politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GOP nomination race: Pollsters now asking, with a serio

SystemSystem Posts: 12,564
edited November 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GOP nomination race: Pollsters now asking, with a serious reason, what was purpose of the the ancient pyramids

The reason, of course, for this polling question is that current front-runner for the Republican nomination, the former neuro surgeon Ben Carson, has put forward an astonishing theory about their origin. This from Buzzfeed.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,828
    McClatchy Marist GOP nomination and general election - national

    McClatchy/Marist National Republican Primary
    Carson – 24%
    Trump – 23%
    Rubio – 11%
    Cruz – 8%
    Bush – 8%
    Paul – 5%
    Kasich – 4%
    Fiorina – 3%
    Huckabee – 3%
    Christie – 2%
    Pataki – 1%
    Jindal – 1%
    Santorum – 1%
    Gilmore – *
    Graham – *
    Undecided – 4%

    The more you hear about _________, do you like them more/like them less?
    Carson – 67/20
    Rubio – 58/27
    Cruz – 51/31
    Fiorina – 46/34
    Trump – 44/49
    Bush – 32/58

    Who would you definitely NOT vote for?
    Trump – 37%
    Bush – 32%
    Fiorina – 13%
    Rubio – 6%
    Cruz – 6%
    Carson – 3%

    General Election Matchups
    Clinton – 50%
    Carson – 48%

    Clinton – 50%
    Rubio – 45%

    Clinton – 52%
    Bush – 44%

    Clinton – 53%
    Cruz – 43%

    Clinton – 56%
    Trump – 41%
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article43727049.ece/BINARY/How the survey was conducted
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,896
    2nd - like Remain.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,715
    Clinton crushing everyone except the pyramid analyst!
  • DavidBrackenburyDavidBrackenbury Posts: 357
    Oh dear! They would have had to throw the pyramids up quickly to be a grain store for an inpending famine? Self raising?????
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,828
    NickPalmer said:

    Clinton crushing everyone except the pyramid analyst!

    Yes, Clinton v Trump or Clinton v Cruz would be the biggest Democratic landslide since LBJ beat Goldwater on that poll, though Carson or Rubio would be competitive
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,070
    The pyramids were plainly built by aliens, to facilitate space travel.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Surely they were an early prototype model for Toblerone?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,702
    Does this mean we're going to get polling about killing baby Hitler?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Still, it's not as if a Republican candidate believes in obvious nonsense like homeopathy, is it?
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    That Ben Carson sure ain't no brain surgeon...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,295
    Dair said:

    Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.

    The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.

    Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,702
    I had a t shirt with a picture of the pyramids with the tag line

    "Say what you like but slavery gets shit done!"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,070
    MaxPB said:

    Dair said:

    Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.

    The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.

    Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
    As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    Just saw this on C4 news. Trying to talk up a criminal past, and comparing Obama-care with slavery should also be filed under 'Only in the USA'.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,158
    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,739
    Reading the previous thread. The PB comments consensus theory is that the SNP has a stock of political capital, some of which it has spent on opposing Sunday trading in England and Wales. Can someone explain this theory to me? I genuinely cannot even begin to understand it.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,158
    https://twitter.com/groomb/status/664169497327218688
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,828
    Dair said:

    That Ben Carson sure ain't no brain surgeon...

    He was Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at John Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,010
    FPT
    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.

    Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.

    England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
    Try again. Scotland voted to stay.

    And England have every right to tell Scottish Mps they have no right to vote in this one.

    Oh, and oil. Hahahahaha
    Scottish MPs would have no say if it wasn't for moronic English MPs who vote against Sunday trading extension.

    But certainly when given the opportunity to decide the matter, Scottish MPs should always vote to limit England's economy wherever possible - as they just did. Good job from the SNP.
    Could you enlarge upon this argument? I could understand (though not condone in this context) 'limiting' England's economy in a straight binary choice between England and Scotland, but to limit it 'wherever possible' - I just can't see the point. That harms the Scottish economy by extension - England is Scotland's biggest customer. It seems depressingly misanthropic.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    antifrank said:

    Still, it's not as if a Republican candidate believes in obvious nonsense like homeopathy, is it?

    I wonder what percentage of homoeopath believers deny evolution. I believe just about every Republican candidate does so.
    ye gods.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,010
    Sean_F said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dair said:

    Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.

    The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.

    Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
    As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
    America does nothing for anyone except itself. When we realise that, we may start to have something approaching a defence policy.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    MaxPB said:

    Dair said:

    Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.

    The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.

    Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
    Most NATO countries come nowhere near the 2% "suggestion" (and this is in effect how NATO describe it - not a commitment but a suggestion).

    The SNP does not control the amount of money it has to spend outside of certain very strict parameters. Not only that but the SNP administration at Holyrood has implemented LOW TAX policies which have REDUCED the amount of money that it could potentially spend (for example if allowed rises in Council Tax).

    This is typical of the insistence amongst Loyalists to present "SNP bad" despite their arguments being absolutely counter to the evidence in front of them.

    Nothing the SNP has done has had a negative impact on Scotland's fictional deficit.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Mr Isam,

    The surprise is it is only a third!!

    Europe is horrible for the tories.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,070
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I had a t shirt with a picture of the pyramids with the tag line

    "Say what you like but slavery gets shit done!"

    LOL!

    Though I think there's some evidence that the labourers were free.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Sean_F said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dair said:

    Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.

    The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.

    Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
    As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
    This works very, very well for Iceland. Total Defence Spend 0.1% of GDP.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Since we seem to be talking Scottish finances, again...

    http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/queries/008
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Clearly politicians digging up old ghosts for no good reason is a trend.

