesday - rather than Thursday, as originally expected.
Note: This is clearly a joke post.
0 -
It might be a different thing but I think you are wrong.Old_Hand said:Reference the cartoon, remember that in the USA Federal Judges can only be removed by impeachment in the Senate by a two-thirds majority; otherwise they are appointed for life. Removal by impeachment has only happened once, early in the 19th century, when a judge who was literally mad was removed before he could do any more harm.
List of Federal Judges removed by impeachment:
John Pickering 1803
West Hughes Humphreys 1862
Robert Wodrow Archbald 1912
Halsted L. Ritter 1936
Harry E. Claiborne 1986
Alcee Hastings 1989
Walter Nixon 1989
Thomas Porteous 2010
Edit: Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Federal_officials_impeached0 -
@StevenTDennis: Trump picks fight with 2 Republicans in a 52-48 Senate. twitter.com/realdonaldtrum…0
-
That was a good read, and I can understand his point of view while disagreeing with him on the wider picture of why the UK should leave the EU. The status of Gibraltar should be part of the negotiations, possibly we can leave it inside the customs union so as not to restrict traffic across the border, or perhaps the Gibraltarians would prefer to be like the Channel Islands as a tax haven?GeoffM said:Last night I went to an absolutely splendid Burns Night at the Casino Calpe (cascalpe.gi)
One of the other guests was Paul Cartwright. He's one of the 9 litigants led by Gina Miller who won in the Supreme Court the other day.
We had a lengthy, good humoured and very challenging conversation on what is still very much a burning hot topic here in Gib. Sensibly the conversation moved on to other things as the whisky began to flow ... no sense in prematurely curtailing a potential friendship with late evening alcohol fuelled political arm waving, obviously.
For a rounded post; here's his blog on why he wants to stop Brexit - a position I respect him holding although of course I completely disagree with it.
http://want2stay.com/i-am-the-96/
We're going to continue our conversation next in the cold light of day. Even though we won't move a step towards each other its good to flesh out the arguments against an opposing true believer in a polite and mutually respectful way - unlike the constant unpleasantness and negativity on here coming from Meeks, PasteBoy and the other one.
Even though his view of things is diametrically opposed to mine he's a very articulate and interesting chap. I'm going to see if he will write a thread header for here.
Do we have any polling on the Rock about how the locals see Brexit working out for them, what the popular options might be?0 -
Paul Waugh on that flight back from Turkey.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-refugee-ban-how-theresa-mays-us-and-turkey-trip-ended-in-political-firestorm_uk_588e503be4b077309837c96b?o45bemajuifmeu3di
Too many people assuming that something could be said from the plane?0 -
The PM’s plane is a specially-adapted Airbus A330 which spends most of its time as a mid-air fuel tanker for fighter jets. Its stripped-down nature, with no onboard TVs or hi-tech gadgets seen on a commercial airliner, is a far cry from the round-the-clock communications of Trump’s Air Force One. It has just one satellite phone, and no wifi or means of monitoring what’s happening online.dr_spyn said:Paul Waugh on that flight back from Turkey.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-refugee-ban-how-theresa-mays-us-and-turkey-trip-ended-in-political-firestorm_uk_588e503be4b077309837c96b?o45bemajuifmeu3di
Too many people assuming that something could be said from the plane?
In this day and age, that's a bit shit to put it mildly. And I presume this is the Dave Force One that they spent a load of money adapting only a year or so ago.
No need for the old journos to be able to enjoy 4k movies while they fly, but the PM and her team to have the old interwebs access might be kinder useful...0 -
I didn't know that, and yes it would have been his better strategy and would have set himself up as the new leader in 2001. He could have probably survived 2005 as Kinnock survived 1987 to be in with a shout as Brown called the election in 2008.HYUFD said:
Hague's mistake was to run himself in 1997 rather than backing Michael Howard as he originally plannedSandpit said:
Hague was very very good against Blair, and continues to make good money on the after dinner circuit as a fine speaker. He should have waited five years though, he was only 36 in 1997 and up against a landslide.HYUFD said:
Cameron was better at PMQs than May yes, though not as good as Hague waspeter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
In an alternative history he'd have been elected leader in 2003, managed to survive the 2005 election to become PM in 2008 as Brown choked.0 -
Paul (and others locally) haven't looked at the Channel Islands solution as an alternative. I know it well - I have family there, which was why we were able to talk constructively about real life ideas rather than just rehearse old arguments.Sandpit said:
That was a good read, and I can understand his point of view while disagreeing with him on the wider picture of why the UK should leave the EU. The status of Gibraltar should be part of the negotiations, possibly we can leave it inside the customs union so as not to restrict traffic across the border, or perhaps the Gibraltarians would prefer to be like the Channel Islands as a tax haven?GeoffM said:Last night I went to an absolutely splendid Burns Night at the Casino Calpe (cascalpe.gi)
One of the other guests was Paul Cartwright. He's one of the 9 litigants led by Gina Miller who won in the Supreme Court the other day.
