Now, I voted to remain but people saying Cummings has U-turned on his Brexit position either have the intellectual capability of a gnat, or are appealing to those that do so.
In many universes driving home for me this evening would have been better avoided with the future car crash I'll have. But that will have no bearing on whether or not I choose to do so. If we THINK about what Cummings is saying, he is also pointing out that remaining will have been an error in some future universes. I fear the point is lost on his critics though, his blog and twitter feed are exceptional in their intelligence I find.
I don't think he has u-turned, he is just laying groundwork to be able to shift any blame if it does go wrong. It's an eloquently worded cop-out.
As a general rule neither do welfare claimants. We aren't feral animals.and, believe it or not, being low on funds doesn't make you less proud or committed to meeting your commitments. Indeed I'd say having money tends more towards greed, fraud and ducking out of paying than not having it.
So landlords are deliberately depriving themselves of good tenants? Well, it's a thought.
In the real world, landlords can only go on experience and risk. That means some people get unfairly treated, but, rather than lambasting landlords who just want their property to be respected and their rent paid, shouldn't you turn your anger on those who wreck things for you? People like this tenant for example:
I'm a landlord who felt sorry for epay the cost of a whole flat of furniture, including a tv, sofa, two double beds, wardrobes and I could go on) not only that but now she isn't paying her rent and its ason we don't want to rent to DSS. Its the council's fault they not only take an age to even reply to any correspondent, the people who do this are completely rude and unhelpful. In 7 years of renting my flat this is just a horrific experience and I for one will never ever even consider DSS again
It's from this quite interesting set of comments on both sides:
No, anger should be directed at the paucity of social housing. Whilst the above example is clearly a rat bag, the situation for the majority on low incomes who don't want to take the piss is very poor and there is little help in the private or public sphere. There is simply no appetite amongst those that are not in this position to address the issue, the alright Jacks are alright after all, and, on top of this are only exposed to stories like the above and sensationalized TV programmes.
Unfortunately most people lack your ability to read the minds of others at will, and therefore would be unable to identify a rat bag from a decent tenant simply through telepathy.
In the absence of your psychic insights, most landlords understandably go for tenants who experience, references and credti checks suggest are less likely to screw them over. I'm surprised you haven't picked this up from scanning their thoughts.
Lol, you've got a bee in your bonnet about mind reading!
You knew that already.
I did. Im surprised you have the time between your bouts of plotting to oppress me and my fellow benefit claimants. Well done on cramming a lot in.
Now, I voted to remain but people saying Cummings has U-turned on his Brexit position either have the intellectual capability of a gnat, or are appealing to those that do so.
In many universes driving home for me this evening would have been better avoided with the future car crash I'll have. But that will have no bearing on whether or not I choose to do so. If we THINK about what Cummings is saying, he is also pointing out that remaining will have been an error in some future universes. I fear the point is lost on his critics though, his blog and twitter feed are exceptional in their intelligence I find.
Yes, he's saying some interesting things.
I thought I should really wade through his article, even though I have better things to do. I will take it as given that Dominic Cummings is extremely clever. Everyone says so. His problem is is his inability to articulate an argument: this is what I what I want to say; this is why you should believe it; these are the objections we can overcome; these are the other things you need to know.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
Now, I voted to remain but people saying Cummings has U-turned on his Brexit position either have the intellectual capability of a gnat, or are appealing to those that do so.
In many universes driving home for me this evening would have been better avoided with the future car crash I'll have. But that will have no bearing on whether or not I choose to do so. If we THINK about what Cummings is saying, he is also pointing out that remaining will have been an error in some future universes. I fear the point is lost on his critics though, his blog and twitter feed are exceptional in their intelligence I find.
Is Cummings really invoking the Multiverse to say that whatever we do there will be some alternative universe where that would have been a bad or a good idea. It might be an idea to live in the real universe and the real world. In this one I suspect that we would have been better off without his £350million/week to the NHS promise.
Leaving aside cod-physics about the multiverse, the future is unwritten. However, its outer parameters are set by pre-existing conditions. As you say, the conduct of the referendum set some of those parameters. The quality of resources available to the government both to negotiate Brexit and to make any other desirable reforms is another pre-existing parameter.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
Now, I voted to remain but people saying Cummings has U-turned on his Brexit position either have the intellectual capability of a gnat, or are appealing to those that do so.
In many universes driving home for me this evening would have been better avoided with the future car crash I'll have. But that will have no bearing on whether or not I choose to do so. If we THINK about what Cummings is saying, he is also pointing out that remaining will have been an error in some future universes. I fear the point is lost on his critics though, his blog and twitter feed are exceptional in their intelligence I find.
I don't think he has u-turned, he is just laying groundwork to be able to shift any blame if it does go wrong. It's an eloquently worded cop-out.
Stick it on the side of a bus and we can all have a laugh.
We had a discussion here a few days back about the relative merits of Roman and modern concrete.
Here's an interesting article about the superiority - both in terms of performance and environmental impact - of the Roman version in marine applications: http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/content/102/7/1435
The Ghana deal was the jewel in the crown of post-Brexit settlements. Bicycles made of bamboo on the streets of London was one of the many advantages hailed by Boris:
Now, I voted to remain but people saying Cummings has U-turned on his Brexit position either have the intellectual capability of a gnat, or are appealing to those that do so.
