"Remainian trapt in Brexitannia" - Sounds like another impartial and balanced source.
The Daily Star? Since when did newspapers have to be impartial and balanced? What is most interesting about their now long-running series of front pages is that the Ooh Ah Daily Star ordinarily have no interest in politics. Their readers are more interested in Love Island.
So when they do a politics front page - and keep doing them every more biting and sarcastic - I have to assume that it cuts through to their readership. If it didn't then the editor gets told in no uncertain terms to stop pissing off the people who pay the bills and print stories they want.
Despite the Robert Buckland "we're popular no-one cares" bluster I get the feeling that dissent and open disdain is bubbling away under the surface. Not saying that is a gimme for Labour (far from it) but it won't take much for another moment of Shagger idiocy to tip people over the edge and him into the bin.
No the twitter account....another one of Scott n Paste very narrow twitter sources he downloads every day onto here.
As for the Daily Star, they are owned by the Mirror now, what should we expect?
What does the Twitter account matter? Does it allow you to pretend that isn't the front page of the Ooh Ah because you dislike who tweeted it's image?
As for ownership that doesn't matter that much. They are a business, they are going after the same don't do politics me reader they always have. And yet here they are making hay at the clown's expense. These are literally the demographic who handed them an 80 seat majority and they appear to be lapping up these (frankly brilliant who knew they had it in them) Daily Star front pages.
Making fun of the government of the day gets laughs from people. A bit of a dog bites man story don't you think?
If you say so.
You don't think so?
PMs have always been mocked, sure. But to cut through, the form of that mockery has to have a degree of "yeah, bang to rights" about it. Think of Maggie being lampooned as more macho than the men in her Cabinet, Major as the grey Pooter, Blair as the new trendy vicar. The Star's satirical portrayal of Boris is as a clown. At some semi-conscious level, that's how significant numbers of people see him. That's not happened in recent times, and it's not good.
Also, most satirical alter egos have something positive about them. Maggie's strength, Major's plodding English decency, Blair's sense of belief that things could be better. But clowns? Clowns are stupid and frankly a bit scary.
It's a very leading indicator, but one that should cause government supporters to stop and think.
One thing that Trump was very good at was characterising an opponent with a phrase that eventually destroyed them..
"Remainian trapt in Brexitannia" - Sounds like another impartial and balanced source.
The Daily Star? Since when did newspapers have to be impartial and balanced? What is most interesting about their now long-running series of front pages is that the Ooh Ah Daily Star ordinarily have no interest in politics. Their readers are more interested in Love Island.
So when they do a politics front page - and keep doing them every more biting and sarcastic - I have to assume that it cuts through to their readership. If it didn't then the editor gets told in no uncertain terms to stop pissing off the people who pay the bills and print stories they want.
Despite the Robert Buckland "we're popular no-one cares" bluster I get the feeling that dissent and open disdain is bubbling away under the surface. Not saying that is a gimme for Labour (far from it) but it won't take much for another moment of Shagger idiocy to tip people over the edge and him into the bin.
No the twitter account....another one of Scott n Paste very narrow twitter sources he downloads every day onto here.
As for the Daily Star, they are owned by the Mirror now, what should we expect?
What does the Twitter account matter? Does it allow you to pretend that isn't the front page of the Ooh Ah because you dislike who tweeted it's image?
As for ownership that doesn't matter that much. They are a business, they are going after the same don't do politics me reader they always have. And yet here they are making hay at the clown's expense. These are literally the demographic who handed them an 80 seat majority and they appear to be lapping up these (frankly brilliant who knew they had it in them) Daily Star front pages.
Making fun of the government of the day gets laughs from people. A bit of a dog bites man story don't you think?
If you say so.
You don't think so?
PMs have always been mocked, sure. But to cut through, the form of that mockery has to have a degree of "yeah, bang to rights" about it. Think of Maggie being lampooned as more macho than the men in her Cabinet, Major as the grey Pooter, Blair as the new trendy vicar. The Star's satirical portrayal of Boris is as a clown. At some semi-conscious level, that's how significant numbers of people see him. That's not happened in recent times, and it's not good.
Also, most satirical alter egos have something positive about them. Maggie's strength, Major's plodding English decency, Blair's sense of belief that things could be better. But clowns? Clowns are stupid and frankly a bit scary.
It's a very leading indicator, but one that should cause government supporters to stop and think.
One thing that Trump was very good at was characterising an opponent with a phrase that eventually destroyed them..
The question is does Clown work with Boris..
Apart from Sleepy Joe that is. After 4 years of Trump that sounded mighty appealing.
Routine booing of other countries' anthem isn't freedom of expression. It is knee-jerk boorish unpleasantness which reflects badly upon each and every English person in the eyes of others.
I assume that the England "fans" also booed their own players?
"Remainian trapt in Brexitannia" - Sounds like another impartial and balanced source.
The Daily Star? Since when did newspapers have to be impartial and balanced? What is most interesting about their now long-running series of front pages is that the Ooh Ah Daily Star ordinarily have no interest in politics. Their readers are more interested in Love Island.
So when they do a politics front page - and keep doing them every more biting and sarcastic - I have to assume that it cuts through to their readership. If it didn't then the editor gets told in no uncertain terms to stop pissing off the people who pay the bills and print stories they want.
Despite the Robert Buckland "we're popular no-one cares" bluster I get the feeling that dissent and open disdain is bubbling away under the surface. Not saying that is a gimme for Labour (far from it) but it won't take much for another moment of Shagger idiocy to tip people over the edge and him into the bin.
No the twitter account....another one of Scott n Paste very narrow twitter sources he downloads every day onto here.
As for the Daily Star, they are owned by the Mirror now, what should we expect?
What does the Twitter account matter? Does it allow you to pretend that isn't the front page of the Ooh Ah because you dislike who tweeted it's image?
As for ownership that doesn't matter that much. They are a business, they are going after the same don't do politics me reader they always have. And yet here they are making hay at the clown's expense. These are literally the demographic who handed them an 80 seat majority and they appear to be lapping up these (frankly brilliant who knew they had it in them) Daily Star front pages.
Making fun of the government of the day gets laughs from people. A bit of a dog bites man story don't you think?
If you say so.
You don't think so?
I think it's interesting that the Star is doing politics on its front page. They didn't really used to. Typical headline from ten years ago - I paraphrase, but only just and only because I can't quite remember the detail: "GET IN! It's a bank holiday weekend, it's going to be hot, and there's football on. Let's all go down the pub!" I remember being charmed that the paper was so in tune with its readership but wondering at who would pay to read that particular story. Perhaps a bit too in tune with their readership in those days. I think nowadays they're a not-to-be-totally-dismissed barometer of what the country is thinking. But I think their criticism of the government would be criticism of any government: it's not from the Mirror's 'all Tories are evil' school of headlines, it's more the eye-rolling 'they're all useless'. I certainly wouldn't read it that the Star is calling for the expertise of Sir Kier Starmer to be brought to bear on the problems the country faces. I also think - in defiance of their tradition - they've allowed their headline writers to engage in some dry-ish wit over the last couple of years. As you say, I think their primary motivation is to raise a laugh (thereby hopefully motivating you to buy the paper rather than the Sun).
