politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage’s ratings tumble could impact on who runs the LEAVE
Comments
-
@SophyRidgeSky: @SophyRidgeSky Incredibly, it seems Jeremy Corbyn's reshuffle is (on the surface) going to plan... meetings yesterday, announcements today
@SophyRidgeSky: Shadow Cabinet is still in the diary for 1245 today... Will the new Labour team be ready by then?
@SophyRidgeSky: Shadow Cabinet has been cancelled rather than postponed until later today #reshuffle
@paulwaugh: Confirmed: Shadow Cabinet cancelled. Could be more surprises than some think0 -
All very well, but doesn't answer the charge. What is Labour policy on Trident? The one set by the last conference.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's good. They have long standing principles, and they are giving the voters an option.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, so the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Defence Secretary will both disagree with their own party's policy on nuclear weapons?
Jeremy Corbyn is a clown.
The UK deserves a credible choice between two parties, or more, at an election. Not this socialist jester.0 -
Yes I agree with you on that, but 10 7's is 70 and thereafter all becomes simple. My thought is that instinct says that 9 7s should be more than it is.MTimT said:
One of my formative experiences in school was, around about age 8 or 9, getting reamed out in front of the whole class by my teacher for only getting 17/20 on a spelling test. It was one of the highest marks in the class, but she berated me for being lazy and not doing my homework. She was right that I had not studied, and right to judge me against my own capabilities, not those of the rest of the class.AlastairMeeks said:One of my two formative memories of primary school was the mortification (aged about 8 or 9) of giving 29 as an answer to 3 x 9 in a test, meaning that I only got 9 out of 10.
I did not thank her at the time, but I wish I had been able to at some point in time.
Don't know why, but 9x7 was the only part of the times tables that ever gave me any problem.0 -
I know - terribly pedantic.TheScreamingEagles said:
Whooshflightpath01 said:
er... the French did not collapse at the Maginot Line they collapsed at Sedan, well everywhere other than the Maginot Line in fact.TheScreamingEagles said:Saffers collapsing like the French at the Maginot Line
0 -
I think there is a strong likelihood that Labour - as we now know it - will have ceased to exist because of the damage that Corbyn-Momentum are inflicting on the party.MikeK said:
You are saying that there won't be another Labour government for 20 years; if Labour even exist then. The average age for men to die is in the mid eighties now.Scott_P said:@lukeakehurst: I suspect Dugher will play a bigger role next time Labour is in government than Corbyn will.
@sirtophamhat: @lukeakehurst Jeremy's 66. It's unlikely he'll live to see another Labour Government.
Rump Labour under Corbyn or his chosen successorts will never see power again. The only hope for the moderate/sensible left is for a large splinter group to set up New New Labour and to rebuild from the bottom up.0 -
Mr. Simon, I don't think it's a likelihood, as Labour vanishing or becoming a rump is contingent on another party taking their place. UKIP or the Lib Dems *might*, but it's still odds against.
It is possible the yellows and purples take chunks out of Labour in 2020, but the reds then recover when they aren't led by a clown.0 -
Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?0
-
Yes, something do with 12 pence = 1 shillingBlue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
0 -
Mr. Rog, we should reintroduce proper money. Pounds, shillings and pence, not this decimalised nonsense.
As a side effect, this would also make learning times tables up to 12 sensible.0 -
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
0 -
I'm anything but pro Labour but right or wrong Corbyn's lot see it the other way - Blair inflicted the damage on the party. I'd love to see Labour grow some bollox and split into two, part Corbyn, part Blair, but they won't. If they're unelectable as a whole part there is no way they're electable divided in two.oxfordsimon said:
I think there is a strong likelihood that Labour - as we now know it - will have ceased to exist because of the damage that Corbyn-Momentum are inflicting on the party.MikeK said:
You are saying that there won't be another Labour government for 20 years; if Labour even exist then. The average age for men to die is in the mid eighties now.Scott_P said:@lukeakehurst: I suspect Dugher will play a bigger role next time Labour is in government than Corbyn will.
@sirtophamhat: @lukeakehurst Jeremy's 66. It's unlikely he'll live to see another Labour Government.
Rump Labour under Corbyn or his chosen successorts will never see power again. The only hope for the moderate/sensible left is for a large splinter group to set up New New Labour and to rebuild from the bottom up.