In many universes driving home for me this evening would have been better avoided with the future car crash I'll have. But that will have no bearing on whether or not I choose to do so. If we THINK about what Cummings is saying, he is also pointing out that remaining will have been an error in some future universes. I fear the point is lost on his critics though, his blog and twitter feed are exceptional in their intelligence I find.
Is Cummings really invoking the Multiverse to say that whatever we do there will be some alternative universe where that would have been a bad or a good idea. It might be an idea to live in the real universe and the real world. In this one I suspect that we would have been better off without his £350million/week to the NHS promise.
Leaving aside cod-physics about the multiverse, the future is unwritten. However, its outer parameters are set by pre-existing conditions. As you say, the conduct of the referendum set some of those parameters. The quality of resources available to the government both to negotiate Brexit and to make any other desirable reforms is another pre-existing parameter.
Neither point to a happy ending.
It is far more likely that the less gung-ho Brexitarians are beginning to see the post-Brexit shambles approaching and are trying to get away from the blame that will inevitably result.
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
Now, I voted to remain but people saying Cummings has U-turned on his Brexit position either have the intellectual capability of a gnat, or are appealing to those that do so.
In many universes driving home for me this evening would have been better avoided with the future car crash I'll have. But that will have no bearing on whether or not I choose to do so. If we THINK about what Cummings is saying, he is also pointing out that remaining will have been an error in some future universes. I fear the point is lost on his critics though, his blog and twitter feed are exceptional in their intelligence I find.
I don't think he has u-turned, he is just laying groundwork to be able to shift any blame if it does go wrong. It's an eloquently worded cop-out.
Not at all if you view previous times he has written on the subject he has always been very clear he is happy to take responsibility if Brexit is a disaster. I suspect he views the whole thing in the same way Ike viewed D-Day. It was the right thing to do and was planned as best it could be but if it turned out to be another Dieppe then as the man in charge he was prepared to take the blame even if the causes of failure were not his directly.
Cummings is is a worse position of course. He could plan the campaign and secure the victory but he is relying on someone else to make it a success. It is now entirely out of his hands.
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
We didn't see the Cummings multiverse with Andrea Leadsom PM.
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
Also, i feel there is a reason why he went missing for the last 2 general elections...
The under 45s and people who work for the NHS HATE him. He also seems utterly gormless
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
Also, i feel there is a reason why he went missing for the last 2 general elections...
The under 45s and people who work for the NHS HATE him. He also seems utterly gormless
Hunt and Gove are spectacularly despised in the public sector. It's hilarious.
When Jeremy Hunt came to Croydon to campaign for Gavin Barwell, he shook hands with me and went round the group and did me twice because he lost track of where he had started.
Leaving aside cod-physics about the multiverse, the future is unwritten. However, its outer parameters are set by pre-existing conditions. As you say, the conduct of the referendum set some of those parameters. The quality of resources available to the government both to negotiate Brexit and to make any other desirable reforms is another pre-existing parameter.
Neither point to a happy ending.
The biggest problem of all is one many of us flagged up before the referendum: that there had not been any serious discussion of what structure we'd actually be seeking if we left. That was always going to be a massive problem for whoever was left with actually implementing the Brexit decision. I think it's a fair criticism of Theresa May that her approach (which charitably one could call was one of showing leadership, or less charitably was high-handed and inflexible) has meant the debate is only now really starting in earnest, which is to put it mildy rather late. Unfortunately a weak government riven with in-fighting and with a leader whose authority is shot to pieces is the worst possible enviroment for resolving such a complex set of issues.
Yes, the appointment of Liam was an odd one. With his smouldering good looks and pop-babe past, I can only think that Theresa's intention was to add a bit of sexiness to the Brexit proceedings. Perhaps having the glamorous doctor in place, gallivanting around the globe securing his trade deals with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Ghana, was considered Brexit's answer to Poldark.
Why Ghana? I don't think he's running a medical mission
The Ghana deal was the jewel in the crown of post-Brexit settlements. Bicycles made of bamboo on the streets of London was one of the many advantages hailed by Boris:
A trade deal with Ghana would be excellent. That county has made a number of very positive reforms over the last decade, and could be an example to the African continent in what can be achieved with the right governance. We should certainly support that by being the first Western country to genuinely deliver trade justice to African economies, at least the ones moving in the right direction. Achieving free access to a major Western economy would be highly beneficial for them and could be the 21st Century's answer to the 1807 Slave Trade Act. Where we start, may others follow.
Ghana? A trade deal with Ghana is going to make up for Brexit?
Seriously? Ghana?
I don't know how CornishJohn manages to keep a straight face.
Easy enough online ....
Next week, a trade deal with Kiribati will be announced which will be the first step in ensuring that the Sun Never Sets on The British Empire (Mk.2)
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
We didn't see the Cummings multiverse with Andrea Leadsom PM.
Is Cummings the fool responsible for some of the loopier aspects of Gove's stint at education ?
That either he or Leadsom should figure in any possible conservative future is a measure of the depths to which the Tories have sunk.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
It is a worry, though. It's been rubbished by the US as still not far enough, and we don't think they know how to miniaturise a nuke enough to put it on one of these things; but on both fronts they are moving in the right, or rather wrong, direction. Awesome to note that it got to an altitude of 2,802km, that's actually higher than a low earth orbit.
When Jeremy Hunt came to Croydon to campaign for Gavin Barwell, he shook hands with me and went round the group and did me twice because he lost track of where he had started.