The personification of Johnson as a clown was/is in no way original, but it is relentless, and rather like The Guardian's cartoons of John Major with his pants outside his trousers and his Spitting Image puppet as a grey man it might just get into the public's broader perception, and also get under Johnson's skin. I must admit each time I see him now I hear the Circus Theme in my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjedLeVGcfE
The problem with hoping that will be his undoing is that's pretty much what people have thought of Boris as for about two decades, and in that time he has won the London Mayoralty twice, the referendum, the Tory leadership, and a big majority at a GE
The problem for the DUP is that they have been demanding the end of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
So indeed have the UUP.
But the UK govt has now conceded that the Northern Ireland Protocol is here to stay.
Why is that a problem? It gives unionism a long-term political raison d'être.
I suppose that could be true, but it’s a futile endeavour and therefore a road to irrelevance for unionists.
They also have no answer to the question, “What replaces the Northern Ireland protocol”?
It's only futile if you think Brexit will inevitably lead to the relative economic decline of GB. If this doesn't happen then it makes unionists more relevant than they've been for a long time.
No, it’s futile because the Unionists will not and cannot muster a majority in the Assembly to scrap the Protocol.
Has nothing to do with the success or otherwise of a Brexit.
The relative decline has already started anyway; see the IMF’s latest assessment of U.K. GDP.
The IMF is predicting that the UK will recover faster than the Eurozone. You don't know how the relative economic position will look in a few years' time. A lot of people's credibility depends on the UK being seen to fail, but there's no guarantee this will happen.
The U.K.s “faster recovery” is simply the mirror of its steeper collapse.
I am not sure whose credibility rests of the U.K.‘s failure - maybe certain EU negotiators? Suspect this is mostly a phenomenon in the mind of Brexiters.
If Brexit Britain fails to live up to the image that has been painted of a fascistic, declining backwater but instead looks like prosperous modern state, then it will be a constant threat to the sense of inevitability of the EU project. "There is no alternative" doesn't work when people can see the alternative.
The UK is going to be a prosperous modern state, irrespective of Brexit.
But your comparison is specious. The UK in 1970 was a prosperous modern state, but it still looked like it was failing relative to the Continental economies.
Now, do I believe that we will similar again? Probably not. But it's in the hands of the British electorate now.
I thought it was obvious I was making a comparative point. If the UK is seen to be doing better, in whatever way you choose to measure, then it will be a challenge to the EU system.
"If Brexit Britain fails to live up to the image that has been painted of a fascistic, declining backwater but instead looks like prosperous modern state"
That's a strawman argument.
If the UK grows at 1% a year, and the EU at 2.5% a year (not what I'm forecasting), then it will be a "prosperous modern state", but it won't be a threat to "the EU system" or a notable success. And nor will it be a "fascistic, declining backwater".
There's a massive fucking middle between disaster and glorious success.
If that happens for a long term then the UK would cease to be that prosperous.
Which is kind of the issue with why I voted to leave the EU. The EU has ceased to be as prosperous as it used to be and has declined in GDP per capita relative to other developed nations. I see no evidence EU states are more prosperous than comparable non-EU ones, quite the opposite in fact.
The problem is that there are so many different factors affecting prosperity - most of which are far more important than membership of a particular trade bloc.
Demographics, for example. Or whether you are a raw material importer or exporter (and the relative movement in the price of commodities). Etc.
The reality is that datasets are small (meaning that randomness is a large), and measuring the exact impact of each component is next to impossible.
Personally, I voted to leave the EU because I think governance works better when it is close to the governed; and (generally) smaller is nimbler.
From an economic perspective, I'd expect us to do better than the EU going forward. But we were doing better than the rest of the EU when we were a member too, so the question is whether we'll be able to beat the same level of outperformance we managed before.
No the reason we'll outperform the EU macroeconomically in the medium term, if we do, is that we've retained control of our monetary and exchange rate policy, unlike most EU member states. In limiting significantly our ability to deregulate (we have the most interventionist government in ages), we've hamstrung ourselves. So we'll have to hope that other advantages offset the EU's advantages, e.g. of economies of scale in areas where the Single Market is reasonably complete. We'll have to see how it pans out.
I'm not convinced giving the government monetary and exchange rate power correlates with better economic performance. Constraining the government's actions forces it is to affect the things that really matter, like regulation, taxation, etc.
Indeed, I'd argue that world economic performance was better during the Bretton Woods period (and during most of the Gold Standard period) specifically because governments were constrained.
In the words of PJ O'Rourke, giving money and power to the government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
You know you are really old when you can remember players breaking into the team as a youngster and then their son is now breaking into a team....
I knew I was old when I told a young member of staff, who is a keen football fan
'You haven't lived until you've watched an entire match on Ceefax.'
I just got a blank stare, like 'What's Ceefax Grandad?'
I felt old when I saw the grandson of a player I remember from the 80s make his international debut, albeit for a different country and at a different sport: Ian Botham grandson Jim Botham now playing rugby for Wales.
Those undertaking activities with significant economic benefit have always had favourable rules during this pandemic.
Remember the you can meet up with people in a restaurant if it was for this. Or travel, the plebs can't go on holiday, but business people have been able to travel basically unhindered throughout.
Given Freedom day is only 3 weeks away, I am not sure it will make a lot of difference.
I am not sure it will be full Freedom Day, with even Australia restoring lockdown in some states and LA county reimposing a mask wearing request because of the Delta variant I would imagine masks will still be required to be worn in shops and on public transport, the biggest events will still have a capacity limit and quarantine will still be required for visits to red list countries and for the non double vaccinated to amber countries even from the middle of next month.
I think this new government exemption would therefore certainly be very unpopular if executives returned from a red list country without quarantining
How can it be freedom day when it is still mooted that children will be kept from school if there is a positive test in the class. While literally hundreds of thousands of people go to sports events, the pub, etc.
What exactly does no more restrictions mean? It means restrictions the govt decides to keep. Plenty of them. Some idiot on R4 just now saying well children...long covid...can affect them....
Vanishingly small probability of a child suffering from Covid. Otherwise, given that it has ripped through schools and unis these past few weeks, we would be hearing reports of children dying by the bucketload each day. Doesn't seem to be happening.
Not just death, though, is it? The probability of them being so seriously ill that they get hospitalised isn't trivial. Nor is the chance of chronic illness and potential long-term organ damage. They're not at the level where we can see any realistic chance of the NHS being overwhelmed by such, but we can't really dismiss the concern out of hand.