    Carson has his pyramids.
    Cameron has Tory Unity on Europe.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,741
    Carson talks ALOT of nonsense on alot of subjects.

    And yet so did Ronald Reagen. I think Carson as president would be like Reagen Mark II, he brings a strong Conservative message but it is a very positive one.

    I'd be voting for him if I could over in the USA.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    isam said:

    https://twitter.com/groomb/status/664169497327218688

    Interesting figure, I'd guess for an ambitious young Tory to come out and favour Brexit is to put an end to any promotion while Dave's in charge.

  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    FPT

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.

    Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.

    England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
    Try again. Scotland voted to stay.

    And England have every right to tell Scottish Mps they have no right to vote in this one.

    Oh, and oil. Hahahahaha
    Scottish MPs would have no say if it wasn't for moronic English MPs who vote against Sunday trading extension.

    But certainly when given the opportunity to decide the matter, Scottish MPs should always vote to limit England's economy wherever possible - as they just did. Good job from the SNP.
    Could you enlarge upon this argument? I could understand (though not condone in this context) 'limiting' England's economy in a straight binary choice between England and Scotland, but to limit it 'wherever possible' - I just can't see the point. That harms the Scottish economy by extension - England is Scotland's biggest customer. It seems depressingly misanthropic.
    Only in the long term does mutual growth benefit both parties. In the short and medium term, maintaining a comparative advantage is much, much more important.

    And in the long term, I am certain Scotland will be Independent so it would no longer be an issue anyway. England would be free to grow its economy as she sees fit.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    The BBC provides a running commentary of what happens in Parliament each day - see link.

    But can anyone tell me how you scroll down to see the whole day - eg in link you can only see down to 17.57 (ie 5.57pm). How do you see before that?

    The same problem arises every day.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-34765915#live-text-stream
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    taffys said:

    Mr Isam,

    The surprise is it is only a third!!

    Europe is horrible for the tories.

    If he wins the referendum comfortably the rebels have a clear choice - they can try to destroy the party and head off to UKIP or they can suck it up. It's pretty simple - all the rest is just twitter noise. There are certainly some in the party who want out regardless - they need to come to terms with the fact that there may not be a majority for that point of view. Oh and btw their actions might just lead to JCIPM :)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,741
    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    £120 on Con @ 1-6 please.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Sean_F said:

    The pyramids were plainly built by aliens, to facilitate space travel.

    Isn't Elvis buried in the pyramids with a B52?

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    isam said:

    https://twitter.com/groomb/status/664169497327218688

    It will because today has confirmed the worst fears of Fresh Start and BOO. They thought Cameron might have a hidden eurosceptic agenda up his sleeve: turns out there was nothing new there at all.

    However, what (non-Tories) fail to understand is that there is no appetite whatsoever to split the party on this. Those figures are broadly correct: 30-40 pro-EU Conservative MPs, 90-120 Leavers and the government payroll and those who aspire to it will toe Cameron's line.

    But the party will campaign differently, vote, and then come together again.

    The main impact of the EU referendum (let's face it, Remain will win) will be on the next Tory leadership contest.

    That favours Boris and May over Osborne when it all starts to unravel, except the former candidate is more obviously opportunist.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,158
    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    £120 on Con @ 1-6 please.
    Righto!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    MikeL said:

    The BBC provides a running commentary of what happens in Parliament each day - see link.

    But can anyone tell me how you scroll down to see the whole day - eg in link you can only see down to 17.57 (ie 5.57pm). How do you see before that?

    The same problem arises every day.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-34765915#live-text-stream

    You can't yet. I suspect you will be able to soon.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    Sean_F said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dair said:

    Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.

    The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.

    Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
    As always, the argument is we should just rely on the Americans to do defence for the rest of us.
    And that argument is stacking up less and less these days.

    At the end of the day, if you want to defend your national interest, you need to step up to the plate - and pay for it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,828
    Dair said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    FPT

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.

    Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.

    England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
    Try again. Scotland voted to stay.

    And England have every right to tell Scottish Mps they have no right to vote in this one.

    Oh, and oil. Hahahahaha
    Scottish MPs would have no say if it wasn't for moronic English MPs who vote against Sunday trading extension.

    But certainly when given the opportunity to decide the matter, Scottish MPs should always vote to limit England's economy wherever possible - as they just did. Good job from the SNP.
    Could you enlarge upon this argument? I could understand (though not condone in this context) 'limiting' England's economy in a straight binary choice between England and Scotland, but to limit it 'wherever possible' - I just can't see the point. That harms the Scottish economy by extension - England is Scotland's biggest customer. It seems depressingly misanthropic.
    Only in the long term does mutual growth benefit both parties. In the short and medium term, maintaining a comparative advantage is much, much more important.

    And in the long term, I am certain Scotland will be Independent so it would no longer be an issue anyway. England would be free to grow its economy as she sees fit.
    Comparative advantage in what? Haggis and Whisky! In the long term the two economies are intertwined and dependent on each other which is why Full Fiscal Autonomy rather than outright independence is more likely
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    MikeL said:

    The BBC provides a running commentary of what happens in Parliament each day - see link.

    But can anyone tell me how you scroll down to see the whole day - eg in link you can only see down to 17.57 (ie 5.57pm). How do you see before that?

    The same problem arises every day.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-34765915#live-text-stream


    It might be that the live stream only keeps the last 20 or so items - and that's it.

    The same happens on Twitter, if you keep scrolling down your timeline you will reach the end. On Twitter it's about 800 items, though.

  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,739
    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I had a t shirt with a picture of the pyramids with the tag line

    "Say what you like but slavery gets shit done!"

    LOL!

