RoverAndOut

Ditto. It seemed a decent bet last year that Goldsmith might win, but I'm also bemused that for some reason I didn't just give myself a 50/50 chance by putting a Labour person in there who might run too. I'm assuming I must have thought it was going to go to Tessa Jowell, who is no longer in Parliament, because otherwise I'm just a moron. So, we're due a Tory death, then. Is fat-as-fuck Nicholas Soames still an MP? How does his heart keep going with that blubber and those furred arteries? He appeared on a documentary I watched recently...possibly Nick Robinson's about the EU Referendum and he's clearly lost weight. He's still not a small man, but compared with his previous heft it's a fair amount. Various stories on the internet about him cutting out certain things in his diet but no actual numbers on how much he's lost. Told the Sunday Times to 'fuck off' when they asked him about it. Not going soon I don't think. That said, I - and 10 others - have picked him in the by-election bingo, so I won't be too dismayed if he does keel over. In other news, Stewart Hosie, philandering Treasury spokesman for the Westminster SNP, is to stand down as deputy leader of the party in the autumn. Perhaps he may yet be forced out of politics altogether?

Watched the BBC documentary 'Alfie's Boys' tonight celebrating 50 years since the World Cup victory. Here's what I can say: Ray Wilson was only shown in interview clips from a 20th anniversary documentary in 1986, with clips from that also being used to tell stories from Bobby Moore and Alan Ball's point of view. Nobby Stiles' children contributed on behalf of their father, who also appeared in archive clips, but always seemed to refer to him in the past tense, which I assumed meant he was already dead and I'd just forgotten (this thread has put me right) but clearly he's not in a great way. Contributions came from: Jack Charlton (looked in decent health and still remembered plenty of stories) Bobby Charlton (may have just been me but appeared to have the tiniest hint of an uncontrollable shake about him - family weren't so sure when I mentioned it afterwards, what does anyone else think?) Geoff Hurst (looks absolutely fine) Roger Hunt (fine) Gordon Banks (seems in good humour and fair health, still got opinions and stories) George Cohen (seems fine) Martin Peters (looks the most likely of those seen to go in my book. Told a few stories but seemed quite weak and quiet when compared to the others) There were also contributions from Jimmy Greaves (who looks very well considering his recent health problems, no idea if he can walk, they were all just shown sat talking to the camera), Ian Callaghan (fine), Norman Hunter (fine) and Jimmy Armfield (looks great for his age). Nothing from Bonetti, Flowers, Paine or Eastham. I've not linked this back to tabloid stories and rumours about their health, simply based it on what I saw tonight. Clearly Wilson and Stiles are in bad shape, and Peters didn't look great. I think they've all been touted to have issues in the press. Banks and Jack Charlton don't seem too bad yet and most of the rest are still pretty fighting fit. Greavsie even made a joke we'd be proud of suggesting they need to start a sweepstake on who will be the last man standing, as it will be quite an accolade. Link here to the documentary on iPlayer. 90 minutes and well worth a watch if you're interested in football, or just want to get a head start on researching the 2017 deathpools...

Would they not count as 'retired' members of the House of Lords? As for a ruling - not saying I've decided on one yet but I'm researching - do retired Bishops (who sit in the House of Lords) count as retired members? Scratch that, having done some more digging, it seems members of the Lords Spiritual are made life peers upon their retirement from the clergy, but seemingly only Archbishops of Canterbury or York, so I guess the question remains for former Lords Bishops who are no longer peers?

Would they not count as 'retired' members of the House of Lords? As for a ruling - not saying I've decided on one yet but I'm researching - do retired Bishops (who sit in the House of Lords) count as retired members?