Unless they authorise use of vaccines for the under-18s very rapidly and get a whole load more supply, I can't see them getting jabbed in time, so it's not really plausible for them to be protected prior to opening up on the 19th. I can understand some being very worried about that, but it's not likely to cause any realistic delay, I wouldn't have thought. The schools breaking up should help a lot by limiting spread, though.
Was it you who posted the stats yesterday? Some number, perhaps 60 under 30s had died.
Shocking obvs but not a reason to seriously fuck with the education and mental health of an entire generation.
Won't someone think of the children works both ways.
Why do you persist in ignoring the thousands of hospitalisations of under-18s, and chronic illnesses there? I mean, the attitude that if something doesn't promptly kill someone would imply that multiple sclerosis is nothing to worry about, that polio wasn't much of an issue for anyone, that herpes is certainly not worth avoiding, and so forth.
Several thousand children have been hospitalised. Well over a hundred thousand children have ended up with chronic illness. That's specifically what I was talking about, so why on Earth completely ignore it to focus solely on the metric that you most prefer?
Thanks for this Andy apologies could you show me where those stats are? I did a quick google and found this
"Remainian trapt in Brexitannia" - Sounds like another impartial and balanced source.
The Daily Star? Since when did newspapers have to be impartial and balanced? What is most interesting about their now long-running series of front pages is that the Ooh Ah Daily Star ordinarily have no interest in politics. Their readers are more interested in Love Island.
So when they do a politics front page - and keep doing them every more biting and sarcastic - I have to assume that it cuts through to their readership. If it didn't then the editor gets told in no uncertain terms to stop pissing off the people who pay the bills and print stories they want.
Despite the Robert Buckland "we're popular no-one cares" bluster I get the feeling that dissent and open disdain is bubbling away under the surface. Not saying that is a gimme for Labour (far from it) but it won't take much for another moment of Shagger idiocy to tip people over the edge and him into the bin.
No the twitter account....another one of Scott n Paste very narrow twitter sources he downloads every day onto here.
As for the Daily Star, they are owned by the Mirror now, what should we expect?
What does the Twitter account matter? Does it allow you to pretend that isn't the front page of the Ooh Ah because you dislike who tweeted it's image?
As for ownership that doesn't matter that much. They are a business, they are going after the same don't do politics me reader they always have. And yet here they are making hay at the clown's expense. These are literally the demographic who handed them an 80 seat majority and they appear to be lapping up these (frankly brilliant who knew they had it in them) Daily Star front pages.
Making fun of the government of the day gets laughs from people. A bit of a dog bites man story don't you think?
If you say so.
You don't think so?
I think it's interesting that the Star is doing politics on its front page. They didn't really used to. Typical headline from ten years ago - I paraphrase, but only just and only because I can't quite remember the detail: "GET IN! It's a bank holiday weekend, it's going to be hot, and there's football on. Let's all go down the pub!" I remember being charmed that the paper was so in tune with its readership but wondering at who would pay to read that particular story. Perhaps a bit too in tune with their readership in those days. I think nowadays they're a not-to-be-totally-dismissed barometer of what the country is thinking. But I think their criticism of the government would be criticism of any government: it's not from the Mirror's 'all Tories are evil' school of headlines, it's more the eye-rolling 'they're all useless'. I certainly wouldn't read it that the Star is calling for the expertise of Sir Kier Starmer to be brought to bear on the problems the country faces. I also think - in defiance of their tradition - they've allowed their headline writers to engage in some dry-ish wit over the last couple of years. As you say, I think their primary motivation is to raise a laugh (thereby hopefully motivating you to buy the paper rather than the Sun).
The personification of Johnson as a clown was/is in no way original, but it is relentless, and rather like The Guardian's cartoons of John Major with his pants outside his trousers and his Spitting Image puppet as a grey man it might just get into the public's broader perception, and also get under Johnson's skin. I must admit each time I see him now I hear the Circus Theme in my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjedLeVGcfE
The problem with hoping that will be his undoing is that's pretty much what people have thought of Boris as for about two decades
No, there was genuine anger from middle England last weekend. True, there's no evidence yet that it will have significant consequence, but it was definitely a step beyond the usual cheerful ridicule.
The problem for the DUP is that they have been demanding the end of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
So indeed have the UUP.
But the UK govt has now conceded that the Northern Ireland Protocol is here to stay.
Why is that a problem? It gives unionism a long-term political raison d'être.
I suppose that could be true, but it’s a futile endeavour and therefore a road to irrelevance for unionists.
They also have no answer to the question, “What replaces the Northern Ireland protocol”?
It's only futile if you think Brexit will inevitably lead to the relative economic decline of GB. If this doesn't happen then it makes unionists more relevant than they've been for a long time.
No, it’s futile because the Unionists will not and cannot muster a majority in the Assembly to scrap the Protocol.
Has nothing to do with the success or otherwise of a Brexit.
The relative decline has already started anyway; see the IMF’s latest assessment of U.K. GDP.
The IMF is predicting that the UK will recover faster than the Eurozone. You don't know how the relative economic position will look in a few years' time. A lot of people's credibility depends on the UK being seen to fail, but there's no guarantee this will happen.
The U.K.s “faster recovery” is simply the mirror of its steeper collapse.
I am not sure whose credibility rests of the U.K.‘s failure - maybe certain EU negotiators? Suspect this is mostly a phenomenon in the mind of Brexiters.
If Brexit Britain fails to live up to the image that has been painted of a fascistic, declining backwater but instead looks like prosperous modern state, then it will be a constant threat to the sense of inevitability of the EU project. "There is no alternative" doesn't work when people can see the alternative.
The UK is going to be a prosperous modern state, irrespective of Brexit.
But your comparison is specious. The UK in 1970 was a prosperous modern state, but it still looked like it was failing relative to the Continental economies.
Now, do I believe that we will similar again? Probably not. But it's in the hands of the British electorate now.
I thought it was obvious I was making a comparative point. If the UK is seen to be doing better, in whatever way you choose to measure, then it will be a challenge to the EU system.
"If Brexit Britain fails to live up to the image that has been painted of a fascistic, declining backwater but instead looks like prosperous modern state"
That's a strawman argument.
If the UK grows at 1% a year, and the EU at 2.5% a year (not what I'm forecasting), then it will be a "prosperous modern state", but it won't be a threat to "the EU system" or a notable success. And nor will it be a "fascistic, declining backwater".
There's a massive fucking middle between disaster and glorious success.
If that happens for a long term then the UK would cease to be that prosperous.
Which is kind of the issue with why I voted to leave the EU. The EU has ceased to be as prosperous as it used to be and has declined in GDP per capita relative to other developed nations. I see no evidence EU states are more prosperous than comparable non-EU ones, quite the opposite in fact.
The problem is that there are so many different factors affecting prosperity - most of which are far more important than membership of a particular trade bloc.