0 -
We will find out soon, when the govt introduce a bill to renew it!rottenborough said:
All very well, but doesn't answer the charge. What is Labour policy on Trident? The one set by the last conference.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's good. They have long standing principles, and they are giving the voters an option.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, so the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Defence Secretary will both disagree with their own party's policy on nuclear weapons?
Jeremy Corbyn is a clown.
The UK deserves a credible choice between two parties, or more, at an election. Not this socialist jester.0 -
We would see the world very differently if we were all hexadactylic. Viva Norfolk.TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, something do with 12 pence = 1 shillingBlue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
0 -
Yes TSE but now?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, something do with 12 pence = 1 shillingBlue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
0 -
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
0 -
People don't like change.Blue_rog said:
Yes TSE but now?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, something do with 12 pence = 1 shillingBlue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
That said when I were at prep school we did our times table up to 20 times table0 -
A couple of years ago I launched an e-petition to bring back proper money. It failed to reach 100,000 signatures. To be more specific, it failed to reach 20!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Rog, we should reintroduce proper money. Pounds, shillings and pence, not this decimalised nonsense.
As a side effect, this would also make learning times tables up to 12 sensible.0 -
MD I can remember how easy it was to work out how much a dozen eggs were if they cost 1d eachMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Rog, we should reintroduce proper money. Pounds, shillings and pence, not this decimalised nonsense.
As a side effect, this would also make learning times tables up to 12 sensible.0 -
The damage of 4.5 years of Corbyn and his Momentum friends will take a very, very long time to heal. If he gets to reshape the rules, then it will take even longer to remove the hard left from power within Labour - meaning the damage will be ongoing.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Simon, I don't think it's a likelihood, as Labour vanishing or becoming a rump is contingent on another party taking their place. UKIP or the Lib Dems *might*, but it's still odds against.
It is possible the yellows and purples take chunks out of Labour in 2020, but the reds then recover when they aren't led by a clown.
If Labour doesn't get rid of Corbyn quickly, they will face a choice between oblivion or a split.
This country needs a strong opposition party, it always has and always will. It is in the national interest for Labour to choose the sensible path - and that isn't looking likely.0 -
So you can convert cases of claret to bottles, of course.Blue_rog said:
Yes TSE but now?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, something do with 12 pence = 1 shillingBlue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
0 -
It would be prep school of ypu focussed on calculatinf shillings and poundsTheScreamingEagles said:
People don't like change.Blue_rog said:
Yes TSE but now?TheScreamingEagles said:
Yes, something do with 12 pence = 1 shillingBlue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
That said when I were at prep school we did our times table up to 20 times table
0 -
Balance of power doctrine was proved to be disastrous on the outbreak of WW1.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
The problem with seeking a balance of power is that someone inevitably overestimates their own power.0 -
Would that be pre or post the televised debate on the subject between the two?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic
If the referendum is Cameron v Farage, with Cameron preaching economic stability/security of remaining in the EU vs Farage banging on about immigration, there will be only one outcome.
0 -
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
0 -
The best reshuffle eff up story was when a Minister tried to resign, but Dave wasn't paying attention, so didn't realise the minster was resigning, so the Minister ended up staying.
Said minister is now our man in Bruxelles.0 -
I'll give up trying to use a touch screen to type - too difficult!0
-
Bringing back £.s.d was one of my policies in the general election in 2001. I got 408 votes, more than ever before or since.SandyRentool said:
A couple of years ago I launched an e-petition to bring back proper money. It failed to reach 100,000 signatures. To be more specific, it failed to reach 20!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Rog, we should reintroduce proper money. Pounds, shillings and pence, not this decimalised nonsense.
As a side effect, this would also make learning times tables up to 12 sensible.
I would also re-value the currency to account for inflation since 1971, so a new Pound would be worth what is now £20; a Shilling would be what is now £1, and 1d would be worth what is now 8p. That way we could still have the fun of farthings and halfpence instead of having nothing smaller than 6d.
0 -
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.Blue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.0 -
Mr. Rentool, alas!0
-
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast.
Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,0 -
Corbyn will either whip it or allow a free vote. Either way some or even a majority of Labour MPs will be voting against their own party conference policy and the manifesto. Unless I am missing something here.Sandpit said:
We will find out soon, when the govt introduce a bill to renew it!rottenborough said:
All very well, but doesn't answer the charge. What is Labour policy on Trident? The one set by the last conference.TheScreamingEagles said:
It's good. They have long standing principles, and they are giving the voters an option.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, so the Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Defence Secretary will both disagree with their own party's policy on nuclear weapons?
Jeremy Corbyn is a clown.
The UK deserves a credible choice between two parties, or more, at an election. Not this socialist jester.0 -
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12oxfordsimon said:
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.Blue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.0 -
Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
Indeed, but the quid pro quo for American help in WW2 was the dissolution of what remained of the British empire.
Many of the American commanders (such as Stillwell in the far east) were Anglo phobes.0 -
No, it proved the disastrousness of 'chain ganging'. Balance of power was what Britain (and before it England) aimed at for hundreds of years, and if we ever recover our sanity, what we will continue to aim at.Mortimer said:
Balance of power doctrine was proved to be disastrous on the outbreak of WW1.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
The problem with seeking a balance of power is that someone inevitably overestimates their own power.0 -
It's also the 63rd triangular number.david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
0 -
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.Blue_rog said:
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12oxfordsimon said:
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.Blue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.0 -
Nah my favourite story remains when Blair abolished the role of Lord Chancellor by making it part of the Ministry of Justice. Lord Falconer was just settling down to a quiet day in the office the next day when someone pointed out he was supposed to be sitting on the Woolsack in 20 minutes!TheScreamingEagles said:The best reshuffle eff up story was when a Minister tried to resign, but Dave wasn't paying attention, so didn't realise the minster was resigning, so the Minister ended up staying.
Said minister is now our man in Bruxelles.0 -
TBH when I said I had not a clue I did have the vaguest notion it was something like that but (as is the interest in these things) thought, nah thats going to go on for ever! (followed by 'and Mr Herdson's not that clever' :-) )david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
0 -
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.oxfordsimon said:
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.Blue_rog said:
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12oxfordsimon said:
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.Blue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
0 -
I seem to recall it was the basis for a code broken by the Germans in an episode of Colditz!oxfordsimon said:
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.Blue_rog said:
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12oxfordsimon said:
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.Blue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.0 -
That is what makes it so satisfying. Numbers are incredible things!alex. said:
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.oxfordsimon said:
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.Blue_rog said:
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12oxfordsimon said:
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.Blue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
(mind you, I also used to love the abstraction of pure algebra)0 -
A bookkeeping friend said she divided an iffy total by 9 when totals looked wrong. Assume this is about transposed figures?alex. said:
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.oxfordsimon said:
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.Blue_rog said:
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12oxfordsimon said:
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.Blue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.0 -
Does that have anything to do with my points? Corbyn has consistently sided with, excused and tried to justify the cause of those who oppose British values and British interests, the evidence for which is bountiful and will continue to be laid before the public while he remains in office. Indulging in the whataboutery of Cameron flogging military hardware to the Saudis might make you feel better but rather misses the point.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.0 -
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.flightpath01 said:
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast.
Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,0 -
24 should be your missed minimum threshold surely!SandyRentool said:
A couple of years ago I launched an e-petition to bring back proper money. It failed to reach 100,000 signatures. To be more specific, it failed to reach 20!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Rog, we should reintroduce proper money. Pounds, shillings and pence, not this decimalised nonsense.
As a side effect, this would also make learning times tables up to 12 sensible.0 -
I'm delighted to hear we're selling arms, I'd imagine the profit margins are enormous and the jobs will be well paid. Well done the govt.david_herdson said:
Does that have anything to do with my points? Corbyn has consistently sided with, excused and tried to justify the cause of those who oppose British values and British interests, the evidence for which is bountiful and will continue to be laid before the public while he remains in office. Indulging in the whataboutery of Cameron flogging military hardware to the Saudis might make you feel better but rather misses the point.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
0 -
How would you have had Britain 'not joining World War 1" ? Surely we would have been dragged in eventually anyway, and at a time less favourable to ourselves?Luckyguy1983 said:
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.flightpath01 said:
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast.
Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,0 -
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !CarlottaVance said:
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"Richard_Nabavi said:Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....0 -
For our legal eagles and history buffs
Tamil barrister loses fight to wear turban in court, 1890 https://t.co/tMLRut2xTH0 -
There are all sorts of numbers tricks that aren't known any more with the decline of times tables. Not because the tricks were taught necessarily, but because people wanted easy shortcuts instead of the rote learning and learnt them "off-curriculum"!Plato_Says said:A bookkeeping friend said she divided an iffy total by 9 when totals looked wrong. Assume this is about transposed figures?
alex. said:
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.oxfordsimon said:
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.Blue_rog said:
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12oxfordsimon said:
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.Blue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
0 -
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....0 -
Can we start calling them Corbyn's chicks?oxfordsimon said:
And someone with absolutely no background in defence matters. She might have been credible as a shadow schools minister - but she has nothing to offer on defence.TheScreamingEagles said:@elliotttimes: Latest speculation for shadow defence Nia Griffith: would be first unilateralist in that post for around 30 years.
http://www.labour.org.uk/people/detail/nia-griffith
0 -
Yes, it contradicts your point two. You say our paddling in murky waters is to benefit the British interest. I would have some sympathy for this argument if it were true, but as far as I can see it isn't.david_herdson said:
Does that have anything to do with my points? Corbyn has consistently sided with, excused and tried to justify the cause of those who oppose British values and British interests, the evidence for which is bountiful and will continue to be laid before the public while he remains in office. Indulging in the whataboutery of Cameron flogging military hardware to the Saudis might make you feel better but rather misses the point.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
0 -
The numbers quirk I liked was:
11
121 (11 x 11)
1331 (11 x 11 x 11)
14641 (11 x 11 x 11 x 11)
The first four lines of Pascal's triangle. But it runs out there. I'm not aware of any practical use for this, mind.0 -
That's not how the media are reporting it. Sky just interviewed Tim Farron saying that the cabinet will have freedom to campaign for either remain or leave and Farron was castigating David Cameron for not requiring collective responsibility. Dan Hodges thinks it's a master stroke by David Cameron.surbiton said:
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !CarlottaVance said:
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"Richard_Nabavi said:Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....0 -
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....0 -
I am quite sure of my interpretation. The word's have been chosen very carefully.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That's not how the media are reporting it. Sky just interviewed Tim Farron saying that the cabinet will have freedom to campaign for either remain or leave and Farron was castigating David Cameron for not requiring collective responsibility. Dan Hodges thinks it's a master stroke by David Cameron.surbiton said:
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !CarlottaVance said:
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"Richard_Nabavi said:Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....
"the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete.". It surely means one government view.0 -
Maybe Corbyn will go out of the box and make Ken Livingstone Shadow Defence secretary?0
-
111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321 !AlastairMeeks said:The numbers quirk I liked was:
11
121 (11 x 11)
1331 (11 x 11 x 11)
14641 (11 x 11 x 11 x 11)
The first four lines of Pascal's triangle. But it runs out there. I'm not aware of any practical use for this, mind.0 -
Our not joining WW1 is the most seductive of all counterfactuals but it's so huge that it's idle to speculate as to how it would have turned out. German victory, almost certainly, but then....Luckyguy1983 said:
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.flightpath01 said:
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast.
Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,0 -
You may not like it but it has been announced that the CABINET will have freedom to campaign to remain or leave. Not only showing on strap line with Sky but also confirmed by Dan Hodges and Guido Fawkessurbiton said:
I am quite sure of my interpretation. The word's have been chosen very carefully.Big_G_NorthWales said:
That's not how the media are reporting it. Sky just interviewed Tim Farron saying that the cabinet will have freedom to campaign for either remain or leave and Farron was castigating David Cameron for not requiring collective responsibility. Dan Hodges thinks it's a master stroke by David Cameron.surbiton said:
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !CarlottaVance said:
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"Richard_Nabavi said:Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....