Kentucky Democratic Primary: Clinton: 46.8% Sanders: 46.3% Oregon Democratic Primary: Sanders: 53% Clinton: 47% Trump won the Oregon Republican Primary with about 60% of the vote, for what it's worth. He's still not yet reached 1237 but it will happen on June 7th for certain. As you were. Nothing's changed. Bernie will pull back a handful of delegates but Hillary still has 3 million more votes and 300-odd more delegates. Tonight, including superdelegates, she will move within 100 delegates of the nomination. In other words, she will unofficially secure the nomination on June 7th, even if she loses every state that day, which she won't. It was at that precise moment in 2008 that she conceded the race to Senator Obama, but chances are Sanders won't do that. I've listened to Sanders speech tonight, and was frankly astonished. Change the blue placards for red ones and the white hair for a bad wig and it could easily have been a Trump rally. Sure the message was slightly different, but it was so angry. The crowd were closer to a mob than an audience, the booing at any mention of the probable nominee, and lifelong Democrat, not to mention the vitriol being thrown at the party itself (this is a man running for the Democratic nomination for President who as far as I can see HATES the Democratic party) is making it increasingly difficult to see how the Democrats can unite. Bernie shows no sign of wanting to start reconciling the party, moreover he seems keen to stoke the fire as much as possible. How does he think this is going to end? Does he intend to intimidate the superdelegates into changing to him? Because that's not going to happen. Hillary will be the nominee. Bernie struck me as a principled man, always has. But the further into this campaign we've got the more unpleasant the tone has got. Hillary has given him a lot of leeway, a lot of rope. She knows what it's like to be up against the wall, to be competitive but to never bridge the gap, and she's let him run his campaign. His response has been to keep hammering her (which is fine), but furthermore, to claim the votes are stitched up, that it's not fair (even though the rules were the rules when he entered the race) and that the Democratic party is rigged for the Establishment. He also hammers Donald Trump, but quite how hammering the only party that can defeat Trump makes sense I'll never know. Final thought: Sanders still plugging the line of how the average contribution to the campaign is $27. Has been doing since January. Now I'm no maths expert but unless people are specifically giving him $27 now because of this claim, my guess is it's no longer true, it's either gone up or down. But hey, everyone knows it's $27 so why get wrapped up in the semantics eh?

Warren isn't going to tag along with this slug. She's got an actual head on her shoulders and someone I would like to see in 4 years. She stayed outta the fray due to the anointing of Hillary which was obvious. She's Presidential material not VP remora.The whole point of VP is to lock down some votes the primary candidate may miss. Hillary could use some reassurance in that MD/VA/NC region and I think either of the senators from Virginia would be a perfect fit. Tim Kaine's name is out there, though if it were me I'd lean toward Warner, so I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for Tim Kaine as her most logical pick of the names that are out there. SirC But doesn't Warren bring in Bernie's people enabling Hilary to tackle the middle ground? She'd also pretty much tie up the women's vote which after all is half of the voters. Tie up the women's vote? Any woman voting for a conservative is nothing more than -- as so beautifully put in Soylent Green -- 'furniture'. I should hope she's not concerned about losing too many female voters. SC I still think Kaine is most likely for Clinton but Warren is proving very effective at going after Trump and having her right in the middle of the campaign would be a good idea, even if not as VP. Alternative might be Treasury Secretary but I'd imagine her views are too different from Hillary's to make that possible. As for women voting for the conservative, plenty of women do vote conservative. Security is a massive women's issue: women worried for their young kids, worried about their sons and daughters in the military being sent into foreign conflicts, fears only being further stoked by Trump. That said, Hillary won't be focusing too much on the women's vote; the first female president and a career of arguing for women's rights will see her lock up most of the female vote. Her problem is more with securing enough men's votes, particularly white men, which is probably the argument against her picking Warren. She needs a man on the ticket, America isn't ready for two women yet. I think they're barely ready for one frankly, which is sad. One thing for sure, it won't be Bernie.

I don't hear it as derisory - I think she seemed genuinely pleased. The same with the Tesco voucher this week. The Queen has a reputation for being quite frugal, so it seems she has a firm grasp on the value of money and enjoys a little windfall as much as the rest of us. Oh don't get me wrong, I think she enjoys the thrill of winning as much as the next monarch, I'm just curious what HM is going to find to spend £50 on in Tesco. Buck Pal refused to comment on who will actually spend the money. I'm sure I saw a clip from the documentary that she stopped from ever airing in full again where she went to the local shop and paid for whatever she was buying in cash. It was in the 1969 documentary Royal Family. She popped into a corner shop near Balmoral with Prince Edward. She shopped there on a regular basis and the shop was awarded a royal warrant. https://youtu.be/PNgO31HUiFM?t=136 You're quite the royal expert Cat. I'm familiar with the 'scandalous' 1969 documentary, hence I was so surprised she allowed such intimate access for her 40th Jubilee. I seem to recall reading somewhere that among the things she keeps in her handbag (lipstick, tissues, etc.) is a small quantity of change. You know, just in case...