Demographics, for example. Or whether you are a raw material importer or exporter (and the relative movement in the price of commodities). Etc.
The reality is that datasets are small (meaning that randomness is a large), and measuring the exact impact of each component is next to impossible.
Personally, I voted to leave the EU because I think governance works better when it is close to the governed; and (generally) smaller is nimbler.
From an economic perspective, I'd expect us to do better than the EU going forward. But we were doing better than the rest of the EU when we were a member too, so the question is whether we'll be able to beat the same level of outperformance we managed before.
No the reason we'll outperform the EU macroeconomically in the medium term, if we do, is that we've retained control of our monetary and exchange rate policy, unlike most EU member states. In limiting significantly our ability to deregulate (we have the most interventionist government in ages), we've hamstrung ourselves. So we'll have to hope that other advantages offset the EU's advantages, e.g. of economies of scale in areas where the Single Market is reasonably complete. We'll have to see how it pans out.
I'm not convinced giving the government monetary and exchange rate power correlates with better economic performance. Constraining the government's actions forces it is to affect the things that really matter, like regulation, taxation, etc.
Indeed, I'd argue that world economic performance was better during the Bretton Woods period (and during most of the Gold Standard period) specifically because governments were constrained.
In the words of PJ O'Rourke, giving money and power to the government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
At least it's not alcopops and car keys - whisky is a taste that requires time to acquire.
Were the Wimbledon authorities trying to annoy everyone by scheduling Roger Federer at the same time as the football match? They could have had him playing at 1pm or 7pm instead of now.
"Remainian trapt in Brexitannia" - Sounds like another impartial and balanced source.
The Daily Star? Since when did newspapers have to be impartial and balanced? What is most interesting about their now long-running series of front pages is that the Ooh Ah Daily Star ordinarily have no interest in politics. Their readers are more interested in Love Island.
So when they do a politics front page - and keep doing them every more biting and sarcastic - I have to assume that it cuts through to their readership. If it didn't then the editor gets told in no uncertain terms to stop pissing off the people who pay the bills and print stories they want.
Despite the Robert Buckland "we're popular no-one cares" bluster I get the feeling that dissent and open disdain is bubbling away under the surface. Not saying that is a gimme for Labour (far from it) but it won't take much for another moment of Shagger idiocy to tip people over the edge and him into the bin.
No the twitter account....another one of Scott n Paste very narrow twitter sources he downloads every day onto here.
As for the Daily Star, they are owned by the Mirror now, what should we expect?
What does the Twitter account matter? Does it allow you to pretend that isn't the front page of the Ooh Ah because you dislike who tweeted it's image?
As for ownership that doesn't matter that much. They are a business, they are going after the same don't do politics me reader they always have. And yet here they are making hay at the clown's expense. These are literally the demographic who handed them an 80 seat majority and they appear to be lapping up these (frankly brilliant who knew they had it in them) Daily Star front pages.
Making fun of the government of the day gets laughs from people. A bit of a dog bites man story don't you think?
If you say so.
You don't think so?
I think it's interesting that the Star is doing politics on its front page. They didn't really used to. Typical headline from ten years ago - I paraphrase, but only just and only because I can't quite remember the detail: "GET IN! It's a bank holiday weekend, it's going to be hot, and there's football on. Let's all go down the pub!" I remember being charmed that the paper was so in tune with its readership but wondering at who would pay to read that particular story. Perhaps a bit too in tune with their readership in those days. I think nowadays they're a not-to-be-totally-dismissed barometer of what the country is thinking. But I think their criticism of the government would be criticism of any government: it's not from the Mirror's 'all Tories are evil' school of headlines, it's more the eye-rolling 'they're all useless'. I certainly wouldn't read it that the Star is calling for the expertise of Sir Kier Starmer to be brought to bear on the problems the country faces. I also think - in defiance of their tradition - they've allowed their headline writers to engage in some dry-ish wit over the last couple of years. As you say, I think their primary motivation is to raise a laugh (thereby hopefully motivating you to buy the paper rather than the Sun).
The personification of Johnson as a clown was/is in no way original, but it is relentless, and rather like The Guardian's cartoons of John Major with his pants outside his trousers and his Spitting Image puppet as a grey man it might just get into the public's broader perception, and also get under Johnson's skin. I must admit each time I see him now I hear the Circus Theme in my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjedLeVGcfE
The problem with hoping that will be his undoing is that's pretty much what people have thought of Boris as for about two decades
No, there was genuine anger from middle England last weekend. True, there's no evidence yet that it will have significant consequence, but it was definitely a step beyond the usual cheerful ridicule.
Yeah sure, the Hancock story seemed to anger everyone, but the "Boris the Clown" meme has been failing his opponents for 15-20 years
Actually my Labour supporting Dad is the only person I have heard speak up for Hancock, and that was because The Mirror said words to the effect of "How can such an ugly man have two women on the go" - what have looks got to do with it? Would it be ok if he looked like David Gandy?
"Remainian trapt in Brexitannia" - Sounds like another impartial and balanced source.
The Daily Star? Since when did newspapers have to be impartial and balanced? What is most interesting about their now long-running series of front pages is that the Ooh Ah Daily Star ordinarily have no interest in politics. Their readers are more interested in Love Island.
So when they do a politics front page - and keep doing them every more biting and sarcastic - I have to assume that it cuts through to their readership. If it didn't then the editor gets told in no uncertain terms to stop pissing off the people who pay the bills and print stories they want.
Despite the Robert Buckland "we're popular no-one cares" bluster I get the feeling that dissent and open disdain is bubbling away under the surface. Not saying that is a gimme for Labour (far from it) but it won't take much for another moment of Shagger idiocy to tip people over the edge and him into the bin.
No the twitter account....another one of Scott n Paste very narrow twitter sources he downloads every day onto here.
As for the Daily Star, they are owned by the Mirror now, what should we expect?
What does the Twitter account matter? Does it allow you to pretend that isn't the front page of the Ooh Ah because you dislike who tweeted it's image?
As for ownership that doesn't matter that much. They are a business, they are going after the same don't do politics me reader they always have. And yet here they are making hay at the clown's expense. These are literally the demographic who handed them an 80 seat majority and they appear to be lapping up these (frankly brilliant who knew they had it in them) Daily Star front pages.
Making fun of the government of the day gets laughs from people. A bit of a dog bites man story don't you think?
If you say so.
You don't think so?
PMs have always been mocked, sure. But to cut through, the form of that mockery has to have a degree of "yeah, bang to rights" about it. Think of Maggie being lampooned as more macho than the men in her Cabinet, Major as the grey Pooter, Blair as the new trendy vicar. The Star's satirical portrayal of Boris is as a clown. At some semi-conscious level, that's how significant numbers of people see him. That's not happened in recent times, and it's not good.
