blandy

There's actually a lot to go on in a positive sense in your post. As others have said, you're a bright bloke, and then you like and get on with people you work with, you enjoy helping customers. It sounds like a heck of a good starting point for an employer. Then on top of that there will be stuff that you've done/got a background in which is hugely transferable - you've demonstrated an ability to work with, understand, implement and follow procedures and protocols, to form informed judgements and then follow through on them. To communicate well with "the public". You've worked with mathematical and financial issues and handled that responsibility on a daily basis. You've reported upwards succinctly and clearly. Not knowing which specific industry or line of work you'd like to follow in next isn't a big deal. It's the norm. "I'm used to this, but not sure I want to keep doing it, or what I'd want to do next" is probably the mindset of about 50% of the working, or seeking work, population. I don't know you well enough from here to say "you'd make a great [job type]", but I do know you're one of "the smart ones". A smart person with people skills is an asset in a wide range of jobs.

I thought it was genuinely a very sharp quip, as a response to "Wealthy people aren’t stupid or greedy" "Take it you're broke" was a witty retort relating to the alleged stupidity and greed. I would have been chuffed if I'd thought of it, and I'd hope that Xann would know I was kidding about, as he's easily smart enough to spot a quip. [edit] it seems it wasn't that clever. I will reset my opinion of Vive's wit to grade "F" [/edit]

IIRC a very adjacent poster proposed the thread should be titled in similar vein to the baby eating thread

My analogy isn't perfect, I accept that. I think when I wrote that, I was trying to express that a set of rules on how much a club can spend are not a means of earning money (as had been claimed). A limit on spending is just that. I d agree with your implied point that it helps cement (in the Premier league) the richest clubs (those with the extra Euro TV income) in place, because it (broadly) says "you can't spend more than you earn, but if you earn more, you can spend it"

It has, you’re right. We could go into proportional representation, but that’s a tangent. I’m in favour, but like I say, off topic.

Close, Sid. As the crossword clues go, 1 across.

100% right.

It isn't. More people cureently, even with all this Brexit bobbins, view immigration as positive than negative. 45% think it's positive, 31% negative and the rest unsure/don't know (jan 2109)

Because of first past the post and so many safe seats - for example where I live now has always been Tory. Huge majority of tory voters. It voted leave by 54% to 46%. Labour and Lib Dems tend to come second, alternating and usually each 10,000 or so votes behind the tory. The Tory MP in the past has been exposed by the papers for various "lifestyle" things - rent boys and drugs. Did it affect the majority? - not one bit. He'll get in again whatever happens with Brexit. It's the same in so many different constituencies - they'll stay Labour, stay Tory and so really there's only a minority of seats up for actual grabs, Labour and the tories will start with eachhaving about 180 - 200 seast minuimum guaranteed as theirs. the other 200 will be shared around. the SNP will romp home in Scotland, so that's a max of 150 seats in play for all the rest of the parties - Plain Cymru in Wales, Lib Dems, Greens, Brexit, UKIP, Tory and Labour. The Brexit party cannot remotely "win". It is impossible.

That's true. But if you're in somewhere that recieves a lot of, say, seasonal or all year round , low paid EU workers, then unless the extra money the Nation recieves from those EU workers is directed back to that area, not, say London Cross-rail, then the benefit isn't seen, but the pressures on the NHS, school places, housing etc in that area are felt, with no action or money spent to improve life for the people (immigrants and locals) there. That's been a big failing.

What I was thinking, (as a lay-idiot) is that it gives Johnsona get out along the following lines - because Parliament passed this amendment to the bill telling him to ask for an extension, and that the amendment requires parliament to hold a debate and vote on May's agreement (as might be amended by MPs - for example to include staying in the CU, or whatever) "I, Boris Johnson bring forward this debate and vote to today, nth October so that parliament/I the PM can say to my EU colleagues "this is what we want, this passed a parliamentary vote, so it will go through if you give it to me, now" and then the EU will do some words about Political agreement will yes, indeeed cater for most of those desires, and Johnson's got his get out of jail card there. I'm a numpty, though, so I could be completely barking up the wrong tree.

I bet it does (unless there's an election). Post or pre the mid October EU summit - Johnson could come back, and say "this (the DWA, plus whatever froth tweaks are garnished around it) is what's available. Vote on it, to leave the EU by the 31st October, like we promised."