We had a lengthy, good humoured and very challenging conversation on what is still very much a burning hot topic here in Gib. Sensibly the conversation moved on to other things as the whisky began to flow ... no sense in prematurely curtailing a potential friendship with late evening alcohol fuelled political arm waving, obviously.
For a rounded post; here's his blog on why he wants to stop Brexit - a position I respect him holding although of course I completely disagree with it.
http://want2stay.com/i-am-the-96/
We're going to continue our conversation next in the cold light of day. Even though we won't move a step towards each other its good to flesh out the arguments against an opposing true believer in a polite and mutually respectful way - unlike the constant unpleasantness and negativity on here coming from Meeks, PasteBoy and the other one.
Even though his view of things is diametrically opposed to mine he's a very articulate and interesting chap. I'm going to see if he will write a thread header for here.
Do we have any polling on the Rock about how the locals see Brexit working out for them, what the popular options might be?
There's no local polling on the subject yet ... just politicians telling us that that they are all fighting for us etc etc. And the Chief Minister likes Sturgeon more than is healthy.0 -
I was generally warm towards Liz until she started meddling in political matters (Scots Indy, Brexit) which put me off. Kate and William are just crushingly dull. If we could sex up the monarchy for public entertainment I could be persuaded but all the vaguely interesting royals are so far down the line it ain't happening. Meghan is lovely though and will make a nice change as a princess.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I was very much a Republican for years but recently my respect for the Queen has grown considerably.Mortimer said:
Oh dear, I see you don't understand the Crown estates either. Is there anything you're not against?Jobabob said:
Finally someone has found a use for them! I have often wondered. Yes a royal snub for Trumpton would almost be worth the billions of pounds of gold-plated welfare payments we have lavished on a single family over the past few hundred years.Toms said:
Pow! Bulls-eye. A really good use for royalty.MikeSmithson said:
The Queen could unfortunately have a "cold" and it could be postponedDanSmith said:There's no way May can revoke the invite. All comes down to if Trump wants to press ahead and I think he will.
But I wonder/doubt whether Trump would get the drift.
Would love to see some polling on the monarchy - pretty sure the common ground is very pro...
I remember her coronation in 1953 as being a street event with everyone coming into our house to watch it on our black and white tv with the curtains drawn (the only way you could see the picture). I used to get annoyed as my Grandmother kept on standing to attention as she was a fanatical Royalist.
I do believe that both her and Phillip's service to the Country has been unrivalled and I do worry at the void there will be once she has passed away.
I have no time for Charles and Camilla and I think that William and Catherine are too lazy at present to be a success. Maybe I will become a Republican again, who knows0 -
Wasn't it after Anne Widdecombe sunk Howard with the 'something of the night' comment?Sandpit said:
I didn't know that, and yes it would have been his better strategy and would have set himself up as the new leader in 2001. He could have probably survived 2005 as Kinnock survived 1987 to be in with a shout as Brown called the election in 2008.HYUFD said:Hague's mistake was to run himself in 1997 rather than backing Michael Howard as he originally planned
0 -
-
Similar planes are operated by Air Tanker on behalf of Thomas Cook, they are painted all-white and can be seen at Brum airport from time to time.FrancisUrquhart said:
The PM’s plane is a specially-adapted Airbus A330 which spends most of its time as a mid-air fuel tanker for fighter jets. Its stripped-down nature, with no onboard TVs or hi-tech gadgets seen on a commercial airliner, is a far cry from the round-the-clock communications of Trump’s Air Force One. It has just one satellite phone, and no wifi or means of monitoring what’s happening online.dr_spyn said:Paul Waugh on that flight back from Turkey.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-refugee-ban-how-theresa-mays-us-and-turkey-trip-ended-in-political-firestorm_uk_588e503be4b077309837c96b?o45bemajuifmeu3di
Too many people assuming that something could be said from the plane?
In this day and age, that's a bit shit to put it mildly. And I presume this is the Dave Force One that they spent a load of money adapting only a year or so ago.
No need for the old journos to be able to enjoy 4k movies while they fly, but the PM and her team to have the old interwebs access might be kinder useful...0 -
Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.Scott_P said:0 -
It does seem to be an interesting take on what might or might not be on board.FrancisUrquhart said:
The PM’s plane is a specially-adapted Airbus A330 which spends most of its time as a mid-air fuel tanker for fighter jets. Its stripped-down nature, with no onboard TVs or hi-tech gadgets seen on a commercial airliner, is a far cry from the round-the-clock communications of Trump’s Air Force One. It has just one satellite phone, and no wifi or means of monitoring what’s happening online.dr_spyn said:Paul Waugh on that flight back from Turkey.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-refugee-ban-how-theresa-mays-us-and-turkey-trip-ended-in-political-firestorm_uk_588e503be4b077309837c96b?o45bemajuifmeu3di
Too many people assuming that something could be said from the plane?
