Europe: just take what it imposes Immigration : let it flow and let all who come claim benefits even if their family is not in the UK. ECHR: Just follow its rulings.
Can you point to where "tough" old Dave has halted any of those things?
No? Nor can I.
But the real point is this:
Europe: We are members - we make the law Immigration: We're in Europe and Dave's pledge like his whole premiership was idiotic ECHR: We make the law
I think Austria would be worse than Italy. Austria's role in the game largely seems to be a warm up blooding before the real conflicts start.
It looks that way but it depends on the players and the diplomacy. Austria is not intrinsically weaker than any other country and has as many strategic options at the opening. Uncle Monty in the first PB 2014 game played Austria to my Turkey and, if Andy Cooke had not stepped in as a substitute France, in the late game would probably have got a solo.
Italy however has very few strategic options and consequently very little it can offer in early negotiations and it can never prosper if Turkey stays in the game - Turkey has to get sufficient forces to the West and Italy stands in the way. Italy is I think the one flaw in the balance of the game. One of Italy's major problems is that it starts with two armies and one fleet but there is little it can do with two armies (especially if Germany has a good player). If that were changed to two fleets and one army then Italy would become a much more viable country to play.
I think Austria would be worse than Italy. Austria's role in the game largely seems to be a warm up blooding before the real conflicts start.
It looks that way but it depends on the players and the diplomacy. Austria is not intrinsically weaker than any other country and has as many strategic options at the opening. Uncle Monty in the first PB 2014 game played Austria to my Turkey and, if Andy Cooke had not stepped in as a substitute France, in the late game would probably have got a solo.
Italy however has very few strategic options and consequently very little it can offer in early negotiations and it can never prosper if Turkey stays in the game - Turkey has to get sufficient forces to the West and Italy stands in the way. Italy is I think the one flaw in the balance of the game. One of Italy's major problems is that it starts with two armies and one fleet but there is little it can do with two armies (especially if Germany has a good player). If that were changed to two fleets and one army then Italy would become a much more viable country to play.
If anyone is up for another game I'll set one up.
I like the variation where get to choose the armies and fleets, and agree about Italy. Statistically it is the worst to play.
I think Austria would be worse than Italy. Austria's role in the game largely seems to be a warm up blooding before the real conflicts start.
It looks that way but it depends on the players and the diplomacy. Austria is not intrinsically weaker than any other country and has as many strategic options at the opening. Uncle Monty in the first PB 2014 game played Austria to my Turkey and, if Andy Cooke had not stepped in as a substitute France, in the late game would probably have got a solo.
Italy however has very few strategic options and consequently very little it can offer in early negotiations and it can never prosper if Turkey stays in the game - Turkey has to get sufficient forces to the West and Italy stands in the way. Italy is I think the one flaw in the balance of the game. One of Italy's major problems is that it starts with two armies and one fleet but there is little it can do with two armies (especially if Germany has a good player). If that were changed to two fleets and one army then Italy would become a much more viable country to play.
If anyone is up for another game I'll set one up.
One note on the setup - Can we have it so that when all moves are finalised the turn moves on ?
I am sure he will. Curtailment of freedom is a signature card of Labour as is increasing the power of an over mighty state.
And the way that hundreds of celebs with trouser and skirt incontinence hid and continue to hide behind one tragic little girl is disgusting. No doubt they will have all donated their damages to a suitable cause in her memory. Or not.
Please list the freedoms which we lost during the years 1997-2010 and which have been restored by the Coalition.
Shocked nobody has attempted to answer this.
Surely must be easy for PB Tories to list the freedoms given back.
Mr. Owls, food bank use has risen every single year since they first seem to have come about in the mid-2000s.
In short, supply has always been exceeded by demand, and they began during the boom years under Blair. It's not a party political issue and we don't know what the ceiling is because it's never yet been reached.
As for cutting the top rate of tax: it's better to have a marginally smaller slice of a larger pie than the reverse. Taxation is there to provide funds for the state, not as a weapon to punish people for having money.
I am sure he will. Curtailment of freedom is a signature card of Labour as is increasing the power of an over mighty state.