You sure that wasn't just a Marxian jest ? (“I never forget a face — but I'm going to make an exception in your case!”)
...I suspect he views the whole thing in the same way Ike viewed D-Day. It was the right thing to do and was planned as best it could be but if it turned out to be another Dieppe then as the man in charge he was prepared to take the blame even if the causes of failure were not his directly....
Hmm, the difference is that Brexit was an entirely voluntary act, whereas in 1944 the Allies weren't really in a position to shrug their shoulders and say 'Maybe we won't bother given the risks'.
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
Also, i feel there is a reason why he went missing for the last 2 general elections...
The under 45s and people who work for the NHS HATE him. He also seems utterly gormless
Hunt and Gove are spectacularly despised in the public sector. It's hilarious.
Of course they are. They challenged the comfortable status quo that meant the public sector was and is there to serve those who work for it rather than those how pay for it.
Now, I voted to remain but people saying Cummings has U-turned on his Brexit position either have the intellectual capability of a gnat, or are appealing to those that do so.
In many universes driving home for me this evening would have been better avoided with the future car crash I'll have. But that will have no bearing on whether or not I choose to do so. If we THINK about what Cummings is saying, he is also pointing out that remaining will have been an error in some future universes. I fear the point is lost on his critics though, his blog and twitter feed are exceptional in their intelligence I find.
Is Cummings really invoking the Multiverse to say that whatever we do there will be some alternative universe where that would have been a bad or a good idea. It might be an idea to live in the real universe and the real world. In this one I suspect that we would have been better off without his £350million/week to the NHS promise.
Leaving aside cod-physics about the multiverse, the future is unwritten. However, its outer parameters are set by pre-existing conditions. As you say, the conduct of the referendum set some of those parameters. The quality of resources available to the government both to negotiate Brexit and to make any other desirable reforms is another pre-existing parameter.
Neither point to a happy ending.
It is far more likely that the less gung-ho Brexitarians are beginning to see the post-Brexit shambles approaching and are trying to get away from the blame that will inevitably result.
I don't think Dominic Cummings lacks gung-ho-ness. Nor do I think he is trying to extricate himself from blame. He has the vanity to assume he is NEVER to blame for anything. I think it's case of the revolution not being complete, that it could fail if we don't double down and pursue it to the bitter end.
...I suspect he views the whole thing in the same way Ike viewed D-Day. It was the right thing to do and was planned as best it could be but if it turned out to be another Dieppe then as the man in charge he was prepared to take the blame even if the causes of failure were not his directly....
Hmm, the difference is that Brexit was an entirely voluntary act, whereas in 1944 the Allies weren't really in a position to shrug their shoulders and say 'Maybe we won't bother given the risks'.
Not exactly true. They were pushed into it by the Russian demand for a second front. They could just as easily have gone with the continued attacks in Italy and the invasion of Southern France.
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
It was. It convinced me for about two weeks. But then the Maybot did a system upgrade and hasn't behaved properly ever since.
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
It was. It convinced me for about two weeks. But then the Maybot did a system upgrade and hasn't behaved properly ever since.
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
Also, i feel there is a reason why he went missing for the last 2 general elections...
The under 45s and people who work for the NHS HATE him. He also seems utterly gormless
Hunt and Gove are spectacularly despised in the public sector. It's hilarious.
Of course they are. They challenged the comfortable status quo that meant the public sector was and is there to serve those who work for it rather than those how pay for it.
I think they are pretty much hated by all non-political nerds (Who are on the right). They are just not likeable AT ALL.
Itd be like going for a worse version of Theresa May.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
It is a worry, though. It's been rubbished by the US as still not far enough, and we don't think they know how to miniaturise a nuke enough to put it on one of these things; but on both fronts they are moving in the right, or rather wrong, direction. Awesome to note that it got to an altitude of 2,802km, that's actually higher than a low earth orbit.
I think China will put them back in their box in return for some US blind eye turning in the S China Sea and a bit of back turning on S Korea which Trump will go along with. Kim Jong Un will be bought off with Chinese investment and maybe some irrelevant sweeties. That will cover the next 5 to 10 years.
On topic, the Conservatives could do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt. He stays focussed on the task at hand and isn't wont to start howling at the moon every time someone mentions the EU. I could imagine him having things that he wanted to do and actually seeing them through to be done.
In practice, the Conservatives almost certainly will do an awful lot worse than Jeremy Hunt.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't precisely the same argument advanced in favour of May not so long ago.... ?
Also, i feel there is a reason why he went missing for the last 2 general elections...
The under 45s and people who work for the NHS HATE him. He also seems utterly gormless
Hunt and Gove are spectacularly despised in the public sector. It's hilarious.
Of course they are. They challenged the comfortable status quo that meant the public sector was and is there to serve those who work for it rather than those how pay for it.
Mid Staffs further showed that 1/ the staff aren't doing the job they laud themselves for, and 2/ firehosing money at the NHS didn't make it any better, so there's clearly an unresolved cultural problem in it.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
It is a worry, though. It's been rubbished by the US as still not far enough, and we don't think they know how to miniaturise a nuke enough to put it on one of these things; but on both fronts they are moving in the right, or rather wrong, direction. Awesome to note that it got to an altitude of 2,802km, that's actually higher than a low earth orbit.
I think China will put them back in their box in return for some US blind eye turning in the S China Sea and a bit of back turning on S Korea which Trump will go along with. Kim Jong Un will be bought off with Chinese investment and maybe some irrelevant sweeties. That will cover the next 5 to 10 years.
