shurlock

Not the benefits office or wherever it was. I asked have you worked in central government or Whitehall? Because if you had worked in it, you would know that if Rutnam was as incompetent as claimed, there is absolutely no way he would have risen through the ranks to become Permanent Secretary. For better or worse, Whitehall is risk-averse when it comes to promotions: competence, integrity and a safe pair of hands trump virtually everything else. Of course what all this has to do with Patel’s alleged bullying and lying is beyond me. Let’s see how his claim for unfair dismissal goes.

For someone who claims to read a broad spectrum of media sources, it’s amusing how you cite with unerring regularity sources that reflect only a tiny part of that spectrum. Btw any article that singles out a Permanent Secretary’s pay which is pittance given the responsibility and complexity of the role and compares it to the PM’s pay is an automatic red flag in my book. It is a textbook example of an apple and oranges comparison and simply cheap, rabble-raising populist shlock. Of course you wouldn’t know any better. Can I ask: have you ever worked in central government?

As I say, desperate even by your blinkered standards Les. And if you’re going to write a hit piece (never mind the classic “unnamed sources”), why not focus on the issues at hand? Conservative Home? Another cracking source of objectivity and nonpartisanship there

Would have started KWP and played JWP in his best position (as was the consensus around me in the ground). Don’t buy this not match fit nonsense - just assumed that RH wanted to keep together last week’s winning side (which had as much to do with the opposition). Even though JWP had a good game, he still showed limitations as a fullback (he was partly responsible for their first and was done for pace a few times, including a decent chance for Haller who should have scored from a close header). As it turned out, most of Wham’s best attacks went down the middle rather than the flanks - often with one simple ball. As such shoring up the middle was a greater priority than the wings. The Villa game flattered Smallbone - playing Wham was always going to be a different proposition. Although he was tidy enough on the ball, he struggled with the pace and power of Wham. Needless to say Hojbjerg did him few favours. Wham were able to exploit the same mismatch over and over without having to break much sweat as we didn’t change shape/personnel or respond until it was too late. Clearly McCarthy was guilty for the second goal, though I was already angry in the buildup by Stephens and Bednarek’s play - they let a simple lofted ball bounce and Haller beat both of them. The chance should have been cut off way before McCarthy’s howler.

Because a hit piece by the Mail tells the full story? That’s desperate even by your standards, Les.

How **** was Hojbjerg. We really need an athletic and powerful CM in the summer.

See Javid is speaking a few home truths.

I think too many paper clips go missing in the NHS - if only we could cut down on that as well pal.

“E. Jean Carroll, a New York-based writer who last summer accused President Trump of raping her in the 1990s, requested Thursday that he submit a DNA sample to determine whether his genetic material is on the black coat dress she said she was wearing during the alleged assault” https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fpolitics%2f2020%2f01%2f30%2ftrump-dna-sought%2f Piece of pîss this game, isn’t it little fella.

Bless your little cotton socks.

#grabthembythepussy

Which EU official ever said that Les?

Tell us what you really think Frostie: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/dont-panic-heres-how-brexit-can-make-britain-can-be-a-great-trad/

They’re different types of error Les: one is a prediction that turned out to be wrong; the other is a claim that involved elements that were objectively and factually wrong at the time it was made e.g. import tariffs are never ever levied on retail prices which was the basis of the IEA/DT’s calculation.

Pat Nevin is very good.

Perhaps the Telegraph should write an essay on their costs and benefits - if it did, it might be able to tell it’s arse from its elbow instead of pumping out falsehoods lapped up by its swivel-eyed readership. Do you read the DT Les? This correction from today:

So no answers then and hardly ringing endorsement of the UK’s leverage in these negotiations. Guess talk is cheap. I asked you specifically about the benefits of nontariff, nonquota FTAs that the UK hopes to to strike not only with the EU but with other countries.

I thought the first episode of the new series of “this country” was decent (‘white dennis rodman’). Enjoyed the tribute to Slugs.

I can’t stand Guy Mowbray as a commentator.

Well you’ve never sat in on any high-level strategy meetings at the BBC, drawing on polling, consultations and regulatory reviews. The BBC cannot be indifferent to audience numbers.

I’m asking you - over hundreds of pages, you and fellow Brexiters have repeatedly played up our bargaining power - you mentioned the massive trade surplus in goods the EU enjoys and the fact we’re now ready to walk away if necessary in your last few posts, so must have some views on how we can make these ‘advantages’ count and what they can get us in return? And what is your reading on the economic impact of nontariff, nonquota FTAs? You dismiss my view, so you must have some basis for that confidence. As I say, this has nothing to do with Brexit or the UK going it alone as presumably the UK will be signing similar FTAs with other countries around the world.

Exactly. And if the BBC focussed on high-quality, distinctive programming -that have other public benefits and might be underprovided by the commercial market; the usual suspects would be in uproar that it wasn’t watched enough or was too elitist - hence the BBC has always had to combine distinctive programming with more populist output that aims for a wider reach - your Strictlys etc, not least because the BBC hopes it’s brand will be a gateway to that distinctive programming. Needless to say this isn’t satisfactory to the usual suspects either who complain the BBC is aping it’s more commercial competitors - the unspoken assumption being that the BBC should produce programmes that are simultaneously distinctive and extremely popular. Such programmes exist but they are incredibly elusive - that the BBC fails to hit on more of these shows is certainly not for a want of trying Anyone who pretends otherwise and blithely calls for more of this output frankly doesn’t have a clue how creative and cultural markets work. As a result the organisation will always have to juggle competing interests and make trade-offs that will end up offending someone.

Still not answering the question then. How will the UK use its much vaunted leverage? Will the UK government be able to use it to secure permanent equivalence as it is currently demanding? Finally what is your reading of the general economic literature on the impacts and benefits of nontariff, nonquota FTAs that the UK wishes to strike with countries around the world? Note that this assessment has nothing to do with Brexit or the UK going it alone as you wrongly imply. Take your blinkers off, it’s simply about the source and magnitude of trade frictions in a global economy where average tariffs are already very low.

Michael Owen, Dwight Yorke and Niall Quinn.

Roy Keane doing an impression of Roy Keane. His shtick is entertaining enough but his analysis is boring as ****, consisting of attacking the lack of leaders, characters, hunger, desire. Guess he’s marmite and absolutely adored by the “get it forward” crowd.