    Though I think there's some evidence that the labourers were free.
    Not sure what would be actually more controversial in modern society nowadays:
    "Say what you like but government gets shit done"
    or
    "Say what you like but religion gets shit done"
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    Jonathan said:

    MikeL said:

    The BBC provides a running commentary of what happens in Parliament each day - see link.

    But can anyone tell me how you scroll down to see the whole day - eg in link you can only see down to 17.57 (ie 5.57pm). How do you see before that?

    The same problem arises every day.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-34765915#live-text-stream

    You can't yet. I suspect you will be able to soon.
    Not sure what you mean - it's nothing to do with the day being in progress - we can right now look at the page for yesterday and find exactly the same problem.

    So we can see what happened in Parliament yesterday from 8.45pm until the end of the day.

    Seems completely bizarre.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited November 2015
    Casino_Royale said:

    isam said:

    https://twitter.com/groomb/status/664169497327218688

    It will because today has confirmed the worst fears of Fresh Start and BOO. They thought Cameron might have a hidden eurosceptic agenda up his sleeve: turns out there was nothing new there at all.

    However, what (non-Tories) fail to understand is that there is no appetite whatsoever to split the party on this. Those figures are broadly correct: 30-40 pro-EU Conservative MPs, 90-120 Leavers and the government payroll and those who aspire to it will toe Cameron's line.

    But the party will campaign differently, vote, and then come together again.

    The main impact of the EU referendum (let's face it, Remain will win) will be on the next Tory leadership contest.

    That favours Boris and May over Osborne when it all starts to unravel, except the former candidate is more obviously opportunist.
    If whatever Cameron negotiates starts to unravel after a couple of years it is not beyond the realms of possibility to see the Tory Eurosceptics become increasingly vocal.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    £120 on Con @ 1-6 please.
    Righto!
    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    A Tenner for me at 7/2 on Con over UKIP please.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,295
    edited November 2015
    Dair said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dair said:

    Few NATO countries spend anything like 2% of GDP on Defence, comparable nations to the size of Scotland are usually around 1% to 1.5%. The White Paper proposed a £1bn saving but that's higher than I would vote for in the first post-independence elections.

    The UK's current extravagance on Defence to maintain the fiction of being a world power and remotely relevant to the geo-political situation is one of the most ridiculous hangovers from colonial Britain.

    Spending 2% of GDP on defence is part of the NATO charter, the SNP are committed to NATO. If they want to join NATO then break the terms of the membership as a new country and prove they are not trustworthy or a reliable ally then that is up to them, I don't think they would though and would pledge to maintain spending to meet the target. Scotland has a very rich history of defence and the public are supportive of the military. This is just your personal bullshit trying to make up a large figure to make yourself feel better about Scottish overspending in recent times (look at the deficit figures, Scotland's deficit was below the UK deficit every year until 2012/13) and that is down to SNP mismanagement more than anything else.
    Most NATO countries come nowhere near the 2% "suggestion" (and this is in effect how NATO describe it - not a commitment but a suggestion).

    The SNP does not control the amount of money it has to spend outside of certain very strict parameters. Not only that but the SNP administration at Holyrood has implemented LOW TAX policies which have REDUCED the amount of money that it could potentially spend (for example if allowed rises in Council Tax).

    This is typical of the insistence amongst Loyalists to present "SNP bad" despite their arguments being absolutely counter to the evidence in front of them.

    Nothing the SNP has done has had a negative impact on Scotland's fictional deficit.
    Lol, I'm in favour of Scottish independence, I just can't stand your bullshit figures. The £12bn figure is a complete fiction, every time you mention it I will ask for evidence which you have so far not provided, other than some figment of your imagination. I even checked Wings over Bath for this figure and even that nutjob doesn't use anything like it. I think you are the only person who believes this fictional number.

    Amateur hour maths is why Scotland is not independent. The unionist side was able to scare people into voting No and they had a very easy time of it because the Yes figures were laughable, just like yours.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited November 2015
    O/T:

    Using Safari on an iPad, it used to be possible to clear history without wiping cookies, which was a very useful thing to be able to do. For some bizarre reason they've now changed it so that you can only clear history and cookies at the same time. People are discussing it here:

    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7219147
  • isamisam Posts: 42,158
    foxinsoxuk said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    £120 on Con @ 1-6 please.
    Righto!
    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    A Tenner for me at 7/2 on Con over UKIP please.
    Oky doke
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    A Tenner for me at 7/2 on Con over UKIP please.

    That's interesting. UKIP have been sounding very bullish about old labour voters being appalled by Corbyn.

    There's quite a bit at stake for UKIP, actually.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,741
    taffys said:

    A Tenner for me at 7/2 on Con over UKIP please.

    That's interesting. UKIP have been sounding very bullish about old labour voters being appalled by Corbyn.

    There's quite a bit at stake for UKIP, actually.

    You really need to use "Quote", or you'll be owing Sam money !
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    This needs re-posting.Just in case any one has missed it,the Tories are back in OCD mode and are banging on about Europe again.This is likely to go on and on for months,years even.The backdrop is the dynamic of the Tory leadership election in what is now a very open race and massive cuts to police and fire and an NHS winter crisis just round the corner and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is severely weakened after being hoisted by his own statutory instrument.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d517b2e4-87b7-11e5-8a12-b0ce506400af.html#axzz3r7fDlffT
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited November 2015
    Fantastic... I've just found mark reckless' losers speech from election night... not seen that before.

    how many more such gems of coverage not shown on the night (now watched once or twice on iplayer) are there out there for me still to unearth and enjoy.......

