politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Will Corbyn be Labour leader at the next general election?

Charles said:

DougSeal said:

So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?

I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.

It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.

I don't want to tempt fate, but I don't think it's inevitable. I think there is something about the USA that is different - no, I can't explain it. Though, having said that, it happened in Norway a few years ago, and if it can happen there, then it can probably happen anywhere.

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.

@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the pand sought office in its name.

Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.

Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal

Good to hear. I take it that should Jeremy Corbyn win the next general election you will be equally vociferous in championing his policies? Will of the people and all that?

Or do you have principles at all? If so you, as a diehard remainer, can't support the policies of the current Conservative Party because you have proven, by your vote to remain in the EU, that you disagree with them.

Time to find another party.

If Jeremy Corbyn wins the nave left in March. We must Leave in October.

If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first

You disagree with this government's policy and yet are supporting it. That is pretty strange. The government wants to leave with no deal and to leave the single market and customs union. By your vote in 2016 you showed that you disagree with this. You are, simply, in the wrong party. It is the same with Labour. If they were to win by your own reckoning you should support it because their policies, likewise, are ones that you disagree with. Your only criterion of supporting a policy it seems is because it was arrived at democratically. So if Labour were elected by your own logic you would have no option but to support them.

DougSeal said:

Charles said:

DougSeal said:

So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?

I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average

I’ve no doubt that the long term economic return on the land was increased. I am less sure that that return was reinvested for the benefit of the native population.

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

tlg86 said:

I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.

Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.

There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.

I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?

Of course they can, but it is very difficult.

Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.

It’s not a simple as you think.

The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.

Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.

I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.

Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)

Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife

There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

tlg86 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

tlg86 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

tlg86 said:

Grim news from the US o

US

I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.

Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.

There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.

I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?

Of course they can, but it is very difficult.

Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.

It’s not a simple as you think.

icide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.

Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.

I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.

Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)

Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife

You can also kill with stupidity, and you are trying very hard, Charles!

No need to be offensive Peter

My point is simply “gun control” is a very simplistic answer. Life is more complicated than that. It’s part of the solution but not a panacea.

OK, sorry if I offended. I got fed up with the level of debate, but that's no excuse.

I'll say good night.

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

tlg86 said:

I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.

Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.

There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.

I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?

Of course they can, but it is very difficult.

Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.

It’s not a simple as you think.

The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.

Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.

I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.

Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)

Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife

There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.

Absolutely. But I suspect that spree killings are a small proportion of the overall number of homicides (don’t know if there are stats)

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.

@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.

Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.

Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal

Good to hear.r party.

If Jeremy Corbyn wins the nave left in March. We must Leave in October.

If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first

You disagree with this governmen logic you would have no option but to support them.

As I said before I was always on the borderline between Leave and Remain and would have voted Leave had the Euro been a requirement, after we Leave the EU to respect the Brexit vote rejoining would likely require joining the Euro so I oppose rejoining now too.

Leaving the single market and customs union are a necessary requirement to respect the Leave campaign's promise to end free movement and do our own trade deals though I would not necessarily oppose rejoining the single market in a decade or so once immigration has been brought under control, though I would still oppose rejoining the full EU.


I have always opposed Corbyn's policies and always will

You opposed leaving the single market and customs Union. We can't trust your principles.

You voted remain. Ergo you are a diehard remainer. Ergo you are in the wrong party.

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

tlg86 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

tlg86 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

tlg86 said:

Grim news from the US concerning gun crime, but there's some interesting stuff on Wiki concerning homicides and race:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide


Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account formerican.

If true, those are quite striking statistics given the perpetrators of the killing sprees reported by the UK media are almost always white. I guess this means that the scale of gun crime within the black community is pretty big as it outweighs all the killing sprees perpetrated by whites.

Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US

Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.

If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.

A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.

I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.

Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.

There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.

I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.

It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.

Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.

It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.

Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.

tlg86 said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

dixiedean said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Charles said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

tlg86 said:

There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.

I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?

Of course they can, but it is very difficult.

Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.

It’s not a simple as you think.

The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.

Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.

I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.

Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)

Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife

There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.

Absolutely. But I suspect that spree killings are a small proportion of the overall number of homicides (don’t know if there are stats)

Look at @Scott_P 's post. Only a small proportion of the US's killing sprees make the news here (I don't know the definition). It's clearly a significant part of the equation, though.

SandyRentool said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.

It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.

Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.

Thankfully they can't just pop into town, buy an assault rifle and box of ammo and head to the mosque.

Night all.

Foxy said:

Charles said:

DougSeal said:

Charles said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Your Boris quote is a

And who could disagree with that?

Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.

It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda

It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.

He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods

He said t

Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.

He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.

So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?

