In other news – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
That and much more will be needed as wellRoy_G_Biv said:
It's not a spending cut, but:Philip_Thompson said:
£4 billion is not a rounding error when we have a deficit every single penny we can save helps and billions certainly do.Stuartinromford said:
Look at the commentary here this afternoon, including the post I replied to. It's about how Foreign Aid is unpopular, a waste, all the fault of Cameron or the Coalition.Philip_Thompson said:
Because HYUFD is wrong, without a pandemic blowing up our deficit we could have continued to afford this. We can't. It is a generosity we simply can not afford - if people wish to pay more for charity then they can do so voluntarily but the taxpayer has not got the finances to do so right now.Stuartinromford said:
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)HYUFD said:It was a policy for the Coalition years, it was never going to survive long with a Tory majority, especially once Cameron went
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1331644466445361156?s=20
And the idea that £4 billion is anything more than a rounding error in a total spend of £540 billion is for the birds.
This is about a totem- a tiny totem for the UK, but worth a lot to people who are actually needy, and another sign of how seriously we should take Johnson's promises.
If you think its such a rounding error then you should very easily come up with billions more than that you think you could slice elsewhere from spending in order to make up for this and to help eliminate the deficit.
Go on. I'm not holding my breath.
replace inheritance tax by channelling gifts and inheritance through the income tax system.
That'll raise your £4bn twice over.0 -
UK case summary
0 -
Cold, noisy so lots of shouting, and people standing close to one another.MarqueeMark said:What is it with meat processing plants and Covid? The latest is 100 positives in a plant in Bodmin.
0 -
UK hospitals
0 -
Brexit's not looking so affordable now, either. Insofar as it ever was.HYUFD said:
Had we not had to spend a fortune on furlough and avoided Covid then it may still have been affordable, circumstances change and given it was deeply unpopular anyway to keep it at that level no political cost to the cut eitherIanB2 said:
Your new get out of jail card is "It shouldn't have been in the manifesto" ??HYUFD said:
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happenStuartinromford said:
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)HYUFD said:It was a policy for the Coalition years, it was never going to survive long with a Tory majority, especially once Cameron went
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1331644466445361156?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1331650556566368258?s=20
Really?
After so many posts from you quoting bits and pieces of the manifesto at us to justify this or that.0 -
Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.3 -
UK deaths
0 -
There is a failed piano teacher in Oregon called René Salm who will literally be climbing the walls today. He makes a dubious living writing books, mostly based on archeological reports that he deliberately misrepresents, trying to prove Nazareth didn’t existed at the time of Jesus.kle4 said:
Well that just spoils it for me.ydoethur said:
He’s done quite a lot of other archaeology in the meanwhile, and not just in Nazareth. He hasn’t spent fourteen years staring at a hole in the ground pondering whether it fits Luke’s account of Jesus’ childhood.kle4 said:I like history, but 14 years studying the same ancient house?
There is a "strong case to be made" that a house excavated in Nazareth, Israel, was the childhood home of Jesus, according to an archaeologist.
Professor Ken Dark, from the University of Reading, has spent 14 years studying the remains of the 1st century dwelling beneath a modern-day convent.
He said the ruins were first suggested as Jesus, Mary and Joseph's home in the 19th-century.
However, the idea was dismissed by archaeologists in the 1930s.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-55061233
Seems like it would be pretty coincidental to have been home to Jesus.
He’s got a new book about to come out or has just come out, I’m not sure which, accusing Dark of being a Christian apologist, a liar, a forger, a Zionist stool pigeon and completely incompetent.
So this sort of thing will cause him to go even more mental.0 -
I was 13. He clearly cheated and the goal should never have stood. I also contend the the second happened partly because of the shock of the first (it was a great goal mind), I expected an intervention after the game because of the outrageous nature of the mistake, but nothing came (of course).Roy_G_Biv said:
What wasn't fair? The better team won.turbotubbs said:
First time I started to realise that sometimes life wasn't fair. Couldn't believe that no action was taken after the game. And now we have var...TheScreamingEagles said:Maradona broke this seven year old's heart in 1986.
Never forgave him.
Im not 13 now, and I realise it was one of those things. 2010 against Germany was annoying, but didn't bother me anything like as much. That one has led, unfortunately, and I think unintentionally, to players being offside if they point towards the space near the goal...0 -
UK R
from case numbers
From hospital admissions
0 -
One thing never really said was this - both players were allowed to use their hands, so how come Shilton didn't get there (he was surely taller than Maradona?)Roy_G_Biv said:
Yes, today is a day for celebrating a great footballer, and have a deep, long belly laugh at Peter Shilton.kinabalu said:
For me Maradona IS the bigger news. It's a true and massive Event. The state of the public finances, whilst of great interest and importance, will be the same tomorrow and on Friday as today. Not so Diego. You only die once.Wulfrun_Phil said:FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
2 -
Listening to final salary pension calculations from using RPI to CPIH sounds quite significant in the long term. Needs doing?
As significant as the Gordon Brown pensions' raid after 1997?0 -
I think Shilton said he had his hands/arms lower because he was expecting Maradona to use his head, so he positioned himself for where he expecting the headed ball to go.turbotubbs said:
One thing never really said was this - both players were allowed to use their hands, so how come Shilton didn't get there (he was surely taller than Maradona?)Roy_G_Biv said:
Yes, today is a day for celebrating a great footballer, and have a deep, long belly laugh at Peter Shilton.kinabalu said:
For me Maradona IS the bigger news. It's a true and massive Event. The state of the public finances, whilst of great interest and importance, will be the same tomorrow and on Friday as today. Not so Diego. You only die once.Wulfrun_Phil said:FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
0 -
Glad you're not holding your breath. It's terribly bad for you.Philip_Thompson said:
£4 billion is not a rounding error when we have a deficit every single penny we can save helps and billions certainly do.Stuartinromford said:
Look at the commentary here this afternoon, including the post I replied to. It's about how Foreign Aid is unpopular, a waste, all the fault of Cameron or the Coalition.Philip_Thompson said:
Because HYUFD is wrong, without a pandemic blowing up our deficit we could have continued to afford this. We can't. It is a generosity we simply can not afford - if people wish to pay more for charity then they can do so voluntarily but the taxpayer has not got the finances to do so right now.Stuartinromford said:
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)HYUFD said:It was a policy for the Coalition years, it was never going to survive long with a Tory majority, especially once Cameron went
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1331644466445361156?s=20
And the idea that £4 billion is anything more than a rounding error in a total spend of £540 billion is for the birds.
This is about a totem- a tiny totem for the UK, but worth a lot to people who are actually needy, and another sign of how seriously we should take Johnson's promises.
If you think its such a rounding error then you should very easily come up with billions more than that you think you could slice elsewhere from spending in order to make up for this and to help eliminate the deficit.
Go on. I'm not holding my breath.
I stand by "rounding error". In an overall budget of £500 billion, £4 billion is small compared with the overshoots or undershoots which will inevitably happen elsewhere. And the simple answer is that, if we're talking about a short-term crisis at a time when the government can borrow money basically for free, adding £4 billion to the debt pile is a sensible use of borrowing.
But the bottom line is this. The UK has decided to spend less on people poorer then themselves, so it can spend more on itself. And break a promise to do so.1 -
Maradona. My last night in Canada before returning to England to go to University.
Returned home to a depressed and angry land. I hadn't even realised it was handball. The Canadian (American?) commentators missed it entirely...0 -
Whilst the death of Diego Maradona is a tragedy for his family the harsh truth is that on one of the worlds greatest stages he resorted to cheating on a grotesque scale and his flawed legacy must be viewed accordingly.