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32633099

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    volacanopete...Calm down dear..
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Client letters to write.... time for another trip down memory lane...

    bong....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,070
    volcanopete said:

    This needs re-posting.Just in case any one has missed it,the Tories are back in OCD mode and are banging on about Europe again.This is likely to go on and on for months,years even.The backdrop is the dynamic of the Tory leadership election in what is now a very open race and massive cuts to police and fire and an NHS winter crisis just round the corner and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is severely weakened after being hoisted by his own statutory instrument.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d517b2e4-87b7-11e5-8a12-b0ce506400af.html#axzz3r7fDlffT

    The problem for Labour is they're stuck on 30% or thereabouts, and centre right parties are on 50-55%. If th government loses support, it will be to UKIP, not Labour.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,119
    volcanopete said:

    This needs re-posting.Just in case any one has missed it,the Tories are back in OCD mode and are banging on about Europe again.This is likely to go on and on for months,years even.The backdrop is the dynamic of the Tory leadership election in what is now a very open race and massive cuts to police and fire and an NHS winter crisis just round the corner and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is severely weakened after being hoisted by his own statutory instrument.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d517b2e4-87b7-11e5-8a12-b0ce506400af.html#axzz3r7fDlffT

    It concludes by 2017 and Cameron's succession doesn't come in until 2019 by which time Boris, George and Theresa will be superseded by others, notably some who are not in the Public view at present. There are several women on the select committee's who are very impressive and I wouldn't rule out a prospective Margaret Thatcher Mark-2. After today I cannot see any other result of the referendum as being Stay with a good majority
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,946
    Just booked to see The Sweet last ever UK Concert (Cheltenham) Mud and Rubettes also on the Bill.

    Only Steve remains from original lineup.

    Last time I saw them Brian Connelly had to be helped on stage and was held up at various stages by other band members he was so pissed.

    Listened to most of concert then noticed everyone was getting their money back due to the aforesaid BC state. Got full refund and listened to finale in foyer.

    BC was dead within a year.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Sean_F said:

    volcanopete said:

    This needs re-posting.Just in case any one has missed it,the Tories are back in OCD mode and are banging on about Europe again.This is likely to go on and on for months,years even.The backdrop is the dynamic of the Tory leadership election in what is now a very open race and massive cuts to police and fire and an NHS winter crisis just round the corner and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is severely weakened after being hoisted by his own statutory instrument.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d517b2e4-87b7-11e5-8a12-b0ce506400af.html#axzz3r7fDlffT

    The problem for Labour is they're stuck on 30% or thereabouts, and centre right parties are on 50-55%. If th government loses support, it will be to UKIP, not Labour.
    You keep bangong on that UKIP and TORY votes are interchangeable. It's the mistake those on the left made about the LDs and Labour.

    They are not
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Ah, the new politics...

    @michaelsavage: This sounds dangerously like central command and control. Surely not. https://t.co/1p2xPXXQl8
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I'm at pains to see if I can live comment yet another GOP debate, however the Carson thing although it won't be damaging to Carson's poll numbers is tipping the scales if favour, along with that it's the first time that the debate is down to 8 candidates.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,070
    Jonathan said:

    Sean_F said:

    volcanopete said:

    This needs re-posting.Just in case any one has missed it,the Tories are back in OCD mode and are banging on about Europe again.This is likely to go on and on for months,years even.The backdrop is the dynamic of the Tory leadership election in what is now a very open race and massive cuts to police and fire and an NHS winter crisis just round the corner and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is severely weakened after being hoisted by his own statutory instrument.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d517b2e4-87b7-11e5-8a12-b0ce506400af.html#axzz3r7fDlffT

    The problem for Labour is they're stuck on 30% or thereabouts, and centre right parties are on 50-55%. If th government loses support, it will be to UKIP, not Labour.
    You keep bangong on that UKIP and TORY votes are interchangeable. It's the mistake those on the left made about the LDs and Labour.

    They are not
    No, they aren't interchangeable, but they're unreachable for a Corbyn-led party.

    Neither the economic Conservative, nor the social conservative, would see anything appealing in Corbyn.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    I'll put £5 on Labour losing at 8/1.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Sean_F said:

    Jonathan said:

    Sean_F said:

    volcanopete said:

    This needs re-posting.Just in case any one has missed it,the Tories are back in OCD mode and are banging on about Europe again.This is likely to go on and on for months,years even.The backdrop is the dynamic of the Tory leadership election in what is now a very open race and massive cuts to police and fire and an NHS winter crisis just round the corner and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is severely weakened after being hoisted by his own statutory instrument.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d517b2e4-87b7-11e5-8a12-b0ce506400af.html#axzz3r7fDlffT

    The problem for Labour is they're stuck on 30% or thereabouts, and centre right parties are on 50-55%. If th government loses support, it will be to UKIP, not Labour.
    You keep bangong on that UKIP and TORY votes are interchangeable. It's the mistake those on the left made about the LDs and Labour.

    They are not
    No, they aren't interchangeable, but they're unreachable for a Corbyn-led party.

    Neither the economic Conservative, nor the social conservative, would see anything appealing in Corbyn.
    UKIP aren't necessarily either of those. Above all they are a protest vote. Corbyn is close to that.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    taffys said:

    A Tenner for me at 7/2 on Con over UKIP please.

    That's interesting. UKIP have been sounding very bullish about old labour voters being appalled by Corbyn.

    There's quite a bit at stake for UKIP, actually.

    More than for anyone apart from Labour methinks. Labour have a good candidate, substantial ethnic vote and lots of council support. I don't think that they will lose more supporters to the kippers. Con voters are likely to turn out and famously adverse to tactical voters. The LDs want to do better than fourth. I think the Con vote will hold up better than the kippers, hence my tenner.