I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average

The introduction of cash crops such as coffee and tobacco was forced by an imposition by the Imperialists of taxes such as "hut taxes". The purpose of these imposed taxes was to coerce the africans to either grow cash crops or into wage labour in European owned businesses. Failure to pay the taxes either resulted in compulsory government labour or expropriation of lands.

To depict this as a benefit of colonialism is rather breathtaking in its lack of understanding, and not something that "Global Britain" should be doing.

Sean_F said:

Charles said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DougSeal said:

I’ll leave it to your glorious leader to tell you exactly what he thought of gay marriage in 2001 -

“If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.” - B. Johnson. ‘’Friends, Voters, Countrymen', 2001.

I’m not sure how convinced the LGBTQ+ community are by his apparent conversion. Not very is the feedback I’m getting.

To be fair, Peter Tatchell has tried to view the arrival of Boris in Number 10 in a balanced way. His article in the Independent a couple of weeks ago was pretty fair but also set out some indicators that the LGBT community could use to see if Boris was going to be supportive of the LGBT community. I think some of these at least are very reasonable. It would be good if Boris did take action on them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-lgbt-rights-voting-record-equality-prime-minister-tory-a9016916.html

As an aside, when is someone going to have the sense to ennoble Tatchell. As a voice for reason representing a significant part of British society he would be a huge asset to the second chamber.

Hasn't he said some pretty 'controversial' things about underage sex (mentioned on here I think)? Though he's been courageous in much of his campaigning, I think that might make it a no no.

Not sure. This might be one of those areas where I have not researched enough but as it stands I stick to my view he would be a great asset to an amending and guiding chamber.

I think that back in the 70s - like many on the left like Harriet Harman - he came pretty close to endorsing some of the views espoused by PIE

To be fair, he also says he was totally wrong to advocate abolishing the age of consent.

OblitusSumMe said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Good effort from Burns and Roy to make it through the seven overs to stumps.

If it doesn’t rain, all three results could still be possible.

I'd want good odds on an England win

In all Test history there have been 20 scores of 398+ in the 4th innings, but only one of those was in less than 100 6-ball overs, which was in 2002 at Christchurch when Nathan Astle scored a remarkable 222 at 8 runs an over as New Zealand scored 451 in 93 overs to lose by 98 runs.

It would take a career-best performance from at least one of Roy, Buttler or Stokes - I don't think any of the other players are even theoretically capable.

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.

@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.

Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.

Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal

Good to hear.r party.

If Jeremy Corbyn wins the nave left in March. We must Leave in October.

If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first

You disagree with this governmen logic you would have no option but to support them.

As I said before I was always on the borderline between Leave and Remain and would have voted ill

You opposed leaving the single market and customs Union. We can't trust your principles.

You voted remain. Ergo you are a diehard remainer. Ergo you are in the wrong party.

Nope, I backed the Withdrawal Agreement and back No Deal now if necessary to ensure Brexit on 31st October. By definition that does not make me a diehard Remainer, diehard Remainers by definition refuse to respect the Brexit vote and want to stop us leaving the EU on 31st October.

As I also made clear I now back leaving the customs union to enable us to do our own trade deals and the single market in the short term too to enable us to end free movement, I would only reconsider joining the EEA in a decade at the earliest as I also made clear I would never now support us rejoining the full EU

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

DougSeal said:

Charles said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Your Boris quote is a

And who could disagree with that?

Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.

It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda

It is racist to say that that the “

He said t

Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.

He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.

So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?

I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average

The introduction of cash crops such as coffee and tobacco was forced by an imposition by the Imperialists of taxes such as "hut taxes". The purpose of these imposed taxes was to coerce the africans to either grow cash crops or into wage labour in European owned businesses. Failure to pay the taxes either resulted in compulsory government labour or expropriation of lands.

To depict this as a benefit of colonialism is rather breathtaking in its lack of understanding, and not something that "Global Britain" should be doing.

At least we didn’t simply demand the produce and chop their hand off if they didn’t meet their quota, as the Belgians did.

That took place under the "Congo Free State" when the Congo was a personal possession of King Leoplold. The Belgian government didn't take over until later, indeed it took over in large part because of Leopold's brutalities.

Peter_the_Punter said:

llef said:

re Stark_dawning "I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea."

Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?

FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.

Naturally. When with my German friends I refer to Koeln, not Cologne, but I wouldn't expect the German Government to put the English version up on their motorways to help me find the place.

Why not ask the people of Abertawe/Swansea what they want to call it, and stick to that? Would save a lot of trouble.

IanB2 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

llef said:

re Stark_dawning "I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea."

Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?

FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.

Naturally. When with my German friends I refer to Koeln, not Cologne, but I wouldn't expect the German Government to put the English version up on their motorways to help me find the place.

Why not ask the people of Abertawe/Swansea what they want to call it, and stick to that? Would save a lot of trouble.