Also, most satirical alter egos have something positive about them. Maggie's strength, Major's plodding English decency, Blair's sense of belief that things could be better. But clowns? Clowns are stupid and frankly a bit scary.
It's a very leading indicator, but one that should cause government supporters to stop and think.
Boris's strength is his positivity and ability to make people smile and laugh. Something that dreary Keir doesn't have.
So sure if his opponents want to characterise that as clownish, then I'm sure he can live with that. He plays it up with his ruffled hair etc.
Its his strength, not his weakness. That you still don't get that even after he won an eighty seat majority and led us out of Europe says more about you than it does him.
I’m not in the slightest bit interested in the football, unless it goes to penalty shoot out.
Is it customary for English fans to boo the opposing team’s anthem, or is this just the post-Brexit “New Boorishness”?
Every teams supporters do it AFAIK
This booing of the anthem story from 2010 is my favourite, shows Scotland as the nation of eunuchs they are.
The Scottish FA apologised to Liechtenstein on Wednesday after their national anthem was booed by the Scotland fans before a Euro 2012 Group I qualifier.
The home side narrowly avoided their worst ever international result with a stoppage time winner from Stephen McManus in their 2-1 triumph in Tuesday’s match at Hampden Park.
However, the SFA’s acting chief executive George Peat has said sorry to their opponents for the abuse directed at the Liechtenstein national anthem, which has the same tune as England’s anthem ‘God Save the Queen’.
Peat said: “I was embarrassed and extremely disappointed by the disgraceful behaviour of some of our supporters during the Liechtenstein national anthem at Hampden Park last night.
I’m not in the slightest bit interested in the football, unless it goes to penalty shoot out.
Is it customary for English fans to boo the opposing team’s anthem, or is this just the post-Brexit “New Boorishness”?
Every teams supporters do it AFAIK
This booing of the anthem story from 2010 is my favourite, shows Scotland as the nation of eunuchs they are.
The Scottish FA apologised to Liechtenstein on Wednesday after their national anthem was booed by the Scotland fans before a Euro 2012 Group I qualifier.
The home side narrowly avoided their worst ever international result with a stoppage time winner from Stephen McManus in their 2-1 triumph in Tuesday’s match at Hampden Park.
However, the SFA’s acting chief executive George Peat has said sorry to their opponents for the abuse directed at the Liechtenstein national anthem, which has the same tune as England’s anthem ‘God Save the Queen’.
Peat said: “I was embarrassed and extremely disappointed by the disgraceful behaviour of some of our supporters during the Liechtenstein national anthem at Hampden Park last night.
"Remainian trapt in Brexitannia" - Sounds like another impartial and balanced source.
The Daily Star? Since when did newspapers have to be impartial and balanced? What is most interesting about their now long-running series of front pages is that the Ooh Ah Daily Star ordinarily have no interest in politics. Their readers are more interested in Love Island.
So when they do a politics front page - and keep doing them every more biting and sarcastic - I have to assume that it cuts through to their readership. If it didn't then the editor gets told in no uncertain terms to stop pissing off the people who pay the bills and print stories they want.
Despite the Robert Buckland "we're popular no-one cares" bluster I get the feeling that dissent and open disdain is bubbling away under the surface. Not saying that is a gimme for Labour (far from it) but it won't take much for another moment of Shagger idiocy to tip people over the edge and him into the bin.
No the twitter account....another one of Scott n Paste very narrow twitter sources he downloads every day onto here.
As for the Daily Star, they are owned by the Mirror now, what should we expect?
What does the Twitter account matter? Does it allow you to pretend that isn't the front page of the Ooh Ah because you dislike who tweeted it's image?
As for ownership that doesn't matter that much. They are a business, they are going after the same don't do politics me reader they always have. And yet here they are making hay at the clown's expense. These are literally the demographic who handed them an 80 seat majority and they appear to be lapping up these (frankly brilliant who knew they had it in them) Daily Star front pages.
Making fun of the government of the day gets laughs from people. A bit of a dog bites man story don't you think?
If you say so.
You don't think so?
PMs have always been mocked, sure. But to cut through, the form of that mockery has to have a degree of "yeah, bang to rights" about it. Think of Maggie being lampooned as more macho than the men in her Cabinet, Major as the grey Pooter, Blair as the new trendy vicar. The Star's satirical portrayal of Boris is as a clown. At some semi-conscious level, that's how significant numbers of people see him. That's not happened in recent times, and it's not good.
Also, most satirical alter egos have something positive about them. Maggie's strength, Major's plodding English decency, Blair's sense of belief that things could be better. But clowns? Clowns are stupid and frankly a bit scary.
It's a very leading indicator, but one that should cause government supporters to stop and think.
Boris's strength is his positivity and ability to make people smile and laugh. Something that dreary Keir doesn't have.
So sure if his opponents want to characterise that as clownish, then I'm sure he can live with that. He plays it up with his ruffled hair etc.
Its his strength, not his weakness. That you still don't get that even after he won an eighty seat majority and led us out of Europe says more about you than it does him.
Peoples' strengths can, in time, become their weakness. Confidence becomes arrogance. Consideration becomes vacillation. Decisiveness becomes hastiness. And so on.
For Boris enough presently see his defining traits as positives.
Were the Wimbledon authorities trying to annoy everyone by scheduling Roger Federer at the same time as the football match? They could have had him playing at 1pm or 7pm instead of now.
I think it's a great idea. Something one can actually enjoy, rather than the miserable spectacle of struggle followed by inevitable failure.
Those undertaking activities with significant economic benefit have always had favourable rules during this pandemic.
Remember the you can meet up with people in a restaurant if it was for this. Or travel, the plebs can't go on holiday, but business people have been able to travel basically unhindered throughout.
Given Freedom day is only 3 weeks away, I am not sure it will make a lot of difference.
I am not sure it will be full Freedom Day, with even Australia restoring lockdown in some states and LA county reimposing a mask wearing request because of the Delta variant I would imagine masks will still be required to be worn in shops and on public transport, the biggest events will still have a capacity limit and quarantine will still be required for visits to red list countries and for the non double vaccinated to amber countries even from the middle of next month.
I think this new government exemption would therefore certainly be very unpopular if executives returned from a red list country without quarantining
How can it be freedom day when it is still mooted that children will be kept from school if there is a positive test in the class. While literally hundreds of thousands of people go to sports events, the pub, etc.
What exactly does no more restrictions mean? It means restrictions the govt decides to keep. Plenty of them. Some idiot on R4 just now saying well children...long covid...can affect them....
Vanishingly small probability of a child suffering from Covid. Otherwise, given that it has ripped through schools and unis these past few weeks, we would be hearing reports of children dying by the bucketload each day. Doesn't seem to be happening.
Isn't freedom day also the end of term?
Friends and bush telegraph tells me that end of term in many instances is being curtailed a matter of weeks early as everyone self-isolates. Whole rite of passage experiences just not happening for tens of thousands of children.