I don't hear it as derisory - I think she seemed genuinely pleased. The same with the Tesco voucher this week. The Queen has a reputation for being quite frugal, so it seems she has a firm grasp on the value of money and enjoys a little windfall as much as the rest of us. Oh don't get me wrong, I think she enjoys the thrill of winning as much as the next monarch, I'm just curious what HM is going to find to spend £50 on in Tesco. Buck Pal refused to comment on who will actually spend the money.

Never seen this before but what a great clip! The smirk at the end was brilliant. This seems surprisingly intimate access, especially in the tricky times of the early 90s for The Firm. Anyone know what prompted it and what the documentary was actually about? On a similar theme, Her Majesty has today won a voucher to spend in Tesco (thought to be a whopping £50) at the Royal Windsor Horse Show.

So, the premiership isn't in the football league? It's some sort of separate entity? Which you get into by winning the league below*, which is in fact the top of the entire football league.... ok. *though it isn't 'below' is it? It can't be since it's the top of the entire football league, it must be a sort of sideways move. 1,2,3,4 never seemed so appealing simple before now . But you're still thinking about it in general sporting terms. The Premiership as well as the Championship and Leagues One and Two form the "English professional football league pyramid", as in a "league of football". The Premier League is managed separately from the Football League, which comprises the other three leagues. That's how the Football League season finished this weekend, yet the Premier League season still has a week to run. Every level of English football is then under the purview of the Football Association, but beyond that the leagues organise themselves, with TV deals, merchandise, fixture lists, ticketing, financial fair play rules, etc. In the pre-Premier League days the Football League was in charge of all the top four divisions, inspiringly named Divisions 1, 2, 3 and 4. Then the top clubs broke away and formed their own league and called it the Premier League. There are those who would prefer the Premiership be more like an American sports league, where teams never change and there is no promotion or relegation, but the vast majority realise this would never be accepted so promotion and relegation to and from the Football League occurs every season. We haven't even touched on the fact that what I grew up with as the "GM Vauxhall Conference" spent about 4 seasons as the "Blue Square Premier Division", meaning you could be relegated from the Premier League and 4 seasons later be in the Premier Division. At least National League makes a little more sense.

It's different numbers of teams in the divisions though. It's not that confusing with regards to the tiers that marginally matter. Premier League Championship League One League Two National League National League North + National League South Isthmian League + Northern Premier League + Southern Premier League I think that list speaks for itself. If you think that's confusing here's the entire pyramid - all the way down to Mid-Sussex Football League - Division Ten. (Level 23, i.e it would take a team in this division 22 promotions to reach the Premier League but they can do it.) Basically once you get to the national league it's just ever decreasing geographical areas with some of the larger ones having several divisions. Yes, that's all fine. What I object to is the top divisions being given fancy names as though they are separate from the system. The so-called Premiership is the League Division One, and the so-called Championship is League Division Two. < wanders away muttering about how it were when I were a nipper > Technically the Premier League isn't League Division 1. That's how this all started: the 'best' clubs broke away and formed their own "Premier" league and the Football League was reduced to three divisions named, accordingly, Divisions 1, 2 and 3. I can't explain the "Championship" rebrand, except that I assume the feeling was 'Championship' was sexier than 'Division 1'. I believe I'm right in saying the Championship teams still play for the same Division 1 trophy Liverpool had a monopoly on in the 80s, though I'm sure someone will put me straight if that's not the case.