And the way that hundreds of celebs with trouser and skirt incontinence hid and continue to hide behind one tragic little girl is disgusting. No doubt they will have all donated their damages to a suitable cause in her memory. Or not.
Please list the freedoms which we lost during the years 1997-2010 and which have been restored by the Coalition.
Shocked nobody has attempted to answer this.
Surely must be easy for PB Tories to list the freedoms given back.
Stopping ID cards, everything else is insignificant after that.
As for cutting the top rate of tax: it's better to have a marginally smaller slice of a larger pie than the reverse.
Doesnt that depend on what you would have done with the money instead? Given the high levels of borrowing I would have thought it would have been better to keep the 50p rate until the Chancellor achieved at least one of his fiscal targets.
An interesting if mistaken claim. The Strasbourg Court has the final say on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Its judgments are binding on Her Majesty's Government in international law, and cannot be overturned, save by the Strasbourg Court. In no sense do '[w]e make the law'.
Mr. Foxinsox, I always feel a bit bad (well, both times) about immediately attacking Austria, but if you're playing as Russia it seems almost inevitable.
Then in a later post you say difficult it was to attack Turkey as Russia. I think the lesson there is if as Russia you want to attack Turkey then don't start by attacking Austria, because that will just allow Turkey time and space to grown stronger.
Mr Dancer again I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I never really understand why working class Tories defend the super rich rights to keep more of their money and to pay lower marginal rates of tax than their cleaners and don't appear to care that more people than ever do not have sufficient food for their kids.
What size of cake could we get if Letwin gets his way
Stopping ID cards, everything else is insignificant after that.
The repeal of the Identity Cards Act 2006 was undoubtedly a good thing. It pales into insignificance, however, given the authoritarian measures passed by the last Labour government which remain on the statute book, some of which have been expanded by the coalition. Furthermore, the 2006 Act was not even fully in force when it was repealed by the Identity Documents Act 2010.
I am sure he will. Curtailment of freedom is a signature card of Labour as is increasing the power of an over mighty state.
And the way that hundreds of celebs with trouser and skirt incontinence hid and continue to hide behind one tragic little girl is disgusting. No doubt they will have all donated their damages to a suitable cause in her memory. Or not.
Please list the freedoms which we lost during the years 1997-2010 and which have been restored by the Coalition.
Shocked nobody has attempted to answer this.
Surely must be easy for PB Tories to list the freedoms given back.
Stopping ID cards, everything else is insignificant after that.
I don't remember needing one. Was my Cineworld Unlimited Card sufficient.
What you really want as Turkey is a strong German-English resistance as you push through the juggernaught with Russia. Strong enough to cause considerable trouble for your Russian friend up north and make for slow, bogged down progress. A strong Germany is good news for Turkey.
Unfortunately in our last game, Germany was completely AWOL.
I think Austria would be worse than Italy. Austria's role in the game largely seems to be a warm up blooding before the real conflicts start.
It looks that way but it depends on the players and the diplomacy. Austria is not intrinsically weaker than any other country and has as many strategic options at the opening. Uncle Monty in the first PB 2014 game played Austria to my Turkey and, if Andy Cooke had not stepped in as a substitute France, in the late game would probably have got a solo.
Italy however has very few strategic options and consequently very little it can offer in early negotiations and it can never prosper if Turkey stays in the game - Turkey has to get sufficient forces to the West and Italy stands in the way. Italy is I think the one flaw in the balance of the game. One of Italy's major problems is that it starts with two armies and one fleet but there is little it can do with two armies (especially if Germany has a good player). If that were changed to two fleets and one army then Italy would become a much more viable country to play.
If anyone is up for another game I'll set one up.
One note on the setup - Can we have it so that when all moves are finalised the turn moves on ?
I deliberately chose the fixed deadline option because I thought it would make NMRs less likely and give more time for, and thus encourage, diplomacy. My reasoning was, I think, sound. The effect less than I might have hoped. Point taken.
"I like the variation where get to choose the armies and fleets ..."
I am not sure that variant is available on PlayDiplomacy.com. Even if it is I would hesitate because I think it could give too big an advantage to experienced players.