Suely a bit of bombing would do the same? Or a few missile strikes by proper missiles?
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
It is a worry, though. It's been rubbished by the US as still not far enough, and we don't think they know how to miniaturise a nuke enough to put it on one of these things; but on both fronts they are moving in the right, or rather wrong, direction. Awesome to note that it got to an altitude of 2,802km, that's actually higher than a low earth orbit.
I think China will put them back in their box in return for some US blind eye turning in the S China Sea and a bit of back turning on S Korea which Trump will go along with. Kim Jong Un will be bought off with Chinese investment and maybe some irrelevant sweeties. That will cover the next 5 to 10 years.
Funnily enough the China / N Korea arrangement is like a worse version of the Conservative/DUP deal. In principle China (and the Conservatives) should call the shots. They are funding the other insignificant party. But no.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
It is a worry, though. It's been rubbished by the US as still not far enough, and we don't think they know how to miniaturise a nuke enough to put it on one of these things; but on both fronts they are moving in the right, or rather wrong, direction. Awesome to note that it got to an altitude of 2,802km, that's actually higher than a low earth orbit.
I think China will put them back in their box in return for some US blind eye turning in the S China Sea and a bit of back turning on S Korea which Trump will go along with. Kim Jong Un will be bought off with Chinese investment and maybe some irrelevant sweeties. That will cover the next 5 to 10 years.
Suely a bit of bombing would do the same? Or a few missile strikes by proper missiles?
Wouldn't have thought Trump would want it. Would precipitate an invasion of the South and a rerun of 1950 to 1953. N Korea is way too militarized to bomb out in a limited campaign and has a huge army. Plus the risk of it spilling out into a Chinese US war is too great.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
It is a worry, though. It's been rubbished by the US as still not far enough, and we don't think they know how to miniaturise a nuke enough to put it on one of these things; but on both fronts they are moving in the right, or rather wrong, direction. Awesome to note that it got to an altitude of 2,802km, that's actually higher than a low earth orbit.
I think China will put them back in their box in return for some US blind eye turning in the S China Sea and a bit of back turning on S Korea which Trump will go along with. Kim Jong Un will be bought off with Chinese investment and maybe some irrelevant sweeties. That will cover the next 5 to 10 years.
Funnily enough the China / N Korea arrangement is like a worse version of the Conservative/DUP deal. In principle China (and the Conservatives) should call the shots. They are funding the other insignificant party. But no.
Right down to them not really needing them after all.
To whoever wrote about Clarke and Portillo ... both nice people. Well, Portillo anyway. Not sure they would really have been able to lead a predominantly eurosceptic party?
To whoever wrote about Clarke and Portillo ... both nice people. Well, Portillo anyway. Not sure they would really have been able to lead a predominantly eurosceptic party?
Could not have made a worse hash of it than the donkey they went for.
To whoever wrote about Clarke and Portillo ... both nice people. Well, Portillo anyway. Not sure they would really have been able to lead a predominantly eurosceptic party?
It was me. Probably would have got away with it if they could show progress. Some sort of free vote fudge whilst in opposition?
Brexit might just cause long term damage to the Tories. I can't see the two sides of the party on the EU, ever coming to a compromised position. There will be open warfare with briefings to the media and no respect for Theresa May or her replacement. And the fighting over Brexit will cause problems with other policies as well.
A Clarke led Tory party voting against the war in Iraq would have changed everything. Blair would have resigned, There would have been no Brown coronation. Probably a Robin Cook led government staggering on with the special relationship in tatters and a rampant opposition winning in 2006.
...I suspect he views the whole thing in the same way Ike viewed D-Day. It was the right thing to do and was planned as best it could be but if it turned out to be another Dieppe then as the man in charge he was prepared to take the blame even if the causes of failure were not his directly....
Hmm, the difference is that Brexit was an entirely voluntary act, whereas in 1944 the Allies weren't really in a position to shrug their shoulders and say 'Maybe we won't bother given the risks'.
Not exactly true. They were pushed into it by the Russian demand for a second front. They could just as easily have gone with the continued attacks in Italy and the invasion of Southern France.
IANAE, but wasn't it much more complicated than that? The US wanted the main invasion in northern Europe (much easier logistics), whilst we Brits wanted it in the Mediterranean. The US were always going to win that argument.
A major factor in the Italian campaign was demands that something be done - the Russians wanted pressure to be put on the Germans, whilst the US wanted their troops doing something during 1943.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
It is a worry, though. It's been rubbished by the US as still not far enough, and we don't think they know how to miniaturise a nuke enough to put it on one of these things; but on both fronts they are moving in the right, or rather wrong, direction. Awesome to note that it got to an altitude of 2,802km, that's actually higher than a low earth orbit.
I think China will put them back in their box in return for some US blind eye turning in the S China Sea and a bit of back turning on S Korea which Trump will go along with. Kim Jong Un will be bought off with Chinese investment and maybe some irrelevant sweeties. That will cover the next 5 to 10 years.
Funnily enough the China / N Korea arrangement is like a worse version of the Conservative/DUP deal. In principle China (and the Conservatives) should call the shots. They are funding the other insignificant party. But no.
That woman who does state news broadcasts in N Korea is fabulously entertaining. It's like your mum getting excited about the joint she's bought for Sunday.