Looked absolutely fine and sharp as a tack on his 90th birthday interview on the Beeb. Still working hard with more programmes in the works and, unlike our 'fit as a fiddle' monarch, is still travelling all over the world (as far afield as Argentina and Australia in the last 12 months alone). Not going anywhere soon I don't think. May well make 100. Also worth noting - and here's as good as place as any - during a montage of birthday wishes to the great man came one from Dame Jane Goodall (the chimp lady for the unfamiliar) who herself is 82. Equally fighting fit from the looks of it. It seems naturalism is an agreeable lifestyle. I'll leave the wags amongst you to manipulate that sentence to your satisfaction...

Now that he is the only remaining Republican candidate, who else would Dole support? Perhaps Bernie for the LOLs? And why would people care about whom a 93 year-old, senile unsuccessful presidential candidate supports? It's notable because the only two former Republican presidents still breathing, as well as the other two failed Republican nominees have all refused to endorse Trump. And however old, or potentially senile, Bob Dole, he is one of the true elders if the Republican party. His endorsement, or lack thereof, is significant in the civil war currently engulfing the Republican party.

I was aware of the Ogmore by-election but as it didn't impact the game I didn't mention it. No result yet from London? As if you denied us the drama of the Ogmore by-election! Nothing definitive from London yet, but they've nearly finished counting first preference votes and Khan's apparently got a sizeable lead.

A by-election that appears to have passed us by occurred tonight, not that it matters one jot as nobody had him. Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore) has taken the unusual step of standing down from Westminster in order to stand as a Member of the Welsh Assembly. He was succeeded by Chris Elmore, a local councillor who won with 52% of the vote. No word yet on whether Mr Irranca-Davies succeeded in his move, but I'm guessing he probably will. In the expected by-election in Sheffield Brightside, Harry Harpham's widow, Gill Furniss has won his seat by a comfortable margin, thus meaning Labour held the seat. Hadn't realised that Harpham had been in the job less than a year, having succeeded David Blunkett at the last general election. He had staying power. Back up to the full complement for the time being, I'm guessing Tooting will be our next port of call...