    A predictions thread may while away the dark nights...
  • isamisam Posts: 42,158
    AndyJS said:

    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    I'll put £5 on Labour losing at 8/1.
    Righto Andy
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,684
    The problem Cameron has on Europe is that the thing that's the biggest bugbear to many -free movement- is going to be the thing he won't get any substantial concessions on. I could perhaps see some communique or statement of intent issued that promises to 'explore' the issues surrounding migrant benefits etc, but I can't see anything more concrete than that being conceded.

    I think the EU will hope if they give in on 'ever closer union' and protection of the non-Eurozone economy, they'll have given enough to sway enough people (and let's be honest, Cameron will also present this as a victory and campaign to remain).

    I still think the result is somewhat up in the air. Remain has the definite edge, but you could easily see public opinion swinging depending on events and the narrative that arises from the renegotiation.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,730
    Casino_Royale said:

    isam said:

    https://twitter.com/groomb/status/664169497327218688

    It will because today has confirmed the worst fears of Fresh Start and BOO. They thought Cameron might have a hidden eurosceptic agenda up his sleeve: turns out there was nothing new there at all.

    However, what (non-Tories) fail to understand is that there is no appetite whatsoever to split the party on this. Those figures are broadly correct: 30-40 pro-EU Conservative MPs, 90-120 Leavers and the government payroll and those who aspire to it will toe Cameron's line.

    But the party will campaign differently, vote, and then come together again.

    The main impact of the EU referendum (let's face it, Remain will win) will be on the next Tory leadership contest.

    That favours Boris and May over Osborne when it all starts to unravel, except the former candidate is more obviously opportunist.
    The only way I can see Mr Cameron recommending Leave is that the EU partners do something that makes him angry and he responds 'OK, stuff it, then' quite off the cuff. He's done that before.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,896
    foxinsoxuk said:

    A predictions thread may while away the dark nights...

    And the international break. I hope the FIFA virus doesn't strike Jamie Vardy.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    numbertwelve said:

    The problem Cameron has on Europe is that the thing that's the biggest bugbear to many -free movement- is going to be the thing he won't get any substantial concessions on. I could perhaps see some communique or statement of intent issued that promises to 'explore' the issues surrounding migrant benefits etc, but I can't see anything more concrete than that being conceded.

    I think the EU will hope if they give in on 'ever closer union' and protection of the non-Eurozone economy, they'll have given enough to sway enough people (and let's be honest, Cameron will also present this as a victory and campaign to remain).

    I still think the result is somewhat up in the air. Remain has the definite edge, but you could easily see public opinion swinging depending on events and the narrative that arises from the renegotiation.

    Being out of free movement means being out of the EEA as well as the EU surely.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    isam said:

    AndyJS said:

    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    I'll put £5 on Labour losing at 8/1.
    Righto Andy
    Do you want it now or later?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,010
    Dair said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    FPT

    Dair said:

    Mortimer said:

    Dair said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Still, it shows what utter hypocrites the SNP are. You could not ask for a clearer example of a measure which doesn't affect Scotland one jot.

    Of course it effects Scotland. Suppressing an aspect of the English economy gives Scotland a competitive advantage. I'm sure there is plenty of money made in cross-border Sunday trading. There is absolutely no reason for the SNP to vote to give that up.

    England demanded Scotland stay and charge Scotland about £12bn a year to remain part of the Union. That gives Scotland every right to vote any way she wants over English laws.
    Try again. Scotland voted to stay.

    And England have every right to tell Scottish Mps they have no right to vote in this one.

    Oh, and oil. Hahahahaha
    Scottish MPs would have no say if it wasn't for moronic English MPs who vote against Sunday trading extension.

    But certainly when given the opportunity to decide the matter, Scottish MPs should always vote to limit England's economy wherever possible - as they just did. Good job from the SNP.
    Could you enlarge upon this argument? I could understand (though not condone in this context) 'limiting' England's economy in a straight binary choice between England and Scotland, but to limit it 'wherever possible' - I just can't see the point. That harms the Scottish economy by extension - England is Scotland's biggest customer. It seems depressingly misanthropic.
    Only in the long term does mutual growth benefit both parties. In the short and medium term, maintaining a comparative advantage is much, much more important.

    And in the long term, I am certain Scotland will be Independent so it would no longer be an issue anyway. England would be free to grow its economy as she sees fit.
    Personally I'd have thought the best chance for separation lies in Scotland being seen as a viable economic unit, which in turn depends on England being a voracious market for Scottish goods and services. The sums are there in black and white.

    This beggar thy neighbour stuff, insomuch as it has any effect (for example if English firms were discriminated against for Scottish Government contracts in favour of continental competitors), would be bad for Scotland because would reduce the UK's tax base and make Scottish citizens poorer. It would reduce the capacity of England to buy Scottish products now.

    To me it just seems like an emotional need to offer some slight to England whether it benefits Scotland or harms her.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    AnneJGP said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    isam said:

    https://twitter.com/groomb/status/664169497327218688

    It will because today has confirmed the worst fears of Fresh Start and BOO. They thought Cameron might have a hidden eurosceptic agenda up his sleeve: turns out there was nothing new there at all.

    However, what (non-Tories) fail to understand is that there is no appetite whatsoever to split the party on this. Those figures are broadly correct: 30-40 pro-EU Conservative MPs, 90-120 Leavers and the government payroll and those who aspire to it will toe Cameron's line.

    But the party will campaign differently, vote, and then come together again.

    The main impact of the EU referendum (let's face it, Remain will win) will be on the next Tory leadership contest.

    That favours Boris and May over Osborne when it all starts to unravel, except the former candidate is more obviously opportunist.
    The only way I can see Mr Cameron recommending Leave is that the EU partners do something that makes him angry and he responds 'OK, stuff it, then' quite off the cuff. He's done that before.
    Under no circumstances will he recommend LEAVE and I'm really not sure who's falling for his charade.