Simply put there must be absolute zero tolerance for sporting cheats.1 -
Cobblers. Shilton did beat him to the ball, which is why Maradona tried the kind of trick which succeeds about one go in a hundred - probably less than that in top level competition.kinabalu said:
Shilts should not have been beaten to that ball even though it was outrageously handled by the cheating little tinker. Maradona was only five foot five.Roy_G_Biv said:
Yes, today is a day for celebrating a great footballer, and have a deep, long belly laugh at Peter Shilton.kinabalu said:
For me Maradona IS the bigger news. It's a true and massive Event. The state of the public finances, whilst of great interest and importance, will be the same tomorrow and on Friday as today. Not so Diego. You only die once.Wulfrun_Phil said:FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
You can't blame Shilton for the ineptitude of the officials.1 -
Ask any Argentinian who was better: Messi or Maradona - and they would just laugh you even asking.Northern_Al said:Maradona was the greatest footballer of his generation, and in my adult life the second greatest ever (slightly behind Messi) IMHO. I'm a bit too young (!) to have seen Pele at his best. Best was great, but a bit more patchy. I'd probably put Beckenbauer third, though defenders are not so fashionable.
And as for the cheating goal - well, of course English players never cheat, or dive in the box when untouched to get a penalty? It's up to the referees to spot cheating attempts - they'll always exist, in all nationalities. Maradona's second goal was the best international goal I've seen.
And I do agree that Messi is a superb player, who is just coming to the end of what has been a remarkable career.1 -
I am almost certain those 75 were indeed the basic Chieftains captured from Iran (having been bought before the parting of brass rags) - rather than bought de novo surely.kjh said:
Just checked and Iraq did have 75 Mk5P Chieftains which is the tank initially sold to Iran so it looks like my story is probably correct.kjh said:
No not sure just repeating the story, although it wasn't just tanks, there were armoured vehicles also. Shame if not true. You feel if you are going to mess up you might as well do it properly.Carnyx said:
Are you sure? I didn't know that the Iraqis got Chieftains (or later variants thereof such as Khalid/Shir), except by capture of Iranian ones.kjh said:
My father was a junior civil servant involved in the sale of the tanks (or rather the non sale) to Iran at the time. He often regales the events much to our embarrassment as he doesn't get that he is telling the story of a major cockup. In fairness to him I doubt he was at all responsible.OnlyLivingBoy said:
In our case I think they want us to pay them some money that they (and I think most reasonable observers) believe we owe them.turbotubbs said:
Don't know the case, but just shows that Iran imprisons westerners as hostages to extract concessions.FrancisUrquhart said:A British-Australian academic serving a 10-year sentence in Iran for espionage has been freed in exchange for three jailed Iranians, Iranian media say.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55077744
The cherry on the cake being the tanks were eventually finally sold to Iraq.
Could check with my Dad, but at 94 we have found that a lot of his stories no longer hold water - to put it mildly.
As @Malmesbury says, the British ended up with the Shir tank as Challenger 1.
But I've just remembered that the Jordanians just to coimplicate matters also bought the tank design for the Iranians, albeit in a modified version called the Khalid (not sure if they were the actual vehicles ordered,l or just the same basic design with new motor). Couldf you be thinking of that? (And the Kuwaitis had the basic Chieftain, too.)0 -
Maradona isn't even the greatest Argentinian footballer of all time. There was a telling debate on R5 about this recently with contenders for Maradona, Pele, Messi and Ronaldo. When they had to vote for someone other than their own player everyone chose Messi. And rightly so.ThomasNashe said:Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.0 -
Messi is shite, he did feck all when Liverpool beat Barca 4 nil.DavidL said:
Maradona isn't even the greatest Argentinian footballer of all time. There was a telling debate on R5 about this recently with contenders for Maradona, Pele, Messi and Ronaldo. When they had to vote for someone other than their own player everyone chose Messi. And rightly so.ThomasNashe said:Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
When his team needed him he was absent.
He wouldn't get into the Liverpool team.1 -
52% of voters voted for Brexit, only 18% of voters want to ringfence overseas aid from cuts and Brexit with a Deal is still manageableIanB2 said:
Brexit's not looking so affordable now, either. Insofar as it ever was.HYUFD said:
Had we not had to spend a fortune on furlough and avoided Covid then it may still have been affordable, circumstances change and given it was deeply unpopular anyway to keep it at that level no political cost to the cut eitherIanB2 said:
Your new get out of jail card is "It shouldn't have been in the manifesto" ??HYUFD said:
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happenStuartinromford said:
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)HYUFD said:It was a policy for the Coalition years, it was never going to survive long with a Tory majority, especially once Cameron went
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1331644466445361156?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1331650556566368258?s=20
Really?
After so many posts from you quoting bits and pieces of the manifesto at us to justify this or that.0 -
I thought the whole point about being a cheat was that it’s unsporting?JACK_W said:Whilst the death of Diego Maradona is a tragedy for his family the harsh truth is that on one of the worlds greatest stages he resorted to cheating on a grotesque scale and his flawed legacy must be viewed accordingly.
Simply put there must be absolute zero tolerance for sporting cheats.1 -
You yourself, Jack, would never stoop to such levels, I'm sure.JACK_W said:Whilst the death of Diego Maradona is a tragedy for his family the harsh truth is that on one of the worlds greatest stages he resorted to cheating on a grotesque scale and his flawed legacy must be viewed accordingly.
Simply put there must be absolute zero tolerance for sporting cheats.
Warm regards
PtP (Winner PB Tipster of the Year competition, 2008, when all illegal votes are discounted.)1 -
I’d like to see how Messi would have coped with the defenders (and what referees allowed them to get away with) that Maradona had to face.DavidL said:
Maradona isn't even the greatest Argentinian footballer of all time. There was a telling debate on R5 about this recently with contenders for Maradona, Pele, Messi and Ronaldo. When they had to vote for someone other than their own player everyone chose Messi. And rightly so.ThomasNashe said:Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.0 -
Excuse me chaps, Alfredo di Stefano wishes to say 'Hi'.TheScreamingEagles said:
Messi is shite, he did feck all when Liverpool beat Barca 4 nil.DavidL said:
Maradona isn't even the greatest Argentinian footballer of all time. There was a telling debate on R5 about this recently with contenders for Maradona, Pele, Messi and Ronaldo. When they had to vote for someone other than their own player everyone chose Messi. And rightly so.ThomasNashe said:Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.
When his team needed him he was absent.
He wouldn't get into the Liverpool team.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Di_Stéfano0 -
And 1990 when England decided to miss their penalties rather than have to face Argentina again. And 1994 when England decided the safest thing to do was just not to bother at all.turbotubbs said:
I was 13. He clearly cheated and the goal should never have stood. I also contend the the second happened partly because of the shock of the first (it was a great goal mind), I expected an intervention after the game because of the outrageous nature of the mistake, but nothing came (of course).Roy_G_Biv said:
What wasn't fair? The better team won.turbotubbs said:
First time I started to realise that sometimes life wasn't fair. Couldn't believe that no action was taken after the game. And now we have var...TheScreamingEagles said:Maradona broke this seven year old's heart in 1986.
Never forgave him.
Im not 13 now, and I realise it was one of those things. 2010 against Germany was annoying, but didn't bother me anything like as much. That one has led, unfortunately, and I think unintentionally, to players being offside if they point towards the space near the goal...
There's not much good in football, but England failing in hilarious and novel ways every couple of years is one.