Ok, I've stayed out of the game for a few weeks, largely because I had little to add that hadn't already been said and all I could have said is that if Trump wins Indiana he'll get to 1237, which the last 48 hours has proven. As for the Democrats, Bernie will not beat Hillary whatever he may claim. He could win every remaining state 55-45 (a larger margin than he won by on Tuesday) and he still won't overtake her delegate count. His hope then is to convince superdelegates to support him not her to put him over the top, but why would they? Hillary is the lifelong Democrat (and yes wags, I know she was a Republican briefly at college), many of them feel they 'owe' her for shafting her in favour of Obama in 2008 and there is also a school of thought that the process has been kind on Bernie thus far, he won't stand up to the barrage that will come at him once he's the nominee. So in short, it's definitely Trump v Clinton. So what happens next? With time to spare before the Republican convention (meaning the anti-Trumps already know he's the nominee), they have time to consider their next move. The ideologically conservative wing of the Republican party are broadly divided into four camps: the reluctant supporters (such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), the 'I'm With Hers' who'll support Hillary over Trump, those hoping for a third party challenge from a conservative (and I don't mean someone like Gary Johnson, it would have to be a heavyweight, or at least a solid Republican) and then there are those who simply won't vote on election day. All three of the latter options will help Hillary, the question is how many people that will eventually apply to. The first poll since he became the presumptive nominee has him starting out with a 13-point deficit (54-41) to Clinton, although it is far too early to give an accurate rating. I'm telling you now no third party candidate will win this election. A third party conservative, an 'establishment Republican' if you will, is not going to tempt many independents and liberals to their cause, they'll only take Republican votes away from Trump. You could liken it to 1992 (incidentally when Hillary's husband won of course), when the roles were reversed: Republican establishment President George H.W. Bush was harmed by the ultra competitive businessman Ross Perot being in the race, allowing Clinton to win the presidency with only 43% of the popular vote. This time, the businessman is the Republican candidate and there may be an establishment challenge as a third party. The problem is finding someone to run. Anyone who has a future in the Republican party cannot run against it this time, limiting the desirable options. The best option is someone who's finished in politics, but John Boehner (the former Speaker of the House) quite likes Trump and hates Cruz. It may come down to whether the Never Trumps can convince Romney to run, but he won't be a very exciting proposition. Looking ahead: VP choices are coming round the bend, and everyone is particularly interested to see who Trump picks, as it's essentially his first 'governing decision'. Trump himself says he wants a politician, someone to grease the skids with Congress and ensure his plans get through, which is not a bad idea. His problem is finding someone prepared to run on a Trump-someone ticket. Kasich has all the experience you could ask for, but really doesn't seem keen on Trump, so it's hard to see him picking him. There is a school of thought which says picking a Washington insider damages Trump's outsider brand, and therefore he should pick another outsider to run alongside him. Names I heard last night were some General whose name I can't remember, or Robert Gates, the Republican and former Obama Defence Secretary, both of whom would give Trump some foreign policy experience to maybe sure up some of the fears people have there. But who knows? He might pick his son Eric as VP for all we know. Hillary seems to be leaning towards Tim Kaine, the Virginia Senator and former Virginia Governor as her running mate. A bold choice would be Elizabeth Warren, but pundits think Hillary is more interested in governing than campaigning and wants a VP that will suit her well in office (she was impressed with Obama's choice of Joe Biden as VP and their relationship in office), and she and Warren may clash on various issues, as well as the frankly ludicrous idea that apparently two women think they can run America... (just imagine!) And then, before you know it, we're in September and the election campaign is well under way. Lots of discussion of the political map. In 2012, Obama beat Romney 332-206 in the Electoral College, with 270 needed to be president. This means Clinton starts with a built-in advantage that Trump would have to overturn. Trump thinks he's competitive in New York (29 electoral votes) but it's pie in the sky to think he can win there. His big hope is the so-called 'Rust Belt' of former industrial states who've been hurt by trade deals and the sorts of things Trump is talking about. Many are unsure he can really win many of these places, but if he was to win Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18) and Michigan (16), that's a net gain of 54 (108 when you consider the loss to Clinton), which would leave it delicately poised at 278-260, meaning one more sizeable swing state to Trump (say, Florida) and he'd be President. If it gets really interesting, if Trump wins Ohio and Michigan but not Pennsylvania, and also then wins Florida, we'd be tied at 269-269 and it all gets really crazy. But there are other things to consider. John McCain (Senator from Arizona who's up for re-election this year) is quite concerned that his state, with it's sizeable Latino population may be competitive this year for the Democrats. That would be 11 votes the Republicans would be losing. Similarly, Georgia has a huge African-American population. If the ultra conservatives down there don't bother voting, or vote for a third option, and the Dems can convince huge numbers of African-Americans to turn out, then Georgia could go Democratic for the first time since Clinton in 1992 (that three-man race) and Carter in 1980 (who was the state's governor). That would be another 16 votes to Hillary over Trump. Arizona plus Georgia would be 27 votes which negates the gain of Florida...and so on and so on. The map could be extremely unpredictable this year, or it could end up pretty much the same as it did in 2012. A CNN poll last night showed that Hillary is doing better than Obama with all the key demographics of the so-called 'Obama coalition' (the group of voters who won Obama two elections), even up a couple of points with African-Americans, so she has a built-in firewall right now. The election is going to be ugly and bitter, but Hillary knows how to fight in the dirt. We may just be left wondering how many people will stand in the voting booth and think 'I can't pull that lever for a man who I have no idea what he will do' and how many will think 'How bad can it be? I'm with Donald'. That could well decide this election.

Well fingers crossed the winner drops dead between now and his inauguration!

Aside from the fact I don't really fancy running the game, this sounds like great fun! And, like you Biblio, I could come up with enough names off the bat for all categories. But if you don't mind, I'll do a little research and get back to you. But I'm in!