    One things for sure, the EU aren't

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,295
    foxinsoxuk said:

    numbertwelve said:

    The problem Cameron has on Europe is that the thing that's the biggest bugbear to many -free movement- is going to be the thing he won't get any substantial concessions on. I could perhaps see some communique or statement of intent issued that promises to 'explore' the issues surrounding migrant benefits etc, but I can't see anything more concrete than that being conceded.

    I think the EU will hope if they give in on 'ever closer union' and protection of the non-Eurozone economy, they'll have given enough to sway enough people (and let's be honest, Cameron will also present this as a victory and campaign to remain).

    I still think the result is somewhat up in the air. Remain has the definite edge, but you could easily see public opinion swinging depending on events and the narrative that arises from the renegotiation.

    Being out of free movement means being out of the EEA as well as the EU surely.
    Yes, but that's not a big loss anyway.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    A predictions thread may while away the dark nights...

    And the international break. I hope the FIFA virus doesn't strike Jamie Vardy.
    14 Leicester players are on international duty. Schlupp and Mahrez have particularly long trips. Kasper has a key playoff against Sweden. Andy King and Tom Lawrence both look likely to start for Wales.

    I think Vardy will be fine. Might get piles from sitting on the bench. It is clear that Roy does not like him or rate him.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,158
    AndyJS said:

    isam said:

    AndyJS said:

    isam said:

    Oldham by election

    Labour win by
    0-5 8/1
    5-10 6/1
    10-15 5/2
    15-20 12/5
    20-25 5/1
    25+ 8/1

    Labour lose 8/1

    Match bets

    Ukip 1/6 vs Con 7/2
    Con 1/6 vs Libs 7/2

    Labour winning margin uo 16 5/6

    I'll put £5 on Labour losing at 8/1.
    Righto Andy
    Do you want it now or later?
    How did you know I'm watching carry on forever???


    Settle up after the result
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,730
    blackburn63 said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    isam said:

    https://twitter.com/groomb/status/664169497327218688

    It will because today has confirmed the worst fears of Fresh Start and BOO. They thought Cameron might have a hidden eurosceptic agenda up his sleeve: turns out there was nothing new there at all.

    However, what (non-Tories) fail to understand is that there is no appetite whatsoever to split the party on this. Those figures are broadly correct: 30-40 pro-EU Conservative MPs, 90-120 Leavers and the government payroll and those who aspire to it will toe Cameron's line.

    But the party will campaign differently, vote, and then come together again.

    The main impact of the EU referendum (let's face it, Remain will win) will be on the next Tory leadership contest.

    That favours Boris and May over Osborne when it all starts to unravel, except the former candidate is more obviously opportunist.
    The only way I can see Mr Cameron recommending Leave is that the EU partners do something that makes him angry and he responds 'OK, stuff it, then' quite off the cuff. He's done that before.
    Under no circumstances will he recommend LEAVE and I'm really not sure who's falling for his charade.

    One things for sure, the EU aren't

    I agree - that's why there's just the odd chance that something hits his Destruct button.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    According to Fox Sports 1 a candidate to replace Sepp Blatter (didn't catch the name on the crawler) is promising to expand the FIFA World Cup to 40 teams if elected.

    As if it's not huge and unwieldy enough as it is.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,896
    foxinsoxuk said:

    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    A predictions thread may while away the dark nights...

    And the international break. I hope the FIFA virus doesn't strike Jamie Vardy.
    14 Leicester players are on international duty. Schlupp and Mahrez have particularly long trips. Kasper has a key playoff against Sweden. Andy King and Tom Lawrence both look likely to start for Wales.

    I think Vardy will be fine. Might get piles from sitting on the bench. It is clear that Roy does not like him or rate him.
    The break came at a good time for Arsenal - we were flagging against Spurs on Sunday and need Rambo back.

    I really hope Vardy breaks RVN's record - he's fantastic. The problem with football today is that too many managers are concerned by what the press/fans think. Rooney has failed to deliver at a number of tournaments and it's about time we tried someone else.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Tim_B said:

    According to Fox Sports 1 a candidate to replace Sepp Blatter (didn't catch the name on the crawler) is promising to expand the FIFA World Cup to 40 teams if elected.

    As if it's not huge and unwieldy enough as it is.

    32 is plenty. The qualifiers go on forever! It would be better to have some preliminary rounds for the countries ranked below 100 or so.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,158
    edited November 2015
    And everyone else would if they did!

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/664190551005265922
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,896
    Tim_B said:

    According to Fox Sports 1 a candidate to replace Sepp Blatter (didn't catch the name on the crawler) is promising to expand the FIFA World Cup to 40 teams if elected.

    As if it's not huge and unwieldy enough as it is.

    I think that's Infantino - the Secretary General at UEFA - I think he's the back up to Platini should he not get the go ahead to stand.

    I think 32 teams is about right. However, I'd have only the eight group winners progress to a second group phase with the winners of those groups playing in the final. Football is best when three points for a win are up for grabs.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    isam said:

    And everyone else would if they did!

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/664190551005265922

    Do they get the virgins in hell, or hookers?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,442
    foxinsoxuk said:

    numbertwelve said:

    The problem Cameron has on Europe is that the thing that's the biggest bugbear to many -free movement- is going to be the thing he won't get any substantial concessions on. I could perhaps see some communique or statement of intent issued that promises to 'explore' the issues surrounding migrant benefits etc, but I can't see anything more concrete than that being conceded.