Maradona, we salute you. For your quick feet, your soaring header, and for unravelling the psyches of a generation of deluded England fans (and one England goalkeeper) in a moment of creative genius.0 -
This is further proof of Messi's shiteness, this is from this season's Champions League.
https://twitter.com/McQueirns/status/13244876054095052820 -
Not as significant as Brown`s raid. Winners and losers below. Main reason is undoubtedly to reduce public sector defined benefit pension liabilities. Only a very long term and gradual gain for the treasure though.MattW said:Listening to final salary pension calculations from using RPI to CPIH sounds quite significant in the long term. Needs doing?
As significant as the Gordon Brown pensions' raid after 1997?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/13291741/rishi-sunak-spending-review-raid-pensions-investments-rpi/0 -
Which reminds me, I never got that pie.Peter_the_Punter said:
You yourself, Jack, would never stoop to such levels, I'm sure.JACK_W said:Whilst the death of Diego Maradona is a tragedy for his family the harsh truth is that on one of the worlds greatest stages he resorted to cheating on a grotesque scale and his flawed legacy must be viewed accordingly.
Simply put there must be absolute zero tolerance for sporting cheats.
Warm regards
PtP (Winner PB Tipster of the Year competition, 2008, when all illegal votes are discounted.)0 -
Good point. One of the things that makes Pele for me not just the best ever but insurpassable is the shellacking he took weekly from defenders in the Brazilian league.ThomasNashe said:
I’d like to see how Messi would have coped with the defenders (and what referees allowed them to get away with) that Maradona had to face.DavidL said:
Maradona isn't even the greatest Argentinian footballer of all time. There was a telling debate on R5 about this recently with contenders for Maradona, Pele, Messi and Ronaldo. When they had to vote for someone other than their own player everyone chose Messi. And rightly so.ThomasNashe said:Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.0 -
Baroness Sugg has resigned. Madness!
6 -
Can't find it. What, briefly, was the PB conclusion please?FrancisUrquhart said:
Yes.it has.Carnyx said:https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/
O/T - I have been off the site so don't know if this has been seen/discussed?0 -
A majority certainly don't want Brexit now!HYUFD said:
52% of voters voted for Brexit, only 18% of voters want to ringfence overseas aid from cuts and Brexit with a Deal is still manageableIanB2 said:
Brexit's not looking so affordable now, either. Insofar as it ever was.HYUFD said:
Had we not had to spend a fortune on furlough and avoided Covid then it may still have been affordable, circumstances change and given it was deeply unpopular anyway to keep it at that level no political cost to the cut eitherIanB2 said:
Your new get out of jail card is "It shouldn't have been in the manifesto" ??HYUFD said:
It shouldn't have been in the manifesto I agree, 66% of voters overall and 92% of Tory voters think it should be cut and rightly so given the deficit that is now going to happenStuartinromford said:
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)HYUFD said:It was a policy for the Coalition years, it was never going to survive long with a Tory majority, especially once Cameron went
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1331644466445361156?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1331650556566368258?s=20
Really?
After so many posts from you quoting bits and pieces of the manifesto at us to justify this or that.0 -
Superb goal by City.0
-
Re header:
Always worry about the debt and worry even more about a deficit. These things can erode democratic control.
Once the restructuring mob have their teeth in it's a nasty and slow decline.
The UK managed somehow to get out of that under Thatcher. I'm sure there are other examples, but it's not a place to be.1 -
I'm good with "cheat" thanks. It is indeed an ugly word, one for an ugly act such as that which Scotland relied on to make it to Argentina in 1978, although given what happened subsequently they probably wished they hadn't.Roy_G_Biv said:
"Cheat" is such an ugly word. "Hero" is a bit more like it.Wulfrun_Phil said:FFS. On the day the Chancellor reveals figures confirming what's probably the most disasterous set of public finances in living memory, and certainly the most disasterous set in peacetime, the lead story on the 5pm news is the death of a cheating Argentine footballer.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-wales-keeper-dai-davies-im-1371802
"Back then 50,800 fans, most of them Scots, squeezed into the Liverpool ground as Don Masson’s penalty off Jordan’s handball with 11 minutes left sent Scotland on the road to a second World Cup finals on the trot. Kenny Dalglish added a magnificent second in the closing minutes but it was Jordan’s gamesmanship against an aerial challenge from David Jones off an Asa Hartford long throw that remains one of the British game’s talking points."
0 -
There is a subtle but important difference between the two raids. Brown wanted to raid pension fund surpluses and the impact was always going to fall on scheme sponsors (the company). Sunak’s raid will reduce the benefits payable to scheme members directly. So ordinary people are likely to become less well off as they go through retirement.MattW said:Listening to final salary pension calculations from using RPI to CPIH sounds quite significant in the long term. Needs doing?
As significant as the Gordon Brown pensions' raid after 1997?0 -
Refrigerated Air and the perfect surface for Corona to live on?MarqueeMark said:What is it with meat processing plants and Covid? The latest is 100 positives in a plant in Bodmin.
I am amazed we don't have a comprehensive model of Corona spread by now.0 -
.Stuartinromford said:
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)HYUFD said:It was a policy for the Coalition years, it was never going to survive long with a Tory majority, especially once Cameron went
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1331644466445361156?s=20
It should not have been. Government should only do things where it adds demonstrable value over the private sector. There are dozens of aid charities that people can give money to, without it being extorted through taxation. Today's move is long overdue.2 -
-
You're a cruel, cruel man.Theuniondivvie said:0 -
Take it from me, it's the kind of thing you see much easier from the pitch than from the stands.dixiedean said:Maradona. My last night in Canada before returning to England to go to University.
Returned home to a depressed and angry land. I hadn't even realised it was handball. The Canadian (American?) commentators missed it entirely...0 -
-
I'm sensing you're not an England supporter...Roy_G_Biv said:
And 1990 when England decided to miss their penalties rather than have to face Argentina again. And 1994 when England decided the safest thing to do was just not to bother at all.turbotubbs said:
I was 13. He clearly cheated and the goal should never have stood. I also contend the the second happened partly because of the shock of the first (it was a great goal mind), I expected an intervention after the game because of the outrageous nature of the mistake, but nothing came (of course).Roy_G_Biv said:
What wasn't fair? The better team won.turbotubbs said:
First time I started to realise that sometimes life wasn't fair. Couldn't believe that no action was taken after the game. And now we have var...TheScreamingEagles said:Maradona broke this seven year old's heart in 1986.
Never forgave him.
Im not 13 now, and I realise it was one of those things. 2010 against Germany was annoying, but didn't bother me anything like as much. That one has led, unfortunately, and I think unintentionally, to players being offside if they point towards the space near the goal...
There's not much good in football, but England failing in hilarious and novel ways every couple of years is one.
Maradona, we salute you. For your quick feet, your soaring header, and for unravelling the psyches of a generation of deluded England fans (and one England goalkeeper) in a moment of creative genius.
0 -
I have no problem with people being successful.johnt said:
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.Philip_Thompson said:
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?Casino_Royale said:
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.Philip_Thompson said:If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-foreign-aid-spending-dispute-over-aid-vnpj8dfgt
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?1 -
Welcome to the House of Lords.SandyRentool said:Baroness Sugg has resigned. Madness!
3 -
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?SandyRentool said:Baroness Sugg has resigned. Madness!
1 -
Not quite. Brown`s raid affected everyone with a personal pension BEFORE retirement. Everyone`s pension fund grew at a lower rate post-Brown because dividends coming into it were taxed at a higher rate. Raised a fortune - still does.johnt said:
There is a subtle but important difference between the two raids. Brown wanted to raid pension fund surpluses and the impact was always going to fall on scheme sponsors (the company). Sunak’s raid will reduce the benefits payable to scheme members directly. So ordinary people are likely to become less well off as they go through retirement.MattW said:Listening to final salary pension calculations from using RPI to CPIH sounds quite significant in the long term. Needs doing?