I am sure he will. Curtailment of freedom is a signature card of Labour as is increasing the power of an over mighty state.
And the way that hundreds of celebs with trouser and skirt incontinence hid and continue to hide behind one tragic little girl is disgusting. No doubt they will have all donated their damages to a suitable cause in her memory. Or not.
Please list the freedoms which we lost during the years 1997-2010 and which have been restored by the Coalition.
Shocked nobody has attempted to answer this.
Surely must be easy for PB Tories to list the freedoms given back.
Stopping ID cards, everything else is insignificant after that.
I don't remember needing one. Was my Cineworld Unlimited Card sufficient.
Thankfully the Labour government's determination to fine you for failing to tell them every time you change address was foiled.
What you really want as Turkey is a strong German-English resistance as you push through the juggernaught with Russia. Strong enough to cause considerable trouble for your Russian friend up north and make for slow, bogged down progress. A strong Germany is good news for Turkey.
Unfortunately in our last game, Germany was completely AWOL.
Mr. Star, Germany AWOL, not from my perspective he wasn't. At the crucial juncture, which was early in the game, he was aiding and abetting Russia, actually working in cooperation (how he thought he would benefit from that God only knows).
The Juggernaut has to be met early by a united response, when Germany and Italy actually join it the result is inevitable.
Mr. Owls, infected? You bounder, you cad, you rogue and rapscallion!
Mr. Pulpstar, the ID card would be mandatory, it would have a very secure (ahem) massive database full of personal information, and it would allow the police to ask wo sind deine Papieren, bitte?
I am sure he will. Curtailment of freedom is a signature card of Labour as is increasing the power of an over mighty state.
And the way that hundreds of celebs with trouser and skirt incontinence hid and continue to hide behind one tragic little girl is disgusting. No doubt they will have all donated their damages to a suitable cause in her memory. Or not.
Please list the freedoms which we lost during the years 1997-2010 and which have been restored by the Coalition.
Shocked nobody has attempted to answer this.
Surely must be easy for PB Tories to list the freedoms given back.
ID cards. Labour's authoritarian instincts remain and nothing that EdM has said or done persuades me that he wouldn't be as authoritarian as New Labour turned out to be.
I also think they would seek to curtail freedom of speech by implementing Leveson and the loss will be ours.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
2) have it on your person at all times
Bloody Hell - Was that really in the legislation ?!
No, I don't remember it was. However, once universally introduced that would have been the effect. Want to by an age related product? ID card please. Stopped by the plod? ID card please, no ID card well off to chokey you go while we establish who you are. I am sure you can think of many more examples for your self. The ID cards scheme was a foul and fundamentally unEnglish imposition. I expect it to be re-introduced in the next ten years because it answers so many bureaucrats' problems.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
That too, I mean lets trust the government with a big database with all our personal details on them
Personal data on every child in the country and national insurance numbers and bank account details of parents and carers claiming child benefit have gone missing after the government sent two password-protected CDs through the post.
Mr. Foxinsox, I always feel a bit bad (well, both times) about immediately attacking Austria, but if you're playing as Russia it seems almost inevitable.
Then in a later post you say difficult it was to attack Turkey as Russia. I think the lesson there is if as Russia you want to attack Turkey then don't start by attacking Austria, because that will just allow Turkey time and space to grown stronger.
Sorry to butt in but how does it work? Do you get to make your countries strong or do you have them as they are/were. eg. for Turkey would you be in charge of the Ottoman Third Army, amongst others, and somehow have to make it less insanely incompetent?
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
Mr. Barber, without the database the ID card is useless. With the database it could be an instrument of state oppression and surveillance greater then anything seen in history. That is why it had to go.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
Mr. Barber, without the database the ID card is useless. With the database it could be an instrument of state oppression and surveillance greater then anything seen in history. That is why it had to go.