    I think the EU will hope if they give in on 'ever closer union' and protection of the non-Eurozone economy, they'll have given enough to sway enough people (and let's be honest, Cameron will also present this as a victory and campaign to remain).

    I still think the result is somewhat up in the air. Remain has the definite edge, but you could easily see public opinion swinging depending on events and the narrative that arises from the renegotiation.

    Being out of free movement means being out of the EEA as well as the EU surely.
    Yes it does.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    tlg86 said:

    Tim_B said:

    According to Fox Sports 1 a candidate to replace Sepp Blatter (didn't catch the name on the crawler) is promising to expand the FIFA World Cup to 40 teams if elected.

    As if it's not huge and unwieldy enough as it is.

    I think that's Infantino - the Secretary General at UEFA - I think he's the back up to Platini should he not get the go ahead to stand.

    I think 32 teams is about right. However, I'd have only the eight group winners progress to a second group phase with the winners of those groups playing in the final. Football is best when three points for a win are up for grabs.
    I backed up the dvr - it is Infantino.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    As I've said on here before, I am in no way a soccer fan.

    But this is great news! -

    Rugby Union is coming to the US -

    http://usarugby.org/club-news/item/pro-rugby
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Tim_B said:

    isam said:

    And everyone else would if they did!

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/664190551005265922

    Do they get the virgins in hell, or hookers?
    It was pointed out to me that there is a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven. It is clear where the volume of traffic is expected!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Last GOP poll before tonight's debate, caveat emptor it's yougov, last one 2 weeks ago:

    https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/11/10/trump-carson-continue-lead-gop-field-jeb-bush-dips/?

    Trump 32 (0)
    Carson 18 (0)
    Rubio 13 (+2)
    Cruz 10 (+2)
    Huckabee 4 (0) [Not in the debate]
    Paul 4 (0)
    Bush 3 (-5) [In the debate]
    Fiorina 3 (0)
    Christie 3 (+1) [Not in the debate]

    Other key figures, Bush now more unfavourable that favourable with republicans, 75 & 74% of republicans respectively think that Carson and Trump can win the GE, Rubio at 64, Cruz at 55, and Bush at 44%, Trump also leads 49-11 on Immigration.

    Interesting note in the wake of media pressure on Carson he has the lowest rating of people calling him to drop out at just 9%, and Trump beats Rubio with hispanics by 11-10.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,581
    This thread reminded me of Historical Headlines from ISIHAC, where they were asked to describe the construction of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. Barry Cryer's contribution: "Giant cube at Giza half built". :D
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    isam said:

    And everyone else would if they did!

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/664190551005265922

    What an idiot, he won with 78% of the vote, so he didn't need do to that in order to win and now probably he's out.
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    One things for sure, the EU aren't

    A Danish relative of mine and teacher of politics sent me a puzzled mail today asking 'why is Cameron making all this fuss about nothing much?' Evidently something much meatier was expected. The expression Kejserens nye klaeder sprang to mind...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,946
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Tim_B said:

    isam said:

    And everyone else would if they did!

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/664190551005265922

    Do they get the virgins in hell, or hookers?
    It was pointed out to me that there is a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven. It is clear where the volume of traffic is expected!
    Chris Rea 24/7 downstairs.

    Wall to Wall LZ in heaven

    Enough to make me rethink my atheist position
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    @isam - Labour certainly succeeded in fundamentally changing this country during their 13 years in power, IMHO.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    A predictions thread may while away the dark nights...

    And the international break. I hope the FIFA virus doesn't strike Jamie Vardy.
    14 Leicester players are on international duty. Schlupp and Mahrez have particularly long trips. Kasper has a key playoff against Sweden. Andy King and Tom Lawrence both look likely to start for Wales.

    I think Vardy will be fine. Might get piles from sitting on the bench. It is clear that Roy does not like him or rate him.
    The break came at a good time for Arsenal - we were flagging against Spurs on Sunday and need Rambo back.

    I really hope Vardy breaks RVN's record - he's fantastic. The problem with football today is that too many managers are concerned by what the press/fans think. Rooney has failed to deliver at a number of tournaments and it's about time we tried someone else.
    Vardy took a year to settle at Championship level, but was good in his second season at that level. In his first year in the Prem he looked out of his depth, but this season! I suspect that he will not fit well in Roys team and style of football. I hope he gets a decent run out. Fans love him for his commitment, there is nothing that fans hate more than a player who cannot be arsed.

    Vardy really, really want to wear that shirt in a major tournament, but Roy will start Kane, Rooney and Walcott, perhaps even Austin ahead of him. Vardy knows that the only way to breakthrough is with an un-ignorable tally of goals.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    RobD said:

    This thread reminded me of Historical Headlines from ISIHAC, where they were asked to describe the construction of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. Barry Cryer's contribution: "Giant cube at Giza half built". :D

    Actually this thread reminded me a poll long ago where the question was should the USA declare war on the USSR even if it meant WW3, 1/6th or 1/5th said yes if I remember correctly, which is the same number as those saying D/K about the Pyramids.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,896
    foxinsoxuk said:

    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    A predictions thread may while away the dark nights...

    And the international break. I hope the FIFA virus doesn't strike Jamie Vardy.
    14 Leicester players are on international duty. Schlupp and Mahrez have particularly long trips. Kasper has a key playoff against Sweden. Andy King and Tom Lawrence both look likely to start for Wales.

    I think Vardy will be fine. Might get piles from sitting on the bench. It is clear that Roy does not like him or rate him.
    The break came at a good time for Arsenal - we were flagging against Spurs on Sunday and need Rambo back.