End of term is a rite of passage without which we'd all be scarred?
You and @contrarian seem to have a very low opinion of the mental resilience of the average 18 year old.
End of school or uni year or of school or uni itself absolutely is a critical rite of passage.
And as for the mental resilience of the average 18-yr old, I suggest you listen to some of the news items on the radio in the UK today. Children on anti-depressants = up, children with mental distress = up, children missing on average 115 hours of face to face teaching, children simply going missing from school.
So yes, Robert and great vid on stopping illegal immigrants, btw, but absofuckinglutely yes, childrens' mental health is being fucked with.
Do you have children? Do you remember what it was like to be a child?
Literally the worst time of the entire school year was an enforced assembly while people trooped up to the front.
The bit that was fun was meeting up with your friends outside of school. Which is - ummm - completely unaffected.
(It is also worth remembering that "graduation" is a very modern concept. In the old days, you went for study leave and never came back. Which I guess explains why everyone over the age of about 50 is mentally scarred.)
Robert the instances of damage to children's mental health is being documented today as we speak on just about all news outlets. I won't google it all for you because I'm sure you will be able to do so.
And after a year or several years of school I could take or leave prize giving and speech day and what have you. I'm sure you the same and if it turned out that your May Ball was cancelled well not to worry your internship at GS was about to start. All perfectly charming.
But the last 15 months have been hell for hundreds of thousands of children perhaps not so fortunate as you or me or perhaps just as fortunate. And during this time school has often represented an oasis of normality. And people are being denied as I said a rite of passage that is part of growing up.
You're completely missing my point.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU REGARDNG THE IMPACT OF LOCKDOWN ON KIDS HEALTH.
I THINK YOU ARE A COMPLETE FUCKING RETARD IF YOU THINK GRADUATION CEREMONIES ARE SOME ESSENTIAL RIGHT OF PASSAGE THAT KIDS ENJOY.
High school graduation… in England?!?
It’s gone full circle now. You lot are de facto the 51st state.
Never heard of such a thing, has it really changed so much in 15 years? Now I do feel old.
I'll tell you what has changed. Homework and emails. My poor sister is inundated with emails from her daughter's primary school. Her daughter is five and has a homework book. I get that they know that what happens at home is as important if not more important, but it is incredibly stressful.
I wouldn’t say that we’re “inundated” with emails, but I would judge that we get at least twenty times more communications from the school as my parents got for me.
I actually appreciate the amount of information I get, but I don’t have a “problem” child; apparently those parents truly are inundated with communications and meetings.
What worries me is the working environment for the teachers. I really would prefer that they just got on with their core job.
TLDR The NIP is unjust and has no democratic consent. Britain signed it at a moment of weakness because of Remainer games.* It’s not clear if it was understood, anyway.** Report recommends scrapping it and replacing it with a technological solution.*** Suggests that should a trade war ensue, the U.K. is well placed to ride it out given the respective balance of trade.****
*Boris set the time-table and established the “Deal vs No Deal” cliff-edge as he thought it maximised British leverage.
**The govt curtailed debate on the Withdrawal Bill which includes the NIP and suggested longer scrutiny was not required.
***No clear tech solution has ever been identified
****A rehash of the “German auto manufacturers will ensure we get a good deal” argument which proved false.
Gosh England are a boring team to watch. Kane was unlucky there
They are embarrassingly awful. We're playing so many defensive players that we don't have enough players who can pass forwards to put good attacks together. We've not even defended that well. Germany have made better runs in behind with good passes to pick them out.
The commentators complain about Kane, but you're not going to have much joy as a striker when the team plays with a back seven.
By most definitions I am rich, though compared to some I am not. I would like to pay more tax, but only because I would like to earn more, which will mean I will.
I have always thought it would be a fun thing to have a "voluntary tax" , which of course in a way we do and it is called The National Lottery. I therefore politely suggest to those who say they would like to pay more tax ( I struggle to believe you), imagine you are back in the 1970s and apply the tax multiples that were around then. With the surplus money you have you can buy lottery tickets with a promise that you will give any winnings to a willing beneficiary. I am happy to volunteer as that possible beneficiary should you not think of a more worthy cause.
I'm reasonably well off in terms of income, and would be pleased to pay more tax, but only as part of a collective effort by democratic decision, as I did in other countries. I wouldn't pay a voluntary tax or bother with the lottery - I simply give away what I don't need. That doesn't seem to me inconsistent with favouring higher taxes in general.
The classic example is Scandinavia, where the majority view is still that it's fine to earn a lot, on the understanding that up to half goes to fund excellent public services and a really strong safety net if you fall on hard times. That has nothing to do with nationalisation (which is not part of the model) or envy of high-earners - if you earn megabucks and then pay your share, fine.
What exactly is 'your share' of what somebody else has earned?
Scandinavia and Sweden in particular exultantly run nations, but they are not particular high tax, they just don't camouflage there tax in things like employers NI or employees NI, and a modest cooperation 21% below OECD average and below what we will have soon. there Income tax looks and overall they pay a bit more tax than us, but not a lot, they also have a state pension that is increases with how much tax you have paid over your life, so it a more like a compulsory private pension.
They are successful economically, largely because they are low and sensibly regulated.
They have good public service because they have completion in them, they have school chose, with funding following the child to the school there parents what, and there heath system is not one big monolith, but run by the local regens, who try to out do each other, and many of them contract out provision of services to private company's.
TLDR The NIP is unjust and has no democratic consent. Britain signed it at a moment of weakness because of Remainer games.* It’s not clear if it was understood, anyway.** Report recommends scrapping it and replacing it with a technological solution.*** Suggests that should a trade war ensue, the U.K. is well placed to ride it out given the respective balance of trade.****
*Boris set the time-table and established the “Deal vs No Deal” cliff-edge as he thought it maximised British leverage.
**The govt curtailed debate on the Withdrawal Bill which includes the NIP and suggested longer scrutiny was not required.
***No clear tech solution has ever been identified
****A rehash of the “German auto manufacturers will ensure we get a good deal” argument which proved false.
Owen Paterson wasn't always as foolish as he has recently appeared. He's got some work to do though.
Analysis: “That Kane miss at the end of the half is like a parody of Gascoigne not reaching the ball in 1996,” writes Kari Tulinius. “He had the goal at his mercy but moved about as fast as a turtle who can’t be bothered to eat one more lettuce leaf.”
A harsh assessment but a pretty fair one. Kane had just nine touches of the ball in that half and has contributed little or nothing to England’s cause. He doesn’t look fit and that miss just before the break suggest he’s low on confidence too.
Gosh England are a boring team to watch. Kane was unlucky there
They are embarrassingly awful. We're playing so many defensive players that we don't have enough players who can pass forwards to put good attacks together. We've not even defended that well. Germany have made better runs in behind with good passes to pick them out.