Not useless... Plenty of uses for a government approved ID card, from a personal POV that is... Just not the same uses that the State would want. Agree about the DB though
It is often forgotten that compulsory identity cards were introduced under the National Registration Act 1939, which continued to have effect after the end of the Second World War. Unlike the 2006 Act, subsection (4) of section 6 of the 1939 Act provided that:
A constable in uniform, or any person authorised for the purpose under the said regulations, may require a person who under the regulations is for the time being responsible for the custody of an identity card, to produce the card to him or, if the person so required fails to produce it when the requirement is made, to produce it within such time, to such person and at such place as may be prescribed.
The 2006 Act was a regrettable measure, but its authoritarian character should not be exaggerated.
Mr Dancer again I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I never really understand why working class Tories defend the super rich rights to keep more of their money and to pay lower marginal rates of tax than their cleaners and don't appear to care that more people than ever do not have sufficient food for their kids.
What size of cake could we get if Letwin gets his way
Labour represent the public sector rich exemplified by the BBC. Tories represent the private sector rich.
I think the ID card scheme would have been fine actually, provided the Gov't only used it say when national security, or potential terrorism is at hand.
I say this because Gov't and Police never abuse anti-terrorism laws. Since they understand that powers so important should be rarely and critically used.
It is often forgotten that compulsory identity cards were introduced under the National Registration Act 1939, which continued to have effect after the end of the Second World War. Unlike the 2006 Act, subsection (4) of section 6 of the 1939 Act provided that:
A constable in uniform, or any person authorised for the purpose under the said regulations, may require a person who under the regulations is for the time being responsible for the custody of an identity card, to produce the card to him or, if the person so required fails to produce it when the requirement is made, to produce it within such time, to such person and at such place as may be prescribed.
The 2006 Act was a regrettable measure, but its authoritarian character should not be exaggerated.
It is often forgotten that compulsory identity cards were introduced under the National Registration Act 1939, which continued to have effect after the end of the Second World War. Unlike the 2006 Act, subsection (4) of section 6 of the 1939 Act provided that:
A constable in uniform, or any person authorised for the purpose under the said regulations, may require a person who under the regulations is for the time being responsible for the custody of an identity card, to produce the card to him or, if the person so required fails to produce it when the requirement is made, to produce it within such time, to such person and at such place as may be prescribed.
The 2006 Act was a regrettable measure, but its authoritarian character should not be exaggerated.
Poor analogy.
One was introduced at the beginning of a war.
We are fighting a war right now, Mr TSE - the war on Terror.
It is often forgotten that compulsory identity cards were introduced under the National Registration Act 1939, which continued to have effect after the end of the Second World War. Unlike the 2006 Act, subsection (4) of section 6 of the 1939 Act provided that:
A constable in uniform, or any person authorised for the purpose under the said regulations, may require a person who under the regulations is for the time being responsible for the custody of an identity card, to produce the card to him or, if the person so required fails to produce it when the requirement is made, to produce it within such time, to such person and at such place as may be prescribed.
The 2006 Act was a regrettable measure, but its authoritarian character should not be exaggerated.
Poor analogy.
One was introduced at the beginning of a war.
We are fighting a war right now, Mr TSE - the war on Terror.
Mr. Foxinsox, I always feel a bit bad (well, both times) about immediately attacking Austria, but if you're playing as Russia it seems almost inevitable.
Then in a later post you say difficult it was to attack Turkey as Russia. I think the lesson there is if as Russia you want to attack Turkey then don't start by attacking Austria, because that will just allow Turkey time and space to grown stronger.
Sorry to butt in but how does it work? Do you get to make your countries strong or do you have them as they are/were. eg. for Turkey would you be in charge of the Ottoman Third Army, amongst others, and somehow have to make it less insanely incompetent?
Mr. Topping, the game is really very simple. An army is and army with equal combat value no matter who it belongs to. The Map is a stylised version of Europe in 1900. The rules take about half an hour to learn, you can find them here:
The key to the game is its essential paradox. There are seven players each wants to win. However, the structure of the game is that it is impossible to win on your own, you need the help of other players. Why should other players help you to win when they want to win themselves?