    I really hope Vardy breaks RVN's record - he's fantastic. The problem with football today is that too many managers are concerned by what the press/fans think. Rooney has failed to deliver at a number of tournaments and it's about time we tried someone else.
    Vardy took a year to settle at Championship level, but was good in his second season at that level. In his first year in the Prem he looked out of his depth, but this season! I suspect that he will not fit well in Roys team and style of football. I hope he gets a decent run out. Fans love him for his commitment, there is nothing that fans hate more than a player who cannot be arsed.

    Vardy really, really want to wear that shirt in a major tournament, but Roy will start Kane, Rooney and Walcott, perhaps even Austin ahead of him. Vardy knows that the only way to breakthrough is with an un-ignorable tally of goals.
    Kane was fantastic at Arsenal on Sunday - almost Teddy Sheringham good. I'd have thought Roy would like Vardy - a 4-4-2 with Kane and Vardy up front might work quite well.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,181
    I can't believe everyone's being so stupid.

    Remember: the pyramids were a government procurement project. They started off as mooring posts for alien spaceships, but they built the bases the wrong shape. They then decided to convert them to grain stores, but did not build enough cavities within. In the end they just decided to chuck their dead leaders in them.

    And as with all government projects, they made the same mistakes several times before giving up and just building a large statue of cat. Even then they couldn't decide on what sort of cat, and added a beard because they had a little extra unspent money at end-of-year.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    bigjohnowls said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Tim_B said:

    isam said:

    And everyone else would if they did!

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/664190551005265922

    Do they get the virgins in hell, or hookers?
    It was pointed out to me that there is a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven. It is clear where the volume of traffic is expected!
    Chris Rea 24/7 downstairs.

    Wall to Wall LZ in heaven

    Enough to make me rethink my atheist position
    Though Talking Heads view of heaven is not quite so appealling:

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H506K66A3xo
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    AnneJGP said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    isam said:

    https://twitter.com/groomb/status/664169497327218688

    It will because today has confirmed the worst fears of Fresh Start and BOO. They thought Cameron might have a hidden eurosceptic agenda up his sleeve: turns out there was nothing new there at all.

    However, what (non-Tories) fail to understand is that there is no appetite whatsoever to split the party on this. Those figures are broadly correct: 30-40 pro-EU Conservative MPs, 90-120 Leavers and the government payroll and those who aspire to it will toe Cameron's line.

    But the party will campaign differently, vote, and then come together again.

    The main impact of the EU referendum (let's face it, Remain will win) will be on the next Tory leadership contest.

    That favours Boris and May over Osborne when it all starts to unravel, except the former candidate is more obviously opportunist.
    The only way I can see Mr Cameron recommending Leave is that the EU partners do something that makes him angry and he responds 'OK, stuff it, then' quite off the cuff. He's done that before.
    When that veto happened it was because *all* other EU leaders were in agreement for EU treaty change to use EU institutions to consolidate the eurozone, without safeguards for the UK.

    On this renegotiation 'deal' he's clearly got Germany lined up behind the lot, so, if other EU partners do misbehave, he expects them to bring them into line.

    I could only see him failing to recommend Remain if *all* of the EU rejected all of his demands outright, which will never happen of course.

    And even then I'm not sure.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,070
    Tim_B said:

    isam said:

    And everyone else would if they did!

    https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/664190551005265922

    Do they get the virgins in hell, or hookers?
    Be careful what you wish for.

    The virgins in question may be 1. Male 2. Non-human.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,683
    runnymede said:

    One things for sure, the EU aren't

    A Danish relative of mine and teacher of politics sent me a puzzled mail today asking 'why is Cameron making all this fuss about nothing much?' Evidently something much meatier was expected. The expression Kejserens nye klaeder sprang to mind...

    Even the BBC is wise to the charade:

    "The European Union realises the British prime minister needs a fight and a bloody nose to drown out criticisms back home that this EU reform process is a sham; that Mr Cameron's demands are wishy-washy and worthless.

    They realise he needs a sense of drama. Of a bitter battle fought and won. And they are preparing to give it to him."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34770875
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    tlg86 said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    A predictions thread may while away the dark nights...

    And the international break. I hope the FIFA virus doesn't strike Jamie Vardy.
    14 Leicester players are on international duty. Schlupp and Mahrez have particularly long trips. Kasper has a key playoff against Sweden. Andy King and Tom Lawrence both look likely to start for Wales.

    I think Vardy will be fine. Might get piles from sitting on the bench. It is clear that Roy does not like him or rate him.
    The break came at a good time for Arsenal - we were flagging against Spurs on Sunday and need Rambo back.

    I really hope Vardy breaks RVN's record - he's fantastic. The problem with football today is that too many managers are concerned by what the press/fans think. Rooney has failed to deliver at a number of tournaments and it's about time we tried someone else.
    Vardy took a year to settle at Championship level, but was good in his second season at that level. In his first year in the Prem he looked out of his depth, but this season! I suspect that he will not fit well in Roys team and style of football. I hope he gets a decent run out. Fans love him for his commitment, there is nothing that fans hate more than a player who cannot be arsed.

    Vardy really, really want to wear that shirt in a major tournament, but Roy will start Kane, Rooney and Walcott, perhaps even Austin ahead of him. Vardy knows that the only way to breakthrough is with an un-ignorable tally of goals.
    Kane was fantastic at Arsenal on Sunday - almost Teddy Sheringham good. I'd have thought Roy would like Vardy - a 4-4-2 with Kane and Vardy up front might work quite well.
    Vardy could do with a partner who can knock down headers for him to bury, and also to header in crosses from Vardy on the touchline. Kane would be a good match for Vardy and vice versa. They have played together too when Kane was on loan at Leicester for a half season just 18 months ago. Rooney should be in midfield if present at all. Dropping the Captain is not Roys style though.
This discussion has been closed.