As significant as the Gordon Brown pensions' raid after 1997?
I`m not critical of this. It was a smart move which plucked an awful lot of feathers from a largely ignorant goose.0 -
Sounds exactly like an English supporter to me. Relentlessly negative about his own side while frantically trying to praise the opposition is about as English as you can get.turbotubbs said:
I'm sensing you're not an England supporter...Roy_G_Biv said:
And 1990 when England decided to miss their penalties rather than have to face Argentina again. And 1994 when England decided the safest thing to do was just not to bother at all.turbotubbs said:
I was 13. He clearly cheated and the goal should never have stood. I also contend the the second happened partly because of the shock of the first (it was a great goal mind), I expected an intervention after the game because of the outrageous nature of the mistake, but nothing came (of course).Roy_G_Biv said:
What wasn't fair? The better team won.turbotubbs said:
First time I started to realise that sometimes life wasn't fair. Couldn't believe that no action was taken after the game. And now we have var...TheScreamingEagles said:Maradona broke this seven year old's heart in 1986.
Never forgave him.
Im not 13 now, and I realise it was one of those things. 2010 against Germany was annoying, but didn't bother me anything like as much. That one has led, unfortunately, and I think unintentionally, to players being offside if they point towards the space near the goal...
There's not much good in football, but England failing in hilarious and novel ways every couple of years is one.
Maradona, we salute you. For your quick feet, your soaring header, and for unravelling the psyches of a generation of deluded England fans (and one England goalkeeper) in a moment of creative genius.0 -
We are having a meeting with our new actuaries tomorrow to discuss the triennial valuation which, somewhat unfortunately, was supposed to be as at 1st April this year. My provisional assessment is that we will need a smaller fund to pay the pensioners their entitlement as a result of this change which reduces the risk of us falling back into deficit, notwithstanding the state of the markets on the relevant date.Stocky said:
Not as significant as Brown`s raid. Winners and losers below. Main reason is undoubtedly to reduce public sector defined benefit pension liabilities. Only a very long term and gradual gain for the treasure though.MattW said:Listening to final salary pension calculations from using RPI to CPIH sounds quite significant in the long term. Needs doing?
As significant as the Gordon Brown pensions' raid after 1997?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/13291741/rishi-sunak-spending-review-raid-pensions-investments-rpi/
So you can either tell this story, as the Sun does, that "savers" are going to lose out or that companies and businesses may not have to invest so much of their profits in covering ever larger holes in FS pension schemes.2 -
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;Theuniondivvie said:
Craig.
Joubert.1 -
Lack of surprise in my case. It was always clear that AZ were a lot more diffident about the numbers than their plus royaliste que le roi supporters on here were. The fact that the sample yielding the 90% result were exclusively under 55 is a bit problematic.Carnyx said:
Can't find it. What, briefly, was the PB conclusion please?FrancisUrquhart said:
Yes.it has.Carnyx said:https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/
O/T - I have been off the site so don't know if this has been seen/discussed?0 -
If a charity is paying someone £400k pa in what sense can it reasonably be called a charity?Philip_Thompson said:
I have no problem with people being successful.johnt said:
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.Philip_Thompson said:
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?Casino_Royale said:
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.Philip_Thompson said:If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-foreign-aid-spending-dispute-over-aid-vnpj8dfgt
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
To make matters worse, remember that under this ghastly charity tax relief system each pound donated is inflated by the donor`s marginal rate of tax thus depriving the exchequer of much needed money.1 -
Coughjohnt said:
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?SandyRentool said:Baroness Sugg has resigned. Madness!
0 -
I haven't a clue to be honest. Just repeating the stories.Carnyx said:
I am almost certain those 75 were indeed the basic Chieftains captured from Iran (having been bought before the parting of brass rags) - rather than bought de novo surely.kjh said:
Just checked and Iraq did have 75 Mk5P Chieftains which is the tank initially sold to Iran so it looks like my story is probably correct.kjh said:
No not sure just repeating the story, although it wasn't just tanks, there were armoured vehicles also. Shame if not true. You feel if you are going to mess up you might as well do it properly.Carnyx said:
Are you sure? I didn't know that the Iraqis got Chieftains (or later variants thereof such as Khalid/Shir), except by capture of Iranian ones.kjh said:
My father was a junior civil servant involved in the sale of the tanks (or rather the non sale) to Iran at the time. He often regales the events much to our embarrassment as he doesn't get that he is telling the story of a major cockup. In fairness to him I doubt he was at all responsible.OnlyLivingBoy said:
In our case I think they want us to pay them some money that they (and I think most reasonable observers) believe we owe them.turbotubbs said:
Don't know the case, but just shows that Iran imprisons westerners as hostages to extract concessions.FrancisUrquhart said:A British-Australian academic serving a 10-year sentence in Iran for espionage has been freed in exchange for three jailed Iranians, Iranian media say.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55077744
The cherry on the cake being the tanks were eventually finally sold to Iraq.
Could check with my Dad, but at 94 we have found that a lot of his stories no longer hold water - to put it mildly.
As @Malmesbury says, the British ended up with the Shir tank as Challenger 1.
But I've just remembered that the Jordanians just to coimplicate matters also bought the tank design for the Iranians, albeit in a modified version called the Khalid (not sure if they were the actual vehicles ordered,l or just the same basic design with new motor). Couldf you be thinking of that? (And the Kuwaitis had the basic Chieftain, too.)0 -
Keeping your commitments is not mad, but expecting things will never change and you must always uphold them is pretty mad even if the situation is very different (though the Tories won't try that line when there are things they want to keep on doing) is pretty odd.johnt said:
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?SandyRentool said:Baroness Sugg has resigned. Madness!
It's not an issue of whether they should be pilloried for not upholding the commitment, the question is whether not upholding it is a good idea or not in the circumstances.0 -
Whohe? Never heard of him.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;Theuniondivvie said:
Craig.
Joubert.0 -
In an overall budget of £500 billion, £4 billion is nearlg 1% of the entire budget. That's not small in anyone's book.Stuartinromford said:
Glad you're not holding your breath. It's terribly bad for you.Philip_Thompson said:
£4 billion is not a rounding error when we have a deficit every single penny we can save helps and billions certainly do.Stuartinromford said:
Look at the commentary here this afternoon, including the post I replied to. It's about how Foreign Aid is unpopular, a waste, all the fault of Cameron or the Coalition.Philip_Thompson said:
Because HYUFD is wrong, without a pandemic blowing up our deficit we could have continued to afford this. We can't. It is a generosity we simply can not afford - if people wish to pay more for charity then they can do so voluntarily but the taxpayer has not got the finances to do so right now.Stuartinromford said:
In which case, why put it in the 2019 manifesto? (It's OK. I know the answer. Politicians, especially cowardly bullies, lie sometimes.)HYUFD said:It was a policy for the Coalition years, it was never going to survive long with a Tory majority, especially once Cameron went
https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/1331644466445361156?s=20
And the idea that £4 billion is anything more than a rounding error in a total spend of £540 billion is for the birds.
This is about a totem- a tiny totem for the UK, but worth a lot to people who are actually needy, and another sign of how seriously we should take Johnson's promises.
If you think its such a rounding error then you should very easily come up with billions more than that you think you could slice elsewhere from spending in order to make up for this and to help eliminate the deficit.
Go on. I'm not holding my breath.