The commentators complain about Kane, but you're not going to have much joy as a striker when the team plays with a back seven.
If we fail to qualify having been so boring to watch in all 4 games, it really will be frustrating, given we have not picked Foden and Grealish. Foden is possibly our best player, he is an absolute star.
I think if you play three centre backs, wing backs and two defensive mids, the wing backs have to be wingers not full backs. (Saka and Sterling should be the Wing backs perhaps?) Or if the wing backs are basic full backs, one of the defensive mids has to be a creator (Foden alongside Rice or Phillips)
But to have three centre backs, two full backs, and two Cms who could bothcover at Centre back is ridiculously cautious
By most definitions I am rich, though compared to some I am not. I would like to pay more tax, but only because I would like to earn more, which will mean I will.
I have always thought it would be a fun thing to have a "voluntary tax" , which of course in a way we do and it is called The National Lottery. I therefore politely suggest to those who say they would like to pay more tax ( I struggle to believe you), imagine you are back in the 1970s and apply the tax multiples that were around then. With the surplus money you have you can buy lottery tickets with a promise that you will give any winnings to a willing beneficiary. I am happy to volunteer as that possible beneficiary should you not think of a more worthy cause.
I'm reasonably well off in terms of income, and would be pleased to pay more tax, but only as part of a collective effort by democratic decision, as I did in other countries. I wouldn't pay a voluntary tax or bother with the lottery - I simply give away what I don't need. That doesn't seem to me inconsistent with favouring higher taxes in general.
The classic example is Scandinavia, where the majority view is still that it's fine to earn a lot, on the understanding that up to half goes to fund excellent public services and a really strong safety net if you fall on hard times. That has nothing to do with nationalisation (which is not part of the model) or envy of high-earners - if you earn megabucks and then pay your share, fine.
What exactly is 'your share' of what somebody else has earned?
Scandinavia and Sweden in particular exultantly run nations, but they are not particular high tax, they just don't camouflage there tax in things like employers NI or employees NI, and a modest cooperation 21% below OECD average and below what we will have soon. there Income tax looks and overall they pay a bit more tax than us, but not a lot, they also have a state pension that is increases with how much tax you have paid over your life, so it a more like a compulsory private pension.
They are successful economically, largely because they are low and sensibly regulated.
They have good public service because they have completion in them, they have school chose, with funding following the child to the school there parents what, and there heath system is not one big monolith, but run by the local regens, who try to out do each other, and many of them contract out provision of services to private company's.
Gosh England are a boring team to watch. Kane was unlucky there
They are embarrassingly awful. We're playing so many defensive players that we don't have enough players who can pass forwards to put good attacks together. We've not even defended that well. Germany have made better runs in behind with good passes to pick them out.
The commentators complain about Kane, but you're not going to have much joy as a striker when the team plays with a back seven.
Both teams are not up to the standards of this competition
By most definitions I am rich, though compared to some I am not. I would like to pay more tax, but only because I would like to earn more, which will mean I will.
I have always thought it would be a fun thing to have a "voluntary tax" , which of course in a way we do and it is called The National Lottery. I therefore politely suggest to those who say they would like to pay more tax ( I struggle to believe you), imagine you are back in the 1970s and apply the tax multiples that were around then. With the surplus money you have you can buy lottery tickets with a promise that you will give any winnings to a willing beneficiary. I am happy to volunteer as that possible beneficiary should you not think of a more worthy cause.
I'm reasonably well off in terms of income, and would be pleased to pay more tax, but only as part of a collective effort by democratic decision, as I did in other countries. I wouldn't pay a voluntary tax or bother with the lottery - I simply give away what I don't need. That doesn't seem to me inconsistent with favouring higher taxes in general.
The classic example is Scandinavia, where the majority view is still that it's fine to earn a lot, on the understanding that up to half goes to fund excellent public services and a really strong safety net if you fall on hard times. That has nothing to do with nationalisation (which is not part of the model) or envy of high-earners - if you earn megabucks and then pay your share, fine.
What exactly is 'your share' of what somebody else has earned?
Scandinavia and Sweden in particular exultantly run nations, but they are not particular high tax, they just don't camouflage there tax in things like employers NI or employees NI, and a modest cooperation 21% below OECD average and below what we will have soon. there Income tax looks and overall they pay a bit more tax than us, but not a lot, they also have a state pension that is increases with how much tax you have paid over your life, so it a more like a compulsory private pension.
They are successful economically, largely because they are low and sensibly regulated.
They have good public service because they have completion in them, they have school chose, with funding following the child to the school there parents what, and there heath system is not one big monolith, but run by the local regens, who try to out do each other, and many of them contract out provision of services to private company's.
Gosh England are a boring team to watch. Kane was unlucky there
They are embarrassingly awful. We're playing so many defensive players that we don't have enough players who can pass forwards to put good attacks together. We've not even defended that well. Germany have made better runs in behind with good passes to pick them out.
The commentators complain about Kane, but you're not going to have much joy as a striker when the team plays with a back seven.
If we fail to qualify having been so boring to watch in all 4 games, it really will be frustrating, given we have not picked Foden and Grealish. Foden is possibly our best player, he is an absolute star.
I think if you play three centre backs, wing backs and two defensive mids, the wing backs have to be wingers not full backs. (Saka and Sterling should be the Wing backs perhaps?) Or if the wing backs are basic full backs, one of the defensive mids has to be a creator (Foden alongside Rice or Phillips)
But to have three centre backs, two full backs, and two Cms who could bothcover at Centre back is ridiculously cautious
The worst of it is that, if and when we lose, and I believe we will lose, Southgate will somehow keep his job
Gosh England are a boring team to watch. Kane was unlucky there
They are embarrassingly awful. We're playing so many defensive players that we don't have enough players who can pass forwards to put good attacks together. We've not even defended that well. Germany have made better runs in behind with good passes to pick them out.
The commentators complain about Kane, but you're not going to have much joy as a striker when the team plays with a back seven.
If we fail to qualify having been so boring to watch in all 4 games, it really will be frustrating, given we have not picked Foden and Grealish. Foden is possibly our best player, he is an absolute star.
I think if you play three centre backs, wing backs and two defensive mids, the wing backs have to be wingers not full backs. (Saka and Sterling should be the Wing backs perhaps?) Or if the wing backs are basic full backs, one of the defensive mids has to be a creator (Foden alongside Rice or Phillips)
But to have three centre backs, two full backs, and two Cms who could bothcover at Centre back is ridiculously cautious
I know Euro '96 was a lifetime ago, but we had a genuine winger in Anderton as one of our wing-backs in that competition. The balance in the team is all wrong.
You guys must be watching a different match to me. Apart from first ten minutes England has been the better side. Playing really well I think - better than the first three matches added together. Saka and Walker particularly good.