It is a worry, though. It's been rubbished by the US as still not far enough, and we don't think they know how to miniaturise a nuke enough to put it on one of these things; but on both fronts they are moving in the right, or rather wrong, direction. Awesome to note that it got to an altitude of 2,802km, that's actually higher than a low earth orbit.
I think China will put them back in their box in return for some US blind eye turning in the S China Sea and a bit of back turning on S Korea which Trump will go along with. Kim Jong Un will be bought off with Chinese investment and maybe some irrelevant sweeties. That will cover the next 5 to 10 years.
Funnily enough the China / N Korea arrangement is like a worse version of the Conservative/DUP deal. In principle China (and the Conservatives) should call the shots. They are funding the other insignificant party. But no.
Ha, brilliant analogy. I do see a bit of Kim Jong Un in Arlene Foster.
...I suspect he views the whole thing in the same way Ike viewed D-Day. It was the right thing to do and was planned as best it could be but if it turned out to be another Dieppe then as the man in charge he was prepared to take the blame even if the causes of failure were not his directly....
Hmm, the difference is that Brexit was an entirely voluntary act, whereas in 1944 the Allies weren't really in a position to shrug their shoulders and say 'Maybe we won't bother given the risks'.
Not exactly true. They were pushed into it by the Russian demand for a second front. They could just as easily have gone with the continued attacks in Italy and the invasion of Southern France.
IANAE, but wasn't it much more complicated than that? The US wanted the main invasion in northern Europe (much easier logistics), whilst we Brits wanted it in the Mediterranean. The US were always going to win that argument.
A major factor in the Italian campaign was demands that something be done - the Russians wanted pressure to be put on the Germans, whilst the US wanted their troops doing something during 1943.
On my understanding the aim of the Italian campaign was to tie down German troops, taking pressure off the Soviets and potentially an invasion across the Channel. The Allies made such heavy weather of Italy that the opposite happened. Small numbers of Germans kept much larger numbers of Allied troops occupied. The Allies were in better shape by this point, so it didn't make any difference overall, but the campaign failed in its original aim.
...I suspect he views the whole thing in the same way Ike viewed D-Day. It was the right thing to do and was planned as best it could be but if it turned out to be another Dieppe then as the man in charge he was prepared to take the blame even if the causes of failure were not his directly....
Hmm, the difference is that Brexit was an entirely voluntary act, whereas in 1944 the Allies weren't really in a position to shrug their shoulders and say 'Maybe we won't bother given the risks'.
Not exactly true. They were pushed into it by the Russian demand for a second front. They could just as easily have gone with the continued attacks in Italy and the invasion of Southern France.
IANAE, but wasn't it much more complicated than that? The US wanted the main invasion in northern Europe (much easier logistics), whilst we Brits wanted it in the Mediterranean. The US were always going to win that argument.
A major factor in the Italian campaign was demands that something be done - the Russians wanted pressure to be put on the Germans, whilst the US wanted their troops doing something during 1943.
Yes on both parts. But the driving factor in both cases was always to be seen to be doing something to help the Russians. Normandy was closer to Berlin than St Tropez.
...I suspect he views the whole thing in the same way Ike viewed D-Day. It was the right thing to do and was planned as best it could be but if it turned out to be another Dieppe then as the man in charge he was prepared to take the blame even if the causes of failure were not his directly....
Hmm, the difference is that Brexit was an entirely voluntary act, whereas in 1944 the Allies weren't really in a position to shrug their shoulders and say 'Maybe we won't bother given the risks'.
Not exactly true. They were pushed into it by the Russian demand for a second front. They could just as easily have gone with the continued attacks in Italy and the invasion of Southern France.
IANAE, but wasn't it much more complicated than that? The US wanted the main invasion in northern Europe (much easier logistics), whilst we Brits wanted it in the Mediterranean. The US were always going to win that argument.
A major factor in the Italian campaign was demands that something be done - the Russians wanted pressure to be put on the Germans, whilst the US wanted their troops doing something during 1943.
On my understanding the aim of the Italian campaign was to tie down German troops, taking pressure off the Soviets and potentially an invasion across the Channel. The Allies made such heavy weather of Italy that the opposite happened. Small numbers of Germans kept much larger numbers of Allied troops occupied. The Allies were in better shape by this point, so it didn't make any difference overall, but the campaign failed in its original aim.
A Clarke led Tory party voting against the war in Iraq would have changed everything. Blair would have resigned, There would have been no Brown coronation. Probably a Robin Cook led government staggering on with the special relationship in tatters and a rampant opposition winning in 2006.
Clarke would never have been able to unite the Tory party. They would have been destroyed by his fanatical Europhilia.
Are there any turnout models which would have worked in both 2015 and 2017 ?
ICM overcorrected. They underestimated the Conservative share in 2015 so they added extra for luck in 2017. Polling is judgement as well as objective data collection, but that was a mistake. You should always go with the data and not your instinct.
...I suspect he views the whole thing in the same way Ike viewed D-Day. It was the right thing to do and was planned as best it could be but if it turned out to be another Dieppe then as the man in charge he was prepared to take the blame even if the causes of failure were not his directly....
Hmm, the difference is that Brexit was an entirely voluntary act, whereas in 1944 the Allies weren't really in a position to shrug their shoulders and say 'Maybe we won't bother given the risks'.
Not exactly true. They were pushed into it by the Russian demand for a second front. They could just as easily have gone with the continued attacks in Italy and the invasion of Southern France.