"the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete.". It surely means one government view.0 -
That is correct. In the old days when trial balances never agreed, one way was to divide by 9 to see if there was any transposition error.Plato_Says said:A bookkeeping friend said she divided an iffy total by 9 when totals looked wrong. Assume this is about transposed figures?
alex. said:
Nine is easy coz the numbers always add up to nine.oxfordsimon said:
I believe that is very often the case. I think the 9 times table was always my favourite. The pattern to the numbers was always key to that.Blue_rog said:
Well personally, I found (and find) the 7 and 8 times tables more difficult than 11 and 12oxfordsimon said:
It is surely more about training the brain to handle mental arithmetic and mathematical patterns more than any specific practical application.Blue_rog said:Just out of interest, does anyone know the logic behind expecting kids to memorise up to the 12X tables? Historically, I can see the reason, but now?
I vividly remember the wallchart in my final year of primary school which showed our progress towards knowing our tables up to 12x12. Knowing them equips you to tackle a number of maths-related questions without having to rely on maths per se.
For example, 36 written as 63. The difference 27 is divisable by 9. So are 18,81 ; 27,72 ; 45,54 etc.0 -
More on the new elements:Blue_rog said:
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/04/periodic-tables-seventh-row-finally-filled-as-four-new-elements-are-added
PBers who hate the Guardianista will love this edited addition at end of the article:
This article was amended on 4 January 2016. The reference to the new elements being “manmade” was changed to “synthetic” to follow Guardian style guidance on the use of gender-neutral terms.0 -
I think the first few synthetic elements were a bit of a "wow" moment - it was the fulfillment of a good centuries work.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
In terms of the newer ones - they're almost like stamp collecting. Although it is impressive that they can do enough chemistry on those odd atoms to confirm the discoveries. If a 'stable island' is found, then that would be spectacular news.0 -
Yes, the material recovered from the crashed UFO at Roswell was made of such an element.Blue_rog said:
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
Perhaps.0 -
@craigawoodhouse: Would love to hear the reshuffle narrated by the Big Brother bloke. "Day two in Corbyn's office and aides are cleaning blood off the walls"
The spat on the Daily Politics was most entertaining0 -
@GuidoFawkes: VIDEO: Labour Civil War Deepens as @ChrisLeslieMP and @CatSmithMP Debate Reshuffle https://t.co/4CQSrdJcC1 https://t.co/kThGMXb92p0
-
I think it's rather beautiful. That it's a triangle number as well just adds to the beauty.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....0 -
Oh well, OK. I am disarmed by your simple honest answer :-)david_herdson said:
I think it's rather beautiful. That it's a triangle number as well just adds to the beauty.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
0 -
Has the reshuffle happened yet???0
-
Cameron has clearly taken a leaf out of Harold Wilson's book. Wilson allowed his Cabinet to campaign for or against the EEC in 1975 and it worked out OK for himBig_G_NorthWales said:
That's not how the media are reporting it. Sky just interviewed Tim Farron saying that the cabinet will have freedom to campaign for either remain or leave and Farron was castigating David Cameron for not requiring collective responsibility. Dan Hodges thinks it's a master stroke by David Cameron.surbiton said:
I think Cameron's position is absolutely clear. The government's policy after negotiations will be either REMAIN or LEAVE [ we all know what it will be ]. Therefore, any member of the cabinet has to support the government's policy. Quite right too !CarlottaVance said:
Paul Waugh: No.10 on PM's view of Cabinet freedom on Brexit: "*During* the renegotiation he's been clear that collective responsibility applies..[1/2]"Richard_Nabavi said:Do we have confirmation that Cameron is going to allow Cabinet ministers, as opposed to ministers of state, to campaign either way?
No10: "His view once the renegotiation is complete hasn't changed..the Govt will hv a clear view once that renegotiation is complete." [2/2]
Not sure I'm any the wiser.....0 -
I have no idea who are the hard left she says, none, not a clue....in other news, a four legged animal has just shot past my window on the 3rd floor going oik oik oik..Scott_P said:@GuidoFawkes: VIDEO: Labour Civil War Deepens as @ChrisLeslieMP and @CatSmithMP Debate Reshuffle https://t.co/4CQSrdJcC1 https://t.co/kThGMXb92p
0 -
Smith shows her huge talent off there. She really is spectacularly bad.Scott_P said:@GuidoFawkes: VIDEO: Labour Civil War Deepens as @ChrisLeslieMP and @CatSmithMP Debate Reshuffle https://t.co/4CQSrdJcC1 https://t.co/kThGMXb92p
0 -
@MrHarryCole: Senior Labour source assures me its all going "wonderfully". We are 23 hours in. #TheReshuffleSquareRoot said:Has the reshuffle happened yet???