In this day and age, that's a bit shit to put it mildly. And I presume this is the Dave Force One that they spent a load of money adapting only a year or so ago.
No need for the old journos to be able to enjoy 4k movies while they fly, but the PM and her team to have the old interwebs access might be kinder useful...0 -
Can't believe how our political class are a bunch of amateurs now. Is everyone really that thick?Scott_P said:Just the headline he wants
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/825822649519575040
Or maybe not
@RhonddaBryant: By merely seeking an exemption for dual national Britons May and Johnson have essentially endorsed Trump. Not good enough.0 -
Indeed. The Labour Party and Lib Dems are led by people with no ministerial experience whatsoever. No wonder they're languishing in the polls.murali_s said:
Can't believe how our political class are a bunch of amateurs now. Is everyone really that thick?Scott_P said:Just the headline he wants
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/825822649519575040
Or maybe not
@RhonddaBryant: By merely seeking an exemption for dual national Britons May and Johnson have essentially endorsed Trump. Not good enough.0 -
According to Waugh's article it's just the headline he was asked by the White House not to spin.Scott_P said:Just the headline he wants
0 -
AgreedSandpit said:
I didn't know that, and yes it would have been his better strategy and would have set himself up as the new leader in 2001. He could have probably survived 2005 as Kinnock survived 1987 to be in with a shout as Brown called the election in 2008.HYUFD said:
Hague's mistake was to run himself in 1997 rather than backing Michael Howard as he originally plannedSandpit said:
Hague was very very good against Blair, and continues to make good money on the after dinner circuit as a fine speaker. He should have waited five years though, he was only 36 in 1997 and up against a landslide.HYUFD said:
Cameron was better at PMQs than May yes, though not as good as Hague waspeter_from_putney said:
Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.HYUFD said:
Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair didmidwinter said:
There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because than Jezza.HYUFD said:
Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the ToriesYBarddCwsc said:I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.
Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.
May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.
I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.
May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.
In an alternative history he'd have been elected leader in 2003, managed to survive the 2005 election to become PM in 2008 as Brown choked.0 -
I'm a staunch Monarchist — God save the Queen — and my argument is very simple; look at America. Checkmate.Big_G_NorthWales said:I was very much a Republican for years but recently my respect for the Queen has grown considerably.
0 -
Yes, it's one of the RAF Voyager A330-based refullers, with a business class section at the front for the VIPs. It's been operational in that role for a year or so.FrancisUrquhart said:
The PM’s plane is a specially-adapted Airbus A330 which spends most of its time as a mid-air fuel tanker for fighter jets. Its stripped-down nature, with no onboard TVs or hi-tech gadgets seen on a commercial airliner, is a far cry from the round-the-clock communications of Trump’s Air Force One. It has just one satellite phone, and no wifi or means of monitoring what’s happening online.dr_spyn said:Paul Waugh on that flight back from Turkey.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-refugee-ban-how-theresa-mays-us-and-turkey-trip-ended-in-political-firestorm_uk_588e503be4b077309837c96b?o45bemajuifmeu3di
Too many people assuming that something could be said from the plane?
In this day and age, that's a bit shit to put it mildly. And I presume this is the Dave Force One that they spent a load of money adapting only a year or so ago.
No need for the old journos to be able to enjoy 4k movies while they fly, but the PM and her team to have the old interwebs access might be kinder useful...
Either it's a massive extravagance in the era of defence cuts, or a huge cut down from the proposed "Blair Force One" of a few years back, depending on your point of view. I'm not surprised it doesn't look like Emirates or Singapore inside, without satellite wifi for a dozen hacks in the cheap seats. I bet they can patch the PM to the President if required though
Govt VIP long haul flights used to be chartered from BA or Virgin, but the commercial airlines were finding it increasingly difficult to get aircraft available, often at the short notice required - they spend millions on fleet management to avoid having spare planes they don't need!0 -
I thought you meant Roger Federer!Scott_P said:Just the headline he wants
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/825822649519575040
Or maybe not
@RhonddaBryant: By merely seeking an exemption for dual national Britons May and Johnson have essentially endorsed Trump. Not good enough.0 -
I am 100% behind the Queen but what follows is a worryglw said:
I'm a staunch Monarchist — God save the Queen — and my argument is very simple; look at America. Checkmate.Big_G_NorthWales said:I was very much a Republican for years but recently my respect for the Queen has grown considerably.
0 -
-
Isn't the author a Tory MP?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.Scott_P said:0 -
I'm no fan of Charles but the chance of Royal lineage throwing up a Nixon or Trump for just two examples is vanishingly small.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I am 100% behind the Queen but what follows is a worryglw said:
I'm a staunch Monarchist — God save the Queen — and my argument is very simple; look at America. Checkmate.Big_G_NorthWales said:I was very much a Republican for years but recently my respect for the Queen has grown considerably.
0