I stand by "rounding error". In an overall budget of £500 billion, £4 billion is small compared with the overshoots or undershoots which will inevitably happen elsewhere. And the simple answer is that, if we're talking about a short-term crisis at a time when the government can borrow money basically for free, adding £4 billion to the debt pile is a sensible use of borrowing.
But the bottom line is this. The UK has decided to spend less on people poorer then themselves, so it can spend more on itself. And break a promise to do so.
I have no qualms with spending less on the rest of the globe when we can't afford to do so. There is nothing disreputable about that at all.
If we fix our own economy first then we will be able to afford more charity in the future, there is a reason you always put your own oxygen mask on first.2 -
Thank you! The Wired piece has prompted some discussion chez Carnyx.IshmaelZ said:
Lack of surprise in my case. It was always clear that AZ were a lot more diffident about the numbers than their plus royaliste que le roi supporters on here were. The fact that the sample yielding the 90% result were exclusively under 55 is a bit problematic.Carnyx said:
Can't find it. What, briefly, was the PB conclusion please?FrancisUrquhart said:
Yes.it has.Carnyx said:https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/
O/T - I have been off the site so don't know if this has been seen/discussed?0 -
Have caught up with today’s PMQs. The reason Boris scored a clear points win and why Labour now slipping further behind in all the polls was perfectly evident again.
This parliament reminds me of 83-87. Labours mission was to convince they are no longer the unelectable party, made only modest gains in 87 because they failed to realise what change was needed to convince the public of this. It’s not nearly enough to change a leader and go around saying the right things, that’s not going to convince enough people between elections.
2019 not only are Labour MPs unelectable in their own heartlands, but on the world stage the party is an ostracised pariah. And they have done absolutely fiddly squat in 12 months to convince the public they have changed, Boris astute to realise this is how it works merely needs to flag up Labour are weighed down with anti semitism, hasn’t changed, to get his clear PMQ win every week.
To add to Labour woes, not only does Starmer not have the required personality and charisma to best Sunak or Boris in a GE, there is absolutely no one on his front bench or plp capable of doing better.3 -
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.johnt said:
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?SandyRentool said:Baroness Sugg has resigned. Madness!
1 -
"He said whoever built the house had excellent knowledge of stone-working, the sort of thing expected of someone who would have been called a tekton, the ancient word for craftsman that was used to refer to Joseph in the bible."ydoethur said:
He’s done quite a lot of other archaeology in the meanwhile, and not just in Nazareth. He hasn’t spent fourteen years staring at a hole in the ground pondering whether it fits Luke’s account of Jesus’ childhood.kle4 said:I like history, but 14 years studying the same ancient house?
There is a "strong case to be made" that a house excavated in Nazareth, Israel, was the childhood home of Jesus, according to an archaeologist.
Professor Ken Dark, from the University of Reading, has spent 14 years studying the remains of the 1st century dwelling beneath a modern-day convent.
He said the ruins were first suggested as Jesus, Mary and Joseph's home in the 19th-century.
However, the idea was dismissed by archaeologists in the 1930s.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-55061233
Seems like it would be pretty coincidental to have been home to Jesus.
Because if a house shows evidence of having been built by a builder, that is strong evidence that it belonged to and was inhabited by a builder. Builders don't make cereals for anyone else.0 -
Striking chart.0
-
Are you even Scottish?Carnyx said:
Whohe? Never heard of him.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;Theuniondivvie said:
Craig.
Joubert.
I know plenty of Scots and they hate the fecker.
He was referee that knocked Scotland out of the 2015 rugby world cup.
Without his incompetence Scotland progress to the semis.1 -
The deficit continued coming down until 2019. In 2020 a global pandemic hit.No_Offence_Alan said:
Well, in 2015 the deficit was coming down and the 0.7% for aid was being met, until the Tories got a majority and they got all financially incontinent.Philip_Thompson said:
I agree completely.kle4 said:
I don't see an issue, necessarily, with maintaining it even now, nor do I think a failure of others to reach that level in itself means we should do the same or that it is even ok.Philip_Thompson said:Not a single other comparable economy is honouring the international 0.7% commitment right now so I fail to see why we should either. If we did in the future as part of getting other economies to do the same then that would raise more money but right now us continuing to do so unilaterally is as insane as advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament during the Cold War.
I'd be delighted to restore the 0.7% of GDP commitment to foreign aid, without other economies doing so too, if anyone can explain how the UK can afford to do that this year without a budget deficit. If anyone has any good ideas how to afford that then I'm all ears.
However, it does place into context how outraged we should be, and I think when people treat something most others don't do either as beyond the pale, it is a hard sell to the public. Particularly when there is not a magic line wherein you are moral at 0.7% but not at, say, 0.6%.
It's still possible, maybe even reasonable, to criticise based on priorities and moralities, but it really feels more like one of those decisions to be analysed with detachment rather than some great moral outrage.
And with cold detachment our budget deficit means that spending for the sake of spending is totally unaffordable.
Is that news to you?1 -
I'm not surprised there were stories - almost everyone east of the Dead Sea seems to have been driving the Chieftain at some point. Except the chaps with the hexagonal star (the desert-adapted Mark 4 for them, but the plug got pulled).kjh said:
I haven't a clue to be honest. Just repeating the stories.Carnyx said:
I am almost certain those 75 were indeed the basic Chieftains captured from Iran (having been bought before the parting of brass rags) - rather than bought de novo surely.kjh said:
Just checked and Iraq did have 75 Mk5P Chieftains which is the tank initially sold to Iran so it looks like my story is probably correct.kjh said:
No not sure just repeating the story, although it wasn't just tanks, there were armoured vehicles also. Shame if not true. You feel if you are going to mess up you might as well do it properly.Carnyx said:
Are you sure? I didn't know that the Iraqis got Chieftains (or later variants thereof such as Khalid/Shir), except by capture of Iranian ones.kjh said:
My father was a junior civil servant involved in the sale of the tanks (or rather the non sale) to Iran at the time. He often regales the events much to our embarrassment as he doesn't get that he is telling the story of a major cockup. In fairness to him I doubt he was at all responsible.OnlyLivingBoy said:
In our case I think they want us to pay them some money that they (and I think most reasonable observers) believe we owe them.turbotubbs said:
Don't know the case, but just shows that Iran imprisons westerners as hostages to extract concessions.FrancisUrquhart said:A British-Australian academic serving a 10-year sentence in Iran for espionage has been freed in exchange for three jailed Iranians, Iranian media say.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55077744
The cherry on the cake being the tanks were eventually finally sold to Iraq.
Could check with my Dad, but at 94 we have found that a lot of his stories no longer hold water - to put it mildly.
As @Malmesbury says, the British ended up with the Shir tank as Challenger 1.
But I've just remembered that the Jordanians just to coimplicate matters also bought the tank design for the Iranians, albeit in a modified version called the Khalid (not sure if they were the actual vehicles ordered,l or just the same basic design with new motor). Couldf you be thinking of that? (And the Kuwaitis had the basic Chieftain, too.)0 -
Thanks - I learn sometrhing new every time I come on PB.TheScreamingEagles said:
Are you even Scottish?Carnyx said:
Whohe? Never heard of him.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;Theuniondivvie said:
Craig.
Joubert.
I know plenty of Scots and they hate the fecker.
He was referee that knocked Scotland out of the 2015 rugby world cup.
Without his incompetence Scotland progress to the semis.0 -
Rugby ref - presumably made a mistake in a Scotland game...Carnyx said:
Whohe? Never heard of him.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;Theuniondivvie said:
Craig.