0 -
SandyRentool said:
Yes, the material recovered from the crashed UFO at Roswell was made of such an element.Blue_rog said:
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
Perhaps. 0 -
Yeah, 118 was supposed to be stabler wasn't it? Apparently (hat tip Wikipedia) it's ~ 1 millisecond half life is "longer than predicted" (!!)BannedInParis said:
I think the first few synthetic elements were a bit of a "wow" moment - it was the fulfillment of a good centuries work.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
In terms of the newer ones - they're almost like stamp collecting. Although it is impressive that they can do enough chemistry on those odd atoms to confirm the discoveries. If a 'stable island' is found, then that would be spectacular news.
Which brings me back to WHY...0 -
She was on Newsnight last night, explaining how Labour had made more progress for women in politics by NOT electing a leader or PM than Thatcher...oxfordsimon said:Smith shows her huge talent off there. She really is spectacularly bad.
0 -
No wonder JJ hates free enterprise and business, imagine if he had to make rapid decisions on a daily basis and perhaps had to hire and fire people...0
-
I believe The Kaiser had plans to attack and recolonise the USA. I think he'd have struggled, but it would have been an interesting attempt.Wanderer said:
Our not joining WW1 is the most seductive of all counterfactuals but it's so huge that it's idle to speculate as to how it would have turned out. German victory, almost certainly, but then....Luckyguy1983 said:
That depends on how you define success. Personally I'd define it as not joining World War 1 and therefore avoiding World War 2 altogether, avoiding the senseless deaths of millions and continuing to be a steadying influence on world affairs, rather than handing the baton to a rapacious insular superstate and a communist dictatorship. But whatever floats your boat.flightpath01 said:
You are talking ignorant rubbish. Our biggest foreign policy success in the 20th century was winning the second world war alongside America, not achieving some sort of equality between the USA Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.Luckyguy1983 said:
Nonsense. Most of our foreign misadventures recently have been in the cause of US dominance, and we have most certainly not been rewarded for being a loyal helper. Talk of 'The West' obscures the fact that our interests and those of the US are often divergent. Our foreign policy doctrine in the 19th century was always to achieve balance of powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) This is the British interest, not the dominance of a single nation.david_herdson said:
1. Corbyn became aligned with his terrorist acquaintances out of choice, not perceived necessity.
2. Where Britain has been involved with dodgy regimes and/or individuals, it's usually been to advance the British interest. Corbyn's involvement has consistently been to undermine the British interest or values.
If you can't see the difference then it's because you're not looking but believe me: the general public can.
Our balance of power only related to Europe and our main aim was to keep german hands of the channel coast.
Bringing America out of isolationism was a great triumph,
0 -
@robertshrimsley: First they came for Dugher and I issued a press statement about how sad I was. Feeble bleating from his "friends" in shadow cabinet0
-
Many things have a beauty that casual observers do not see. That's as true for mathematics as it is for manhole covers.JonCisBack said:
Oh well, OK. I am disarmed by your simple honest answer :-)david_herdson said:
I think it's rather beautiful. That it's a triangle number as well just adds to the beauty.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
0 -
Yes, and I cringed then.Scott_P said:
She was on Newsnight last night, explaining how Labour had made more progress for women in politics by NOT electing a leader or PM than Thatcher...oxfordsimon said:Smith shows her huge talent off there. She really is spectacularly bad.
Labour seems to have been struggling to recruit and retain quality MPs for a very long time now.0 -
Lolz lolz lolzrottenborough said:
More on the new elements:Blue_rog said:
Isn't there supposed to be an 'island of stability' for atoms above a certain mass? If so, it's interesting to know progress towards it and also to find the properties if they're ever created.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/04/periodic-tables-seventh-row-finally-filled-as-four-new-elements-are-added
PBers who hate the Guardianista will love this edited addition at end of the article:
This article was amended on 4 January 2016. The reference to the new elements being “manmade” was changed to “synthetic” to follow Guardian style guidance on the use of gender-neutral terms.0 -
Still, could be worse...oxfordsimon said:Labour seems to have been struggling to recruit and retain quality MPs for a very long time now.