Likewise Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative candidate who is MP for Richmond Park. Sadiq Khan is MP for Tooting. While Boris has done the last year of his mayorship while also being an MP, I can't see either of them doing the same thing until 2020 so a by-election is virtually guaranteed. There is vested interest in the outcome, by my calculations 3 people (Rockhopper, The Engineer, VoYM) have Khan, while no less than 8 people (Deathray, Handrejka, msc, time, Maryport, Dead Cow, Manuel and myself) have Goldsmith. Not sure why there is such a difference, maybe because after the 2015 general election Goldsmith was the only serious challenger for the Conservative nomination for mayor while Labour had Tessa Jowell, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy to name but three..? Will the Voice of Young Maryport come out on top in the Maryport household once again?

Haven't they ever done that? How extraordinary. Seems an obvious moneyspinner. I don't see how. Isn't Eurovision like a 3-4 episode event? Seems like it would be pretty expensive to recruit acts in all 50 states for basically a miniseries. Also the people who like Kitsch/Camp and people who like state jingoism are 2 entirely different demographics in the Us. The Eurovision Song Contest is a single event, not a miniseries. A TV spectacular, a gala occasion. (Unless it's changed, I haven't watched it in years.) In th UK I think we have a preliminary show in which viewers can vote for the song to be performed. This aspect has varied over the years though. I suppose you could have people in each state vote for the artist who would perform the state's entry song, and/or vote for the song itself. As in American Idol or X Factor. That could be a series of programmes, then you have the competition itself. It's clearly transferable to the States. Each state selects it's act during the first few months of the year, by whatever means it likes. It can have a one-off contest, turn it into an X Factor style mini-series, the public might or might not be involved, that's up to the states themselves. 50 is too many for the contest, so as with Eurovision, there would be a random split into 2 semis of 25 (alternatively do it geographically, East and West). People at home vote for their favourites (maybe all 50 states can vote on the semis, maybe only those involved in each semi) and those with the most votes score points, just like Eurovision. Highest 12 points scores in each semi qualify for the final, plus the 13th placed state with the most points from either semi leaving 25 in the final. Same format for the final, leading to an overall winner. Simples. Many people don't watch the Eurovision semis, just the final, so it's up to viewers how involved they get. But if doesn't have to take more than 3 nights over 1 week for the main event. Only issue would be diversity: Is a song from Oregon going to be very different to a song from Florida? The wonder of Eurovision is what passes for music in Montenegro and San Marino...

PR release I saw said only two 1,000/1+ singles have ever come in as a bet in history before this Leicester thing (some guy in the 60s got a 1,000/1 on man walking on the moon before 1970 and a 2,500/1 "my son will play international football" bet for some guy). Can this be true? Is this the famous Chris Kirkland bet? And wasn't it a friend of his father's rather than his father himself?

Just turned up on The One Show, who were doing a piece about Bedknobs and Broomsticks. She was speaking via video link from the US but still looked in fine fettle, old (unsurprisingly) but clearly still with all her faculties.

None at this moment in time, all it means is she's currently sitting as an Independent rather than a Labour MP. But it may lead to her being forced to quit Parliament, which would trigger a by-election. She's been very contrite about it all though, and it has been dug up from before she was an MP. MPs have done and said far worse than this and survived, at least until the end of the Parliament. I'd be surprised if we get a by-election out of this one, which suits me fine as I don't have her.

No complaints about liking a different sort of companion, I was quite looking forward to Victorian Clara being the companion but alas, and they certainly wouldn't have two blokes and no women on the show as a permanent thing. But that said they're not all from London. Amy was unashamedly Scottish and Jenna's a northerner whose character was from Blackpool (admittedly she lived in London the brief times she was actually there). As for the new girl, I believe her only tv was an episode of the daytime soap Doctors and otherwise she's worked exclusively in the theatre, currently touring with a production of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. If the brief clip we saw is anything to go by her character seems very talkative and not the smartest of cookies. But we won't see her properly until 2017 anyway.

Putting the words 'Tina Turner stroke' into Google just brings up a shed-load of 'Tina Turner denies stroke rumours' stories. Make of that what you will. Seems the story originated in Germany but I wouldn't put too much weight into whether it happened or not. Found this story from a year ago that has pics of her out shopping and she looks great for 75. Then again, the last four months have given me much cause to reconsider how I judge the health of various celebrities. See: Bowie, Prince, Rickman...