Gosh England are a boring team to watch. Kane was unlucky there
They are embarrassingly awful. We're playing so many defensive players that we don't have enough players who can pass forwards to put good attacks together. We've not even defended that well. Germany have made better runs in behind with good passes to pick them out.
The commentators complain about Kane, but you're not going to have much joy as a striker when the team plays with a back seven.
If we fail to qualify having been so boring to watch in all 4 games, it really will be frustrating, given we have not picked Foden and Grealish. Foden is possibly our best player, he is an absolute star.
I think if you play three centre backs, wing backs and two defensive mids, the wing backs have to be wingers not full backs. (Saka and Sterling should be the Wing backs perhaps?) Or if the wing backs are basic full backs, one of the defensive mids has to be a creator (Foden alongside Rice or Phillips)
But to have three centre backs, two full backs, and two Cms who could bothcover at Centre back is ridiculously cautious
The worst of it is that, if and when we lose, and I believe we will lose, Southgate will somehow keep his job
Jenas has just said it - Shaw off, Saka LWB and Foden, Sancho or Grealish on
Comments
The question is does Clown work with Boris..
Figured out the German goal is on the left.
Typical England......
After 4 years of Trump that sounded mighty appealing.
Since then, better.
I wish I could share your optimism.
Indeed, I'd argue that world economic performance was better during the Bretton Woods period (and during most of the Gold Standard period) specifically because governments were constrained.
In the words of PJ O'Rourke, giving money and power to the government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=nation&areaName=England gives the number for England; add the under-18s and you get a total of 6,070 0-17s hospitalised to date in England.
True, there's no evidence yet that it will have significant consequence, but it was definitely a step beyond the usual cheerful ridicule.
The commentators seem to know a little bit about "soccer".
I’m not in the slightest bit interested in the football, unless it goes to penalty shoot out.
Is it customary for English fans to boo the opposing team’s anthem, or is this just the post-Brexit “New Boorishness”?
Of course, plenty of time for us to screw it all up.
It's not about who plays best, as we all know.
Actually my Labour supporting Dad is the only person I have heard speak up for Hancock, and that was because The Mirror said words to the effect of "How can such an ugly man have two women on the go" - what have looks got to do with it? Would it be ok if he looked like David Gandy?
So sure if his opponents want to characterise that as clownish, then I'm sure he can live with that. He plays it up with his ruffled hair etc.
Its his strength, not his weakness. That you still don't get that even after he won an eighty seat majority and led us out of Europe says more about you than it does him.
I believe it was Shapps who announced it.
I'm not sure I like that.......
The Scottish FA apologised to Liechtenstein on Wednesday after their national anthem was booed by the Scotland fans before a Euro 2012 Group I qualifier.
The home side narrowly avoided their worst ever international result with a stoppage time winner from Stephen McManus in their 2-1 triumph in Tuesday’s match at Hampden Park.
However, the SFA’s acting chief executive George Peat has said sorry to their opponents for the abuse directed at the Liechtenstein national anthem, which has the same tune as England’s anthem ‘God Save the Queen’.
Peat said: “I was embarrassed and extremely disappointed by the disgraceful behaviour of some of our supporters during the Liechtenstein national anthem at Hampden Park last night.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51365320100908
Overhyped and crap compared to yestwrday
For Boris enough presently see his defining traits as positives.
Get DCL warmed up.
I actually appreciate the amount of information I get, but I don’t have a “problem” child; apparently those parents truly are inundated with communications and meetings.
What worries me is the working environment for the teachers. I really would prefer that they just got on with their core job.
Need to take chances to score.
Kane = Jason Lee.
Or fishermen.
Or farmers.
Or Brexity pub owners.
Or Brexity rock stars.
BoZo eventually fucks over everybody he ever made a promise to.
England 2.8
Germany 3.7
Draw 2.64
To qualify:
England 1.84
Germany 2.16
Owen Paterson links to an “expert” report claiming that the NIP should be abolished:
https://twitter.com/owenpaterson/status/1409449381279977472?s=21
TLDR
The NIP is unjust and has no democratic consent.
Britain signed it at a moment of weakness because of Remainer games.*
It’s not clear if it was understood, anyway.**
Report recommends scrapping it and replacing it with a technological solution.***
Suggests that should a trade war ensue, the U.K. is well placed to ride it out given the respective balance of trade.****
*Boris set the time-table and established the “Deal vs No Deal” cliff-edge as he thought it maximised British leverage.
**The govt curtailed debate on the Withdrawal Bill which includes the NIP and suggested longer scrutiny was not required.
***No clear tech solution has ever been identified
****A rehash of the “German auto manufacturers will ensure we get a good deal” argument which proved false.
The implication was that, in time, enough will not see him positively, but currently enough do.
Also note 'enough' does not need to be a majority.
Southgate must carry this can
The commentators complain about Kane, but you're not going to have much joy as a striker when the team plays with a back seven.
Scandinavia and Sweden in particular exultantly run nations, but they are not particular high tax, they just don't camouflage there tax in things like employers NI or employees NI, and a modest cooperation 21% below OECD average and below what we will have soon. there Income tax looks and overall they pay a bit more tax than us, but not a lot, they also have a state pension that is increases with how much tax you have paid over your life, so it a more like a compulsory private pension.
They are successful economically, largely because they are low and sensibly regulated.
They have good public service because they have completion in them, they have school chose, with funding following the child to the school there parents what, and there heath system is not one big monolith, but run by the local regens, who try to out do each other, and many of them contract out provision of services to private company's.
https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/1409910531356598275
Only a fool would underestimate Johnson's ability to make a brilliant first impression.
Only an utter fool would say that his first impression reflects the likely long-term relationship.
A clown for five minutes at a circus might be entertaining.
Living with a clown would be... terrifying.
He is hopeless in this competition
150 million - really
Analysis: “That Kane miss at the end of the half is like a parody of Gascoigne not reaching the ball in 1996,” writes Kari Tulinius. “He had the goal at his mercy but moved about as fast as a turtle who can’t be bothered to eat one more lettuce leaf.”
A harsh assessment but a pretty fair one. Kane had just nine touches of the ball in that half and has contributed little or nothing to England’s cause. He doesn’t look fit and that miss just before the break suggest he’s low on confidence too.
I think if you play three centre backs, wing backs and two defensive mids, the wing backs have to be wingers not full backs. (Saka and Sterling should be the Wing backs perhaps?) Or if the wing backs are basic full backs, one of the defensive mids has to be a creator (Foden alongside Rice or Phillips)
But to have three centre backs, two full backs, and two Cms who could bothcover at Centre back is ridiculously cautious
https://www-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w560/s/www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https://d6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net/prod/6a1b74f0-d354-11eb-8f44-2978cf0848f4-standard.png?source=google-amp&fit=scale-down&width=500
But then neither is Southgate
Despite this, Sweden has a low Gini coefficient.
Didn't think so.
I've just backed England 2-0.