@ScottyNational: News- SNP release vetting process
SNP:How much do you hate Labour or Tories?
Candidate: A lot!
SNP: You're in.
*ticks background check box*0 -
-
It's a painful labour for Labour.
A C section is required.Scott_P said:
@MrHarryCole: Senior Labour source assures me its all going "wonderfully". We are 23 hours in. #TheReshuffleSquareRoot said:Has the reshuffle happened yet???
0 -
Btw, the Return of Ed story went quiet didn’t it?0
-
0
-
@RichardNabavi will appreciate this:
http://www.parryphernalia.com/?page_id=1019
I particularly like number 11.0 -
The Beeb have clearly been briefed that Cameron is to suspend collective responsibility for the referendum:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35230959
It is, frankly, the only logical decision for him and I'm rather surprised that people like John Major, who ought to know better, were advocating otherwise.0 -
Have Lady Nugee or Sadiq left yet?Wanderer said:
Btw, the Return of Ed story went quiet didn’t it?
0 -
If the referendum goes for leave then Major may feel that all of his prior resistance was for nothing - so despite being a hardline eurosceptic I find his comments at least understandable.david_herdson said:The Beeb have clearly been briefed that Cameron is to suspend collective responsibility for the referendum:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35230959
It is, frankly, the only logical decision for him and I'm rather surprised that people like John Major, who ought to know better, were advocating otherwise.
0 -
Seamus Milne must be in line for a performance bonus given how well he is handling the media over this reshuffle. Imagine 4-6 weeks of a GE campaign with him in charge....0
-
Number one is also good, hitting two hot buttons in one sentence.AlastairMeeks said:@RichardNabavi will appreciate this:
http://www.parryphernalia.com/?page_id=1019
I particularly like number 11.0 -
@JGForsyth: Shad Cab folks backing Dugher have simple, effective, option at their disposal if they think Corbyn behaving unfairly: withdraw their labour
@VickiYoung01: Several shadow cabinet members tweeted support for sacked colleague Michael Dugher but none has resigned in protest #reshuffle
No shit...0 -
You just answered your own questionJonCisBack said:
Yeah, 118 was supposed to be stabler wasn't it? Apparently (hat tip Wikipedia) it's ~ 1 millisecond half life is "longer than predicted" (!!)BannedInParis said:
I think the first few synthetic elements were a bit of a "wow" moment - it was the fulfillment of a good centuries work.JonCisBack said:
Genuine question - why is that of any interest whatsoever?david_herdson said:
2016 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 7flightpath01 said:
You see - ? This is where the study of numbers and their beauty is so important, because I haven't a clue what you are talking about.david_herdson said:On numerical matters, 2016 is the first year since 2000 to be the product of only single-digit prime factors.
It reminds me of the "new" elements they have created the odd atom of which we heard about yesterday - just WHY??
And I have a doctorate in chemistry....
In terms of the newer ones - they're almost like stamp collecting. Although it is impressive that they can do enough chemistry on those odd atoms to confirm the discoveries. If a 'stable island' is found, then that would be spectacular news.
Which brings me back to WHY...
0 -
We know one thing about the PLP, they don't have a backbone between them. They will spend the next 2 months moaning over their pints in the boozers around Westminster about all of this and that will be it.Scott_P said:@JGForsyth: Shad Cab folks backing Dugher have simple, effective, option at their disposal if they think Corbyn behaving unfairly: withdraw their labour
@VickiYoung01: Several shadow cabinet members tweeted support for sacked colleague Michael Dugher but none has resigned in protest #reshuffle
No shit...0 -
I continue to look forward to the Labour leader's comments on the 100th anniversary of the Easter rising. They should make the grid for the 2016 election round make for particularly enjoyable reading.FrancisUrquhart said:Seamus Milne must be in line for a performance bonus given how well he is handling the media over this reshuffle. Imagine 4-6 weeks of a GE campaign with him in charge....
0 -
The big question - does Corbyn have a replacement lined up for Dugher?0
-
@SnoozeInBrief: Truly, he was the people's Michael Dugher.alex. said:The big question - does Corbyn have a replacement lined up for Dugher?
0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