IANAE, but wasn't it much more complicated than that? The US wanted the main invasion in northern Europe (much easier logistics), whilst we Brits wanted it in the Mediterranean. The US were always going to win that argument.
A major factor in the Italian campaign was demands that something be done - the Russians wanted pressure to be put on the Germans, whilst the US wanted their troops doing something during 1943.
On my understanding the aim of the Italian campaign was to tie down German troops, taking pressure off the Soviets and potentially an invasion across the Channel. The Allies made such heavy weather of Italy that the opposite happened. Small numbers of Germans kept much larger numbers of Allied troops occupied. The Allies were in better shape by this point, so it didn't make any difference overall, but the campaign failed in its original aim.
In hindsight, Italy was always only going to have two strips by which any progress could be made, separated by quite rugged terrain. A few choke points held things up for weeks/months.
Saw in - World at War, I think, that the US commander was controlling something like 20 nationalities, all with their own quirks and rules, which did not help matters.
A Guardian/ICM poll suggests that almost 30% of people thinks austerity contributed to so many people dying at Grenfell Tower.
The actual poll stated -This was a terrible event, but the austerity policies pursued over the last seven years contributed to so many people dying: 28%
So honest reporting would be 72% do not think austerity contributed
Are there any turnout models which would have worked in both 2015 and 2017 ?
ICM overcorrected. They underestimated the Conservative share in 2015 so they added extra for luck in 2017. Polling is judgement as well as objective data collection, but that was a mistake. You should always go with the data and not your instinct.
That was Nate Silver's conclusion. You can't always be right, but being wrong for the wrong reason is unforgiveable.
One of the favourite parts of the election is the fact that Clegg - hero of extreme remainers holds no elected office whereas their nemesis Farage still does. I wonder if the hardened Europhiles will go quiet on twitter when this unelected mouthpiece of minority of voters turns up on Question Time every few weeks?
Are there any turnout models which would have worked in both 2015 and 2017 ?
ICM overcorrected. They underestimated the Conservative share in 2015 so they added extra for luck in 2017. Polling is judgement as well as objective data collection, but that was a mistake. You should always go with the data and not your instinct.
I've been really negative about survation in the past. I take it all back.
The smartest person in the polling industry is damian lyons lowe.
He screwed up in 2015. Took a long hard look at why. And then didn't screw up in 2017.
Of course, that doesn't mean he (& survation) may not screw up again next time.
As a punter, I kinda hope/expect that he will. People punting on the polls they want to believe, rubbishing ones they don't like and the intense reputational pressure on the pollsters to herd adds significant value to the betting markets.
But if they're deliberately not trying to get prosecutions, that's a choice, rather than trying and failing to secure prosecutions. I'm not saying that's a good thing (it'd be horrendous), just that it is substantially different to trying and failing.
Are there any turnout models which would have worked in both 2015 and 2017 ?
ICM overcorrected. They underestimated the Conservative share in 2015 so they added extra for luck in 2017. Polling is judgement as well as objective data collection, but that was a mistake. You should always go with the data and not your instinct.
I've been really negative about survation in the past. I take it all back.
The smartest person in the polling industry is damian lyons lowe.
He screwed up in 2015. Took a long hard look at why. And then didn't screw up in 2017.
Of course, that doesn't mean he (& survation) may not screw up again next time.
As a punter, I kinda hope/expect that he will. People punting on the polls they want to believe, rubbishing ones they don't like and the intense reputational pressure on the pollsters to herd adds significant value to the betting markets.
I think so long as Corbyn is Labour leader, the raw numbers ought to be reasonably close. The difficulty comes if he is ousted/gives up the leadership. Do the same people head out for McDonnell or whoever else is in charge ?
But if they're deliberately not trying to get prosecutions, that's a choice, rather than trying and failing to secure prosecutions. I'm not saying that's a good thing (it'd be horrendous), just that it is substantially different to trying and failing.
Their job is to enforce the law. His will anyone be deterred if they know the police won't prosecute.
A Guardian/ICM poll suggests that almost 30% of people thinks austerity contributed to so many people dying at Grenfell Tower.
The actual poll stated -This was a terrible event, but the austerity policies pursued over the last seven years contributed to so many people dying: 28%
So honest reporting would be 72% do not think austerity contributed
But this is the Guardian
I have said it so many times but if no money had been invested in Grenfell Towers then no one would have died and the fire would have just stayed in the one flat.
Are there any turnout models which would have worked in both 2015 and 2017 ?
What do we have to do to stop him dropping "KABOOM!" into every election, regardless?
ICM as with most pollsters publish their full data sets , and it was possible to look at those for ICM and note that the actual data was much more positive for Labour and negative for the Conservatives . Of course , Conservative wishful thinkers on here would and did mostly disbelieve their eyes and approve of the adjustments Martin Boon then made .
Are there any turnout models which would have worked in both 2015 and 2017 ?
What do we have to do to stop him dropping "KABOOM!" into every election, regardless?
ICM as qith most pollsters publish their full data sets , and it was possible to look at those for ICM and note that the actual data was much more positive for Labour and negative for the Conservatives . Of course , Conservative wishful thinkers on here would and did mostly disbelieve their eyes and approve of the adjustments Martin Boon then made .
I think polling these days is just guesswork. With the range of final polls presented somebody had to be right and some had to be wildly wrong. I just think Survation guessed right this time. What was interesting to me leading up to the GE was that no Labour person on here, even those who did canvessing was predicting the result which happened. I dont know why that was. Even Jack Straw at 10.30 on GE night thought the exit poll was wrong and it did not compare to Labours private polling.