Switzerland is an interesting example - four (three and a bit) national languages, yet no multi lingual road signs at all. Each Canton decides which language its signs are in, and that’s it.

NickPalmer said:

dixiedean said:

A cheeky request. My partner is researching DEFRA. Unfortunately, she did the work on Gove. Now he isn't there. Anyone know Theresa Villiers' record on LGBT rights? They seem to be pretty liberal, am I right?

Yes. This may be helpful:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11500/theresa_villiers/chipping_barnet/votes

The current Defra team is incidentally probably the most strongly pro-animal welfare that Defra has ever had (and Gove was good too, as is the shadow SoS Sue Hayman). Animal issues and LGBT rights are both outside the usual left-right spectrum.

Which has to be a good thing. It's so irritating when people think that if you support X you must therefore support unrelated issue Y, because they're both left-wing or right-wing. It reduces all human thought to one dimension.

eek said:

https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1158121934741213187

HYUFD said:

Brexit Party MEP Claire Fox does not rule out a pact with the Tories at the next general election although she says the situation is 'complicated'

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/08/watch-could-a-tory-brexit-party-pact-happen-of-course-it-could-replies-claire-fox.html

HYUFD said:

Brexit Party MEP Claire Fox does not rule out a pact with the Tories at the next general election although she says the situation is 'complicated'

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/08/watch-could-a-tory-brexit-party-pact-happen-of-course-it-could-replies-claire-fox.html

dixiedean said:

If it is to be a people v politicians election, I take it not a single Conservative MP will be re-selected? Nor any councillors? And replaced with randoms?
They are after all politicians.

Pulpstar said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Good effort from Burns and Roy to make it through the seven overs to stumps.

If it doesn’t rain, all three results could still be possible.

I'd want good odds on an England win

In all Test history there have been 20 scores of 398+ in the 4th innings, but only one of those was in less than 100 6-ball overs, which was in 2002 at Christchurch when Nathan Astle scored a remarkable 222 at 8 runs an over as New Zealand scored 451 in 93 overs to lose by 98 runs.

It would take a career-best performance from at least one of Roy, Buttler or Stokes - I don't think any of the other players are even theoretically capable.

Barstow is but he is in terrible form

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Charles said:

DougSeal said:

Charles said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

DougSeal said:

HYUFD said:

Your Boris quote is a

And who could disagree with that?

Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.

It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda

It is racist to say that that the “

He said t

Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.

He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.

So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?

I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average

The introduction of cash crops such as coffee and tobacco was forced by an imposition by the Imperialists of taxes such as "hut taxes". The purpose of these imposed taxes was to coerce the africans to either grow cash crops or into wage labour in European owned businesses. Failure to pay the taxes either resulted in compulsory government labour or expropriation of lands.

To depict this as a benefit of colonialism is rather breathtaking in its lack of understanding, and not something that "Global Britain" should be doing.

At least we didn’t simply demand the produce and chop their hand off if they didn’t meet their quota, as the Belgians did.

That took place under the "Congo Free State" when the Congo was a personal possession of King Leoplold. The Belgian government didn't take over until later, indeed it took over in large part because of Leopold's brutalities.

Good old PB. I read Neal Ascherson's book on that very topic on my recent holiday.

Cyclefree said:

Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/LarrySabato/status/1158095240215105537

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.

That's interesting. As the report indicates, the rate of gun crime in the UK is amongst the lowest in the world so the arrival of a consignment like that would have made a significant impact.

You'd have to imagine much of the weaponry was bought to order. The scale makes you wonder whether the purchasers were quasi-political or terrorist groups rather than normal criminal gangs.

Edit: This wouldn't be the Provos selling off surplus stocks, would it?

surbiton19 said:

HYUFD said:

Brexit Party MEP Claire Fox does not rule out a pact with the Tories at the next general election although she says the situation is 'complicated'

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/08/watch-could-a-tory-brexit-party-pact-happen-of-course-it-could-replies-claire-fox.html

So the Revolutionary Communists and the Tories will be allies ?

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Brexit Party MEP Claire Fox does not rule out a pact with the Tories at the next general election although she says the situation is 'complicated'

https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/08/watch-could-a-tory-brexit-party-pact-happen-of-course-it-could-replies-claire-fox.html

On which topic. Are you of the opinion that a pact with the Brexit Party would increase or decrease the Tory vote?

Peter_the_Punter said:

ReggieCide said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.

That's interesting. As the report indicates, the rate of gun crime in the UK is amongst the lowest in the world so the arrival of a consignment like that would have made a significant impact.

You'd have to imagine much of the weaponry was bought to order. The scale makes you wonder whether the purchasers were quasi-political or terrorist groups rather than normal criminal gangs.