Joubert.0 -
Well, it would go against the grain.IshmaelZ said:
"He said whoever built the house had excellent knowledge of stone-working, the sort of thing expected of someone who would have been called a tekton, the ancient word for craftsman that was used to refer to Joseph in the bible."ydoethur said:
He’s done quite a lot of other archaeology in the meanwhile, and not just in Nazareth. He hasn’t spent fourteen years staring at a hole in the ground pondering whether it fits Luke’s account of Jesus’ childhood.kle4 said:I like history, but 14 years studying the same ancient house?
There is a "strong case to be made" that a house excavated in Nazareth, Israel, was the childhood home of Jesus, according to an archaeologist.
Professor Ken Dark, from the University of Reading, has spent 14 years studying the remains of the 1st century dwelling beneath a modern-day convent.
He said the ruins were first suggested as Jesus, Mary and Joseph's home in the 19th-century.
However, the idea was dismissed by archaeologists in the 1930s.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-55061233
Seems like it would be pretty coincidental to have been home to Jesus.
Because if a house shows evidence of having been built by a builder, that is strong evidence that it belonged to and was inhabited by a builder. Builders don't make cereals for anyone else.0 -
Fair point, but I am not convinced that was Brown’s real purpose. He was after the large surpluses in company pension schemes. At the time he acted far more people were in companies with final salary schemes and he was largely unconcerned (I suspect) in the impact on personal arrangements because they were not widely used by Labour voters. Of course his actions, together with other factors, left the golden goose of final salary scheme being slain all across the country.Stocky said:
Not quite. Brown`s raid affected everyone with a personal pension BEFORE retirement. Everyone`s pension fund grew at a lower rate post-Brown because dividends coming into it were taxed at a higher rate. Raised a fortune - still does.johnt said:
There is a subtle but important difference between the two raids. Brown wanted to raid pension fund surpluses and the impact was always going to fall on scheme sponsors (the company). Sunak’s raid will reduce the benefits payable to scheme members directly. So ordinary people are likely to become less well off as they go through retirement.MattW said:Listening to final salary pension calculations from using RPI to CPIH sounds quite significant in the long term. Needs doing?
As significant as the Gordon Brown pensions' raid after 1997?
I`m not critical of this. It was a smart move which plucked an awful lot of feathers from a largely ignorant goose.
Personally I do not hold him responsible for that, but the tax changes did speed it up.1 -
I remain a big fan of series 1, if only for Brian Blessed, especially the scene where he's gone mad in his bedchamber and thinks anyone coming in is a Turk. I do think reworking the series to have a much lower budget and cast and eliminating most outdoors filming after season 1 was the right thing to do as it made the scriptwriting have to be lot tighter. I think series 3 was the weakest, the Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election excepted of course.kle4 said:
2, 3, 4, 1. I recently rewatched 1 to give it a chance, but bottom line is that it just is not very funny. It has some funny moments, but on the whole it is just...nothing. Knowing it would have been funny and they retooled the main character only makes it worse.TimT said:
I'd go 2, 3, 1, 4. Did not like season 1 at all and it took a lot to persuade me to watch season 2, but then I was hooked. Found season 4 way to judgmental and preachy - all that I do not like about the direction 'comedy' has gone.state_go_away said:
Personally I rate the series in the following orderisam said:How is this for a million to one shot coming in?
When I was about 10 , BlackAdder II was my favourite comedy, to a ridiculous level of anorakness; I reckon I could probably still recite every word. I hadn't seen the first series so went and bought the video with my pocket money, and thought it was shit. Then BlackAdder the Third came on, I was super excited, and felt very let down. "Goes Forth" was better but none of them hold a candle to "II" for me.
Anyway, I digress. A couple of Saturday evenings ago we were watching an episode of The Crown Season One on Netflix, and I said to my missus that it reminded me of a scene from the first episode of BlackAdder II, where Bob/Kate says to Edmund she'd like him to meet her father, Edmund turns around and asks what he thinks is an old beggar loitering in the corridor to move along, not knowing it is his prospective FiL.
The episode of The Crown ends, we switch our tv from Netflix to Sky, (this is 830-9ish on a Saturday Night, Prime Time viewing in lockdown), and what is on BBC1? That very episode, a 35 year old repeat, two mins away from the scene I had described
2
1 (thought it was better than given credit for -including you it seems!)
3
4 (it was just a bit too serious imo)
2, 4, 1, 3.0 -
alance of Power
@BalancePowerUK
·
57m
POLL: Do you think the Govt are right or wrong to reduce the amount spent on overseas aid?
Labour Voters:
Right: 44%
Wrong: 37%
Lib Dem Voters:
Right: 49%
Wrong: 35%1 -
Starmer has a bit of the Bourbons about him, most apparent in his approach to Scotland.gealbhan said:Have caught up with today’s PMQs. The reason Boris scored a clear points win and why Labour now slipping further behind in all the polls was perfectly evident again.
This parliament reminds me of 83-87. Labours mission was to convince they are no longer the unelectable party, made only modest gains in 87 because they failed to realise what change was needed to convince the public of this. It’s not nearly enough to change a leader and go around saying the right things, that’s not going to convince enough people between elections.
2019 not only are Labour MPs unelectable in their own heartlands, but on the world stage the party is an ostracised pariah. And they have done absolutely fiddly squat in 12 months to convince the public they have changed, Boris astute to realise this is how it works merely needs to flag up Labour are weighed down with anti semitism, hasn’t changed, to get his clear PMQ win every week.
To add to Labour woes, not only does Starmer not have the required personality and charisma to best Sunak or Boris in a GE, there is absolutely no one on his front bench or plp capable of doing better.0 -
They must push and push this. I know the Lord Advocate slightly and had dealings with him as Dean. I don't think that he is a great advocate but that is because he is genuinely clever and sees the complications in everything. I have little doubt that his advice not to fight the JR by Salmond was very carefully judged and the strong suspicion that it was Sturgeon's interference that made it indefensible. He has a profound sense of professional responsibility and he will not hint that his client (the Scottish government) is the problem with the production of his advice.HYUFD said:
Next up will be trying to work out what the hell was going on in Crown Office which resulted in the malicious prosecution of the administrators of Rangers and one of their directors. That is going to cost the Scottish government the thick end of £20m. The main culprit for that, however, is now a Judge.2 -
It's a sore point for me and I'm English.Carnyx said:
Thanks - I learn sometrhing new every time I come on PB.TheScreamingEagles said:
Are you even Scottish?Carnyx said:
Whohe? Never heard of him.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;Theuniondivvie said:
Craig.
Joubert.
I know plenty of Scots and they hate the fecker.
He was referee that knocked Scotland out of the 2015 rugby world cup.
Without his incompetence Scotland progress to the semis.
Honestly I expected Scotland to beat Argentina in the semis and they would have been in the final and who knows what happens in the final.
I reckon the Scottish fans would have turned Twickenham into Murrayfield for the final.1 -
Agreed this change should reduce deficits, particularly in the public sector, in the private sector many companies have already made changes to RPI so the impact may be less. Good luck with the actuary, I never seem to get good news from ours. Hopefully you will be more lucky.DavidL said:
We are having a meeting with our new actuaries tomorrow to discuss the triennial valuation which, somewhat unfortunately, was supposed to be as at 1st April this year. My provisional assessment is that we will need a smaller fund to pay the pensioners their entitlement as a result of this change which reduces the risk of us falling back into deficit, notwithstanding the state of the markets on the relevant date.Stocky said:
Not as significant as Brown`s raid. Winners and losers below. Main reason is undoubtedly to reduce public sector defined benefit pension liabilities. Only a very long term and gradual gain for the treasure though.MattW said:Listening to final salary pension calculations from using RPI to CPIH sounds quite significant in the long term. Needs doing?