Mr. One, I agree, it's despicable. But it's like the 'cultural sensitivities' around Rotherham, a choice by some in authority rather than just a failed investigation. It's alarming because it's intentional.
To whoever wrote about Clarke and Portillo ... both nice people. Well, Portillo anyway. Not sure they would really have been able to lead a predominantly eurosceptic party?
It was me. Probably would have got away with it if they could show progress. Some sort of free vote fudge whilst in opposition?
Portillo is pro-brexit, in fact I think he is a hard brexiteer. It's trident where he is against tory party policy I believe.
Are there any turnout models which would have worked in both 2015 and 2017 ?
ICM overcorrected. They underestimated the Conservative share in 2015 so they added extra for luck in 2017. Polling is judgement as well as objective data collection, but that was a mistake. You should always go with the data and not your instinct.
I've been really negative about survation in the past. I take it all back.
The smartest person in the polling industry is damian lyons lowe.
He screwed up in 2015. Took a long hard look at why. And then didn't screw up in 2017.
Of course, that doesn't mean he (& survation) may not screw up again next time.
As a punter, I kinda hope/expect that he will. People punting on the polls they want to believe, rubbishing ones they don't like and the intense reputational pressure on the pollsters to herd adds significant value to the betting markets.
In 2015 ICM came up with a model that missed on the figures but was valid because it was accurate to the best of their knowledge at that time. In 2017 they said, we got it wrong in 2015 so we will add some extra Conservatives this time. The figures were wrong, but more importantly so was their model because it contained arbitrary data. Survation went with the data and got both their model and figures correct.
Are there any turnout models which would have worked in both 2015 and 2017 ?
What do we have to do to stop him dropping "KABOOM!" into every election, regardless?
ICM as qith most pollsters publish their full data sets , and it was possible to look at those for ICM and note that the actual data was much more positive for Labour and negative for the Conservatives . Of course , Conservative wishful thinkers on here would and did mostly disbelieve their eyes and approve of the adjustments Martin Boon then made .
I think polling these days is just guesswork. With the range of final polls presented somebody had to be right and some had to be wildly wrong. I just think Survation guessed right this time. What was interesting to me leading up to the GE was that no Labour person on here, even those who did canvessing was predicting the result which happened. I dont know why that was. Even Jack Straw at 10.30 on GE night thought the exit poll was wrong and it did not compare to Labours private polling.
I think that's right... And I suspect the next election sees Survation go from "hero to zero" and someone else will make the correct guess.
One of the favourite parts of the election is the fact that Clegg - hero of extreme remainers holds no elected office whereas their nemesis Farage still does. I wonder if the hardened Europhiles will go quiet on twitter when this unelected mouthpiece of minority of voters turns up on Question Time every few weeks?
Why does Farage still hold elected office? His job is done, it couldn't be the salary and expenses could it?
Are there any turnout models which would have worked in both 2015 and 2017 ?
ICM overcorrected. They underestimated the Conservative share in 2015 so they added extra for luck in 2017. Polling is judgement as well as objective data collection, but that was a mistake. You should always go with the data and not your instinct.
I've been really negative about survation in the past. I take it all back.
The smartest person in the polling industry is damian lyons lowe.
He screwed up in 2015. Took a long hard look at why. And then didn't screw up in 2017.
Of course, that doesn't mean he (& survation) may not screw up again next time.
As a punter, I kinda hope/expect that he will. People punting on the polls they want to believe, rubbishing ones they don't like and the intense reputational pressure on the pollsters to herd adds significant value to the betting markets.
In 2015 ICM came up with a model that missed on the figures but was valid because it was accurate to the best of their knowledge at that time. In 2017 they said, we got it wrong in 2015 so we will add some extra Conservatives this time. The figures were wrong, but more importantly so was their model because it contained arbitrary data. Survation went with the data and got both their model and figures correct.
Wasn't the adjustment's ICM (and other pollsters were making) a result of the 2015 polling council inquiry though?
...I suspect he views the whole thing in the same way Ike viewed D-Day. It was the right thing to do and was planned as best it could be but if it turned out to be another Dieppe then as the man in charge he was prepared to take the blame even if the causes of failure were not his directly....
Hmm, the difference is that Brexit was an entirely voluntary act, whereas in 1944 the Allies weren't really in a position to shrug their shoulders and say 'Maybe we won't bother given the risks'.
Not exactly true. They were pushed into it by the Russian demand for a second front. They could just as easily have gone with the continued attacks in Italy and the invasion of Southern France.
IANAE, but wasn't it much more complicated than that? The US wanted the main invasion in northern Europe (much easier logistics), whilst we Brits wanted it in the Mediterranean. The US were always going to win that argument.
A major factor in the Italian campaign was demands that something be done - the Russians wanted pressure to be put on the Germans, whilst the US wanted their troops doing something during 1943.
On my understanding the aim of the Italian campaign was to tie down German troops, taking pressure off the Soviets and potentially an invasion across the Channel. The Allies made such heavy weather of Italy that the opposite happened. Small numbers of Germans kept much larger numbers of Allied troops occupied. The Allies were in better shape by this point, so it didn't make any difference overall, but the campaign failed in its original aim.
In hindsight, Italy was always only going to have two strips by which any progress could be made, separated by quite rugged terrain. A few choke points held things up for weeks/months.