Edit: This wouldn't be the Provos selling off surplus stocks, would it?

and shipping them via the pretty route?

Who knows where they originated, but the UK is an odd destination for that sort of weaponry. There are no major conflicts going on here, gun-crime is low and professional criminals tend not to use guns; one imagines the street price of the weapons would have been fairly low because they would be too hot. Unless of course they were being delivered to order.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ReggieCide said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Cyclefree said:

Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.

That's interesting. As the report indicates, the rate of gun crime in the UK is amongst the lowest in the world so the arrival of a consignment like that would have made a significant impact.

You'd have to imagine much of the weaponry was bought to order. The scale makes you wonder whether the purchasers were quasi-political or terrorist groups rather than normal criminal gangs.

Edit: This wouldn't be the Provos selling off surplus stocks, would it?

and shipping them via the pretty route?

Who knows where they originated, but the UK is an odd destination for that sort of weaponry. There are no major conflicts going on here, gun-crime is low and professional criminals tend not to use guns; one imagines the street price of the weapons would have been fairly low because they would be too hot. Unless of course they were being delivered to order.

Balkans probably. It could be a dissident Irish group re-stocking. Who knows? But it is important to bear this case in mind next time someone says we can waive customs checks to avoid delays after a no deal Brexit.

Pulpstar said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

Good effort from Burns and Roy to make it through the seven overs to stumps.

If it doesn’t rain, all three results could still be possible.

I'd want good odds on an England win

In all Test history there have been 20 scores of 398+ in the 4th innings, but only one of those was in less than 100 6-ball overs, which was in 2002 at Christchurch when Nathan Astle scored a remarkable 222 at 8 runs an over as New Zealand scored 451 in 93 overs to lose by 98 runs.

It would take a career-best performance from at least one of Roy, Buttler or Stokes - I don't think any of the other players are even theoretically capable.

Barstow is but he is in terrible form

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

And the Welsh. I expect the Plaid Cymru social media micro-targeting team will have noted Boris describing their language as a weird creole.

Only 19% of Welsh residents speak Welsh and most of those in the Plaid heartlands of North West Wales, Anglesey and the Welsh West coast


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_language

Actually the latest figure is 29%.

I think you will also find that sweeping generalisations are unhelpful. For example, large parts of Montgomeryshire and a significant chunk of north-western Shropshire are Welsh-speaking, as are the western Valleys and Carmarthenshire. Ystradgynlais is a town with a significant Welsh language population. Equally, speak it in large parts of Aberystwyth and you will get blank looks. You will hear it spoken in Llwyngwril, but not in Fairbourne five miles to the north.

Is it not also the case that speakers of different Welsh dialects would likely be unintelligable to each other?

I wouldn't go so far as to say 'unintelligible.' There are very significant dialectical differences, more so than in English. That means that, for example, when I am speaking in Welsh to somebody from Arfon I have to keep adjusting my ideas for certain words and sometimes I will get funny looks (although that might also be because my Welsh is not very good)!

Tcations in Welsh and he spread of Welsh language television and radio, so it may be that the spoken language will become more homogenous from hereon in.

Thanks Ydoethur. That's very interesting and kind of hopeful.

May I ask if you share my irritation with dual language names and road signs?

The Italians don't find it necessary to tell English tourists that they are approaching Florence rather than Firenze. Nor do the Germans bother to translate Ausfahrt for us at the exit to motorways. So why do we need telling that Caerdydd is really Cardiff in disguise? And if the English want to call Abertawe something completely diferent, that's our business and we shouldn't require the locals to accommodate our parochialism by putting up helpful hints that it's what we call Swansea. As for Araf, if you need the English translation painted on the roads to tell you what it means, you shouldn't really be driving.

You're in Wales, ffs. Cope with the local anguage or stay at home. No?

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/PaulGoodmanCH/status/1158066118994616321?s=20

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1158081732978937856?s=20

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/PaulGoodmanCH/status/1158066118994616321?s=20

Correction: He's ordered the spuds for 7.55 tomorrow. Apparently Johnson is partial to bangers and mash.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1158113200979812352?s=20

AndyJS said:

"MPs can still stop Johnson's no deal by bringing down government, insists Grieve"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-no-deal-boris-johnson-dominic-grieve-collapse-government-election-a9039121.html

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

Chris said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/PaulGoodmanCH/status/1158066118994616321?s=20

Correction: He's ordered the spuds for 7.55 tomorrow. Apparently Johnson is partial to bangers and mash.

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1158113200979812352?s=20

12 days into government he's decided the advisors are the problem. Suggests he doesn't like their advice much.
New advisors 87 days before the most revolutionary government policy in nearly 75 years, arguably longer. Hope the new ones will be just super at the advicey stuff.