As significant as the Gordon Brown pensions' raid after 1997?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/13291741/rishi-sunak-spending-review-raid-pensions-investments-rpi/
So you can either tell this story, as the Sun does, that "savers" are going to lose out or that companies and businesses may not have to invest so much of their profits in covering ever larger holes in FS pension schemes.0 -
Except that Labour is now level pegging in the polls rather than being almost 12% behind. This has happened well in advance of midterm and shows Starmer doing far better than Kinnock at the same stage of the 1987 Parliament - and indeed Gaitskell at the same point of the 1959 Parliament.gealbhan said:Have caught up with today’s PMQs. The reason Boris scored a clear points win and why Labour now slipping further behind in all the polls was perfectly evident again.
This parliament reminds me of 83-87. Labours mission was to convince they are no longer the unelectable party, made only modest gains in 87 because they failed to realise what change was needed to convince the public of this. It’s not nearly enough to change a leader and go around saying the right things, that’s not going to convince enough people between elections.
2019 not only are Labour MPs unelectable in their own heartlands, but on the world stage the party is an ostracised pariah. And they have done absolutely fiddly squat in 12 months to convince the public they have changed, Boris astute to realise this is how it works merely needs to flag up Labour are weighed down with anti semitism, hasn’t changed, to get his clear PMQ win every week.
To add to Labour woes, not only does Starmer not have the required personality and charisma to best Sunak or Boris in a GE, there is absolutely no one on his front bench or plp capable of doing better.0 -
I think technically Messi too. He really does look like he was born with a ball stuck to his foot. But Maradona was somehow greater for me. His Napoli reign down in the poor south of Italy plus dragging his national team to a World Cup win. Just his whole narrative. It's bigger. I make him the football goat. Would have said that yesterday too. It's not just cos he's died today.DavidL said:
Maradona isn't even the greatest Argentinian footballer of all time. There was a telling debate on R5 about this recently with contenders for Maradona, Pele, Messi and Ronaldo. When they had to vote for someone other than their own player everyone chose Messi. And rightly so.ThomasNashe said:Re. Maradona. I get throughly sick of people going on about that hand-ball. As Sir NP points out England were well-beaten in that game, and the fixation on that moment rather misses the point about the most-sublimely talented footballer of all time.
There should be more attention to what he achieved at Napoli, which was just incredible. Football is a team game, and no one individual has ever been able to transcend that, with the one exception of Diego Maradona, who with both Argentina and Napoli transformed mediocre sides into world-beaters.1 -
400k a year to give money away and seemingly with little effect.Stocky said:
If a charity is paying someone £400k pa in what sense can it reasonably be called a charity?Philip_Thompson said:
I have no problem with people being successful.johnt said:
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.Philip_Thompson said:
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?Casino_Royale said:
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.Philip_Thompson said:If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-foreign-aid-spending-dispute-over-aid-vnpj8dfgt
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
To make matters worse, remember that under this ghastly charity tax relief system each pound donated is inflated by the donor`s marginal rate of tax thus depriving the exchequer of much needed money.
There are some far smaller scale charities where it's clear the comparatively tiny money is having an effect. The big charities probably do some good, but they're often handing the money to the causes of the problems.
The twenty quid you feel good about because it'll help an undernourished child is somewhat likely to finish up buying a small part of a bottle of wildly expensive Champagne for someone you'd hate who's on a holiday in Switzerland whilst his employees brutalise the people you wanted to help in the first place.
I've changed to (almost) only giving to charities where I can actually see the accounts and the results.
Edit: This seems very bleak, and I didn't quite mean that. Many people in the charitable sector do great work - big and small charities.1 -
I haven't been following it in detail (the Salmond not Sevco one). But as I recall there were two issues - (a) ongoing court cases and (b) personal confidentiality of the complainants in a sexual assault prosecution (this last very much adduced in media coverage). How do those operate in the current situation, please?DavidL said:
They must push and push this. I know the Lord Advocate slightly and had dealings with him as Dean. I don't think that he is a great advocate but that is because he is genuinely clever and sees the complications in everything. I have little doubt that his advice not to fight the JR by Salmond was very carefully judged and the strong suspicion that it was Sturgeon's interference that made it indefensible. He has a profound sense of professional responsibility and he will not hint that his client (the Scottish government) is the problem with the production of his advice.HYUFD said:
Next up will be trying to work out what the hell was going on in Crown Office which resulted in the malicious prosecution of the administrators of Rangers and one of their directors. That is going to cost the Scottish government the thick end of £20m. The main culprit for that, however, is now a Judge.0 -
Look at Lend with CareOmnium said:
400k a year to give money away and seemingly with little effect.Stocky said:
If a charity is paying someone £400k pa in what sense can it reasonably be called a charity?Philip_Thompson said:
I have no problem with people being successful.johnt said:
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.Philip_Thompson said:
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?Casino_Royale said:
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.Philip_Thompson said:If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-foreign-aid-spending-dispute-over-aid-vnpj8dfgt
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
To make matters worse, remember that under this ghastly charity tax relief system each pound donated is inflated by the donor`s marginal rate of tax thus depriving the exchequer of much needed money.
There are some far smaller scale charities where it's clear the comparatively tiny money is having an effect. The big charities probably do some good, but they're often handing the money to the causes of the problems.
The twenty quid you feel good about because it'll help an undernourished child is somewhat likely to finish up buying a small part of a bottle of wildly expensive Champagne for someone you'd hate who's on a holiday in Switzerland whilst his employees brutalise the people you wanted to help in the first place.
I've changed to (almost) only giving to charities where I can actually see the accounts and the results.
Edit: This seems very bleak, and I didn't quite mean that. Many people in the charitable sector do great work - big and small charities.0 -
Fucking hell.
This is a truly staggering claim.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-55059135
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.1 -
Not quite. Napoleon marching on Moscow was a mistake as was the Gallipoli campaign. This was just inexplicable.turbotubbs said:
Rugby ref - presumably made a mistake in a Scotland game...Carnyx said:
Whohe? Never heard of him.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;Theuniondivvie said:
Craig.
Joubert.0 -
Not come across them before. There are loads of really good smaller charities though.nichomar said:
Look at Lend with CareOmnium said:
400k a year to give money away and seemingly with little effect.Stocky said:
If a charity is paying someone £400k pa in what sense can it reasonably be called a charity?Philip_Thompson said:
I have no problem with people being successful.johnt said:
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.Philip_Thompson said:
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?Casino_Royale said:
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.Philip_Thompson said:If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-foreign-aid-spending-dispute-over-aid-vnpj8dfgt
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
To make matters worse, remember that under this ghastly charity tax relief system each pound donated is inflated by the donor`s marginal rate of tax thus depriving the exchequer of much needed money.
There are some far smaller scale charities where it's clear the comparatively tiny money is having an effect. The big charities probably do some good, but they're often handing the money to the causes of the problems.
The twenty quid you feel good about because it'll help an undernourished child is somewhat likely to finish up buying a small part of a bottle of wildly expensive Champagne for someone you'd hate who's on a holiday in Switzerland whilst his employees brutalise the people you wanted to help in the first place.
I've changed to (almost) only giving to charities where I can actually see the accounts and the results.
Edit: This seems very bleak, and I didn't quite mean that. Many people in the charitable sector do great work - big and small charities.
I really like the idea of charitable microfinance, but it seems hard to get right.0 -
Having seen the Liverpool team tonight I reckon the value is on Atalanta.