Saw in - World at War, I think, that the US commander was controlling something like 20 nationalities, all with their own quirks and rules, which did not help matters.
Friend of mine lost a leg at Anzio. The landing went well but then the initiative stalled and Kesselring was able to regroup and surround the allied troops. My friends withering comment was that if German Commanders had shown the same level of incompetence as their allied counterparts did in Southern Italy, they would have been shot.
To whoever wrote about Clarke and Portillo ... both nice people. Well, Portillo anyway. Not sure they would really have been able to lead a predominantly eurosceptic party?
It was me. Probably would have got away with it if they could show progress. Some sort of free vote fudge whilst in opposition?
Portillo is pro-brexit, in fact I think he is a hard brexiteer. It's trident where he is against tory party policy I believe.
Of course, being against Trident need not stop a leader from going into an election with a pro-renewal manifesto.
A Guardian/ICM poll suggests that almost 30% of people thinks austerity contributed to so many people dying at Grenfell Tower.
The actual poll stated -This was a terrible event, but the austerity policies pursued over the last seven years contributed to so many people dying: 28%
So honest reporting would be 72% do not think austerity contributed
But this is the Guardian
I have said it so many times but if no money had been invested in Grenfell Towers then no one would have died and the fire would have just stayed in the one flat.
Isn't the issue that it wasn't so much 'investment' as a cosmetic makeover?
Presumably the inquiry will get to the bottom of this.
One of the favourite parts of the election is the fact that Clegg - hero of extreme remainers holds no elected office whereas their nemesis Farage still does. I wonder if the hardened Europhiles will go quiet on twitter when this unelected mouthpiece of minority of voters turns up on Question Time every few weeks?
Why does Farage still hold elected office? His job is done, it couldn't be the salary and expenses could it?
The job isn't done, as continuity Remain are more than happy to point out when it suits their case.
A Guardian/ICM poll suggests that almost 30% of people thinks austerity contributed to so many people dying at Grenfell Tower.
The actual poll stated -This was a terrible event, but the austerity policies pursued over the last seven years contributed to so many people dying: 28%
So honest reporting would be 72% do not think austerity contributed
But this is the Guardian
I think that gives you an estimate for the population of moonbats in the population.
Comments
Sensational value if you can get 100/1 in my opinion. Currently 46 on BF.
Also worth having a nibble at Javid.
Even the Tories aren't that stupid.
Neither point to a happy ending.
Here's an interesting article about the superiority - both in terms of performance and environmental impact - of the Roman version in marine applications:
http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/content/102/7/1435
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQPlQ4LUHko
The Ghana deal was the jewel in the crown of post-Brexit settlements. Bicycles made of bamboo on the streets of London was one of the many advantages hailed by Boris:
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/UK-to-push-for-free-trade-deal-with-Ghana-510661
FPT. While on the subject of Jeremy Hunt on manoeuvres I very much enjoyed this link from Stark_Dawning. Sorry I see its already been posted
Cummings is is a worse position of course. He could plan the campaign and secure the victory but he is relying on someone else to make it a success. It is now entirely out of his hands.
The under 45s and people who work for the NHS HATE him. He also seems utterly gormless
https://twitter.com/martinboon/status/882241960249098240
That either he or Leadsom should figure in any possible conservative future is a measure of the depths to which the Tories have sunk.
(“I never forget a face — but I'm going to make an exception in your case!”)
Itd be like going for a worse version of Theresa May.
That will cover the next 5 to 10 years.
To whoever wrote about Clarke and Portillo ... both nice people. Well, Portillo anyway. Not sure they would really have been able to lead a predominantly eurosceptic party?
A major factor in the Italian campaign was demands that something be done - the Russians wanted pressure to be put on the Germans, whilst the US wanted their troops doing something during 1943.
Yougov and Survation were lucky this time......in the other universe youth turnout was low and ICM is gloating and Yougov look silly
Where is my prize?
Saw in - World at War, I think, that the US commander was controlling something like 20 nationalities, all with their own quirks and rules, which did not help matters.
1) For their final poll YouGov changed their methodology to be more in line with ICM
2) Rumours were abounding that there was a poll showing Labour ahead by 3%
The actual poll stated -This was a terrible event, but the austerity policies pursued over the last seven years contributed to so many people dying: 28%
So honest reporting would be 72% do not think austerity contributed
But this is the Guardian
He could have Kaboomed about 9.50pm: no-one would have known what it meant.
The smartest person in the polling industry is damian lyons lowe.
He screwed up in 2015. Took a long hard look at why. And then didn't screw up in 2017.
Of course, that doesn't mean he (& survation) may not screw up again next time.
As a punter, I kinda hope/expect that he will. People punting on the polls they want to believe, rubbishing ones they don't like and the intense reputational pressure on the pollsters to herd adds significant value to the betting markets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40491311
Clarice Starling: He said, "I can smell your Jeremy Hunt."
Hannibal Lecter: I see. I myself cannot.
But if they're deliberately not trying to get prosecutions, that's a choice, rather than trying and failing to secure prosecutions. I'm not saying that's a good thing (it'd be horrendous), just that it is substantially different to trying and failing.
theyre all learning the lessons
Do the same people head out for McDonnell or whoever else is in charge ?
Of course , Conservative wishful thinkers on here would and did mostly disbelieve their eyes and approve of the adjustments Martin Boon then made .
Presumably the inquiry will get to the bottom of this.