I have a more cynical take. Mine is that the "accidental" lack of tellers at the count of the vote on the Kinnock amendment (bring back May's deal for another looking at and vote) was utterly deliberate. Once that was in the Bill to go to the Lords, that was going to be extensively filibustered, the ned to filibuster it went away. They did a bit of filibustering so as not to arouse suspiscion, but that's all. By a mix of accident and cunning once the accident happened, Johnson has got his escape route now. All the election stuff, the stop/allow no deal stuff - he doesn't need it any more for the core aim of his plan - get a deal, of some sort, back to the Commons to be voted on, go through and then call an election. It's not foolproof of course, the commons might again reject the May deal, then he's be up poo creek again, but his bet, I reckon was always that if he got something for them to vote on, they'd cave. If no deal is blocked, then there's the risk that May's dela can also be blocked with less risk by the rest of the MPs and Johnson sent back to ask for a better deal. Which is sort of where we were when he took over. Snakes and ladders, with an awful lot of snakes in cabinet.

There’s all kinds of risks. I’m not for a minute saying I think he’s right, or whatever, just how I think he’s behaving. He’s an absolute word removed.

That's saved Johnson, utterly suits his aims and skewers Labour and the remainers. Clearly deliberate. Johnson has his parachute. I think he's always wanted to put a tweaked May deal to a vote and win it based on pressuring the EU with the no deal rubbish, and pressuring MPs with the election threat. He messed all that up, both of those by not having a clue about the EU and the proroguing which hacked off the MPs so badly. He needed get-out, and that's it. Handed to him by Kinnock's amendment and then some shenanigans and quick thinking by (presumably) his advisor(s). Utterly dodgy, in character and it'll most likely work in the long term, unless the Lords get rid of that amendment, which I wonder if they will - suspect not. Johnson will stay in Gov't, or if there's an election post a "deal" Brexit, then he'll win. Prior to a deal Brexit, he'd get a beasting.

He's just lashing out, isn't he?

He and his Danish wife lived and worked in Switzerland. When she wanted to progress in Danish politics, she said they had a family home in Denmark (as you would) on her website. Personally I think you're looking at the actions (in this instance) of the wife and pointing at him. The Kids thing - yeah exactly. Plenty to go at him for.

I'm unsure if that's sarcastic or genuine, and if sarcastic, aimed at me or Corbyn? Just in case, what I mean is that when you combine his genuine feelings about injustice and posho tories wrecking things, with a strategic approach that has been thought through for him, by people who are actually good at that stuff, rather than him having to think on his feet (which he's terrible at) or rely on the "advice" of his closest advisors (which keeps getting him into trouble), then he can come across pretty well, as he has done the past 2 days.

There's plenty to go at him for, but that's not one of them.

He's not picking his nose and eating it, he was removing, cleaning and re-installing his brain.

Not so sure about that. The Everton game crowd was announced as 41,922 and although the seats for us lot were "Sold Out", the full attendance including all exec seats, boxes, media etc. looked to have quite a few unsold empty seats that might take it just over 42K.

Two days in a row, he's done well. I think it helps when he's able to talk about things he's genuine about, when combined with having a strategy thought up for him not by his closer advisers, but by wiser ones from the wider party. And then that compared with Johnson's lying, evasion and bull makes Corbyn look a decent performer.

They don't need to relegate it to an hour long current affairs niche programme - it's on the News and in all the papers every day!

You might be right, but the way I look at it is the more "hard Brexit" the tories go, the lower the number of MPs they'll get, because while they will pick up votes from throbbers, they'll lose them from people who are OK with a soft Brexit, but who don't want the massive damage of no deal, or who vote tory normally, despite being pro EU. Or basically, "hard Brexiters" have always and will always be a small minority, so going for their votes will cost more than it gains.

I wonder a bit about this. The tories, it seems are going for a "UKIP" look. Anyone non-UKIPy will be purged. To me that doesn't bode well for their election prospects. Also, Labour is still, currently, "a Leave party", though a mightlily confused one, at that. They say that they want to do a negotiation with the EU, reach a new "softer" deal, then hold a referendum on that deal - Labour Brexit v Remain. Would they support their own deal, or would they support remain? Well they're not going to oppose their own negotiated deal...so they are still heading down an avenue that is "Leave". I know FPTP, but you can't but wonder that even if they abandon their ludicrous position and go with what their members and vast majority of their voter s want and change to "Remain", whether they will be trusted. There's a huge gap in the market for genuine remain parties. A fractured Tory party, a Labour party with a befuddled, non-credible policy on the key issue of the election being called - the outcome of the election could be both the tories and Labour getting a shoeing, and the more minor parties gaining a fair bit, resulting in a minority government, much smaller minority than now, Johnson gone, Corbyn gone, throbbers gone and a sort of vote by vote basis alignment of smaller parties and a new labour leader. Because if Labour's vote share and number of MPs goes down, he'd have to go. Counting on Corbyn is and always has been (IMO) utter folly. But each to their own, etc. we all see things differently.