7/2 over on BFE and 4/1 with William Hill.
https://twitter.com/LFC/status/13316694328721694740 -
I got really bored of the last one explaining that bond rates were at the lowest since Napoleonic times and couldn't possibly fall any lower time after time after time. This one is, as one might expect a new kid on the block, proposing a lot of moving parts and the net sum of those parts is not immediately apparent (at least to me). I think its positive for us but I can't be sure.johnt said:
Agreed this change should reduce deficits, particularly in the public sector, in the private sector many companies have already made changes to RPI so the impact may be less. Good luck with the actuary, I never seem to get good news from ours. Hopefully you will be more lucky.DavidL said:
We are having a meeting with our new actuaries tomorrow to discuss the triennial valuation which, somewhat unfortunately, was supposed to be as at 1st April this year. My provisional assessment is that we will need a smaller fund to pay the pensioners their entitlement as a result of this change which reduces the risk of us falling back into deficit, notwithstanding the state of the markets on the relevant date.Stocky said:
Not as significant as Brown`s raid. Winners and losers below. Main reason is undoubtedly to reduce public sector defined benefit pension liabilities. Only a very long term and gradual gain for the treasure though.MattW said:Listening to final salary pension calculations from using RPI to CPIH sounds quite significant in the long term. Needs doing?
As significant as the Gordon Brown pensions' raid after 1997?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/13291741/rishi-sunak-spending-review-raid-pensions-investments-rpi/
So you can either tell this story, as the Sun does, that "savers" are going to lose out or that companies and businesses may not have to invest so much of their profits in covering ever larger holes in FS pension schemes.0 -
Over-55s growing less satisfied with the BBC, Ofcom says
Satisfaction with the BBC among its most loyal audiences is showing "signs of waning" for the first time, broadcasting watchdog Ofcom has said.
"Average time spent with the BBC each week [by young audiences] now stands at just less than an hour a day," it found.
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-550766080 -
When I was young when playing football in the park if you shouted "Maradona" just before doing so you could punch the ball without penalty.1
-
In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1331662705565036550
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1331662706814889987
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1331662708157112326
1 -
Given the shite Argentina served up in the semi we were as good as in the final.TheScreamingEagles said:
Are you even Scottish?Carnyx said:
Whohe? Never heard of him.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;Theuniondivvie said:
Craig.
Joubert.
I know plenty of Scots and they hate the fecker.
He was referee that knocked Scotland out of the 2015 rugby world cup.
Without his incompetence Scotland progress to the semis.
His total howler at the end over shadowed his preceding 7tminutes of utterly biased reffing.
Joubert had never knowingly reffed a game where the lower ranked team beat the higher ranked side.0 -
Who goes on holiday to Switzerland (apart from skiers - if that's what you mean fair point).Omnium said:
400k a year to give money away and seemingly with little effect.Stocky said:
If a charity is paying someone £400k pa in what sense can it reasonably be called a charity?Philip_Thompson said:
I have no problem with people being successful.johnt said:
I do find it ironic that the right always talk of aspiration and success being a great thing until someone they don’t like is successful when it becomes disgusting.Philip_Thompson said:
Just read the piece, wow - David Milliband is paid £400,000 per annum for his role in the International Rescue Committee and that is funded in large part by British taxpayers?Casino_Royale said:
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.Philip_Thompson said:If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-foreign-aid-spending-dispute-over-aid-vnpj8dfgt
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
That is disgusting. I hope we don't see David Milliband appearing on our screens insisting that the world's poorest are paying for our aid being cut - lets see £400k salaries being cut instead.
I have a problem with taxes being spent on "charity" that is really feathering the nest of politicians. It is borderline corruption and should be called out.
If he wants to earn millions from the private sector then that would be fine in my eyes. Taking millions from "charity" though? No.
How many nurses or teachers could we pay for with the millions we are bunging David Milliband?
To make matters worse, remember that under this ghastly charity tax relief system each pound donated is inflated by the donor`s marginal rate of tax thus depriving the exchequer of much needed money.
There are some far smaller scale charities where it's clear the comparatively tiny money is having an effect. The big charities probably do some good, but they're often handing the money to the causes of the problems.
The twenty quid you feel good about because it'll help an undernourished child is somewhat likely to finish up buying a small part of a bottle of wildly expensive Champagne for someone you'd hate who's on a holiday in Switzerland whilst his employees brutalise the people you wanted to help in the first place.
I've changed to (almost) only giving to charities where I can actually see the accounts and the results.
Edit: This seems very bleak, and I didn't quite mean that. Many people in the charitable sector do great work - big and small charities.0 -
It takes innumeracy to a whole new level, it really does.ydoethur said:Fucking hell.
This is a truly staggering claim.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-55059135
Mr Gibb acknowledged it was a "challenging time" but said the latest data showed 0.2% of pupils were off school isolating.
The actual figure is 17% which rises to 23% in secondary schools.
That’s amazing. That is a lie at which Goebbels would have blenched.
Either that, or he’s under the influence of illegal drugs.
Whichever way, he should be instantly sacked.0 -
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.Richard_Nabavi said:In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
0 -
-
Have a word with your lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and tell it to the judge ....Peter_the_Punter said:
You yourself, Jack, would never stoop to such levels, I'm sure.JACK_W said:Whilst the death of Diego Maradona is a tragedy for his family the harsh truth is that on one of the worlds greatest stages he resorted to cheating on a grotesque scale and his flawed legacy must be viewed accordingly.
Simply put there must be absolute zero tolerance for sporting cheats.
Warm regards
PtP (Winner PB Tipster of the Year competition, 2008, when all illegal votes are discounted.)
1 -
True David and there are lots of areas of expenditure which were not guaranteed in their manifesto yet they have chosen to cut one which was guaranteed. If you bothered to read the exchange you would see that my point was that breaking the manifesto seems a perfectly reasonable reason to resign.DavidL said:
Well, you see, there's been this bug and its cost £280bn so far to deal with the effects.... Keynes' famous dictum perhaps applies.johnt said:
Why? Whatever people think of foreign aid the Tories committed to maintain the 0.7 % of gdp as part of their election manifesto less than a year ago. What is mad about refusing to break your commitments?SandyRentool said:Baroness Sugg has resigned. Madness!
I appreciate that some Tories believe that they can say whatever they like to get elected and then do what they like once they are. But some have a different moral compass. There is nothing wrong with standing by your commitments. To suggest it is ‘madness’ seems absurd to me.0 -
These 'mistakes' may just have been good choices that finished up being unlucky.DavidL said:
Not quite. Napoleon marching on Moscow was a mistake as was the Gallipoli campaign. This was just inexplicable.turbotubbs said:
Rugby ref - presumably made a mistake in a Scotland game...Carnyx said:
Whohe? Never heard of him.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's funny, but I suppose I know the two words that can trigger Scots in a similar way;Theuniondivvie said:
Craig.
Joubert.
I think perhaps Napoleon's misadventure was a mistake - you'd have not given him a good chance ahead of time. The understanding of army logistics was though almost non-existent - crusades and Ghengis Khan.
Gallipoli though really should have succeeded. Awful planning, awful subsequent tactics, and a total failure to recognise when things had gone irretrievably wrong.
0 -
I'm not so sure, but even if you are right, Jon Worth's point is a very good one: the government has done absolutely nothing to lay the political ground for the necessary compromises. Quite the reverse, in fact, with the Internal Market Bill lunacy. That lack of preparation will make the political cost of reaching a deal (assuming they do) unnecessarily high.williamglenn said:
Gove is terrified of No Deal. If Gove is relaxed, No Deal is not remotely on the cards.Richard_Nabavi said:In terms of the politics, I think this is a very astute series of tweets. Boris' dithering is putting off the reckoning, but he will run out of road in days:
0