Enter diplomacy, the communication between players to persuade, bribe, blackmail, whatever, to get them to do what you want. There are no rules and no restrictions in this part of the game. Normally these days the communication is done by email, but it doesn't have to be. Face to face meetings are quite common (and I have a had a few in some unlikely places), letters, fax, telephone calls can all be and are used. Impersonation and forgery are not unknown either. Generally speaking the more communication that is going on the higher quality the game.
Mr Dancer again I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I never really understand why working class Tories defend the super rich rights to keep more of their money and to pay lower marginal rates of tax than their cleaners and don't appear to care that more people than ever do not have sufficient food for their kids.
What size of cake could we get if Letwin gets his way
I agree that stopping ID cards was very important, but I hardly see how the government accessing the communications between husband and wives as being "insignificant". In many ways, being able to observe our written thoughts to love ones and our private web browsing is a far greater infringement on our privacy.
It is often forgotten that compulsory identity cards were introduced under the National Registration Act 1939, which continued to have effect after the end of the Second World War. Unlike the 2006 Act, subsection (4) of section 6 of the 1939 Act provided that:
A constable in uniform, or any person authorised for the purpose under the said regulations, may require a person who under the regulations is for the time being responsible for the custody of an identity card, to produce the card to him or, if the person so required fails to produce it when the requirement is made, to produce it within such time, to such person and at such place as may be prescribed.
The 2006 Act was a regrettable measure, but its authoritarian character should not be exaggerated.
Poor analogy.
One was introduced at the beginning of a war.
We are fighting a war right now, Mr TSE - the war on Terror.
Are you with us, or against us ?
I think the people of the world are generally fighting a war against their own governments for proper freedom. The state is not your friend and every sensible person's default setting should be towards limiting the powers of the state to interfere in and regulate their lives. Unfortunately this is a war we have been losing.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
You believe that driving licences aren't on a database?
As the MP who first proposed ID cards (in a private member's bill, with substantial support from Tories and LibDems, including the later LibDem spokesman), I always felt that the main reason was simply to have a universal form of ID that people could use, instead of the ridiculous faffing about with two utility bills etc. It wasn't proposed to make it compulsory to carry them - as with a passport, it'd simply be something you could produce if you wanted to show you were who you said you were.
The arguments against were generally of the "slippery slope" type - once we all have cards, the database could be linked up to this and that and suddenly The Authorities would know All About Us, whereas now they have no idea about us and are incapable of linking up their records (ahem). Much of the public was in two minds about that - they were uneasy about some monstrous all-encompassing data base developing, but also felt cheesed off that they had to enter the same personal details all over again for two different public services.
We eventually decided it was just too controversial to be worth pursuing for the modest benefits that it would bring. I never felt particularly passionately in favour myself, just thought they'd be useful and it was interesting to discuss the pros and cons. As a curiosity, the original PMB debate was deliberately rigged - it looked as though it would sail through to committee and die there, like most PMBs, so I got a friend, Roger Casale, who actually had no strong views on it either way, to oppose it so we could have a debate and a vote. He made a jolly good speech and won!
Mr. Foxinsox, I always feel a bit bad (well, both times) about immediately attacking Austria, but if you're playing as Russia it seems almost inevitable.
Then in a later post you say difficult it was to attack Turkey as Russia. I think the lesson there is if as Russia you want to attack Turkey then don't start by attacking Austria, because that will just allow Turkey time and space to grown stronger.
Sorry to butt in but how does it work? Do you get to make your countries strong or do you have them as they are/were. eg. for Turkey would you be in charge of the Ottoman Third Army, amongst others, and somehow have to make it less insanely incompetent?
Mr. Topping, the game is really very simple. An army is and army with equal combat value no matter who it belongs to. The Map is a stylised version of Europe in 1900. The rules take about half an hour to learn, you can find them here:
The key to the game is its essential paradox. There are seven players each wants to win. However, the structure of the game is that it is impossible to win on your own, you need the help of other players. Why should other players help you to win when they want to win themselves?
Enter diplomacy, the communication between players to persuade, bribe, blackmail, whatever, to get them to do what you want. There are no rules and no restrictions in this part of the game. Normally these days the communication is done by email, but it doesn't have to be. Face to face meetings are quite common (and I have a had a few in some unlikely places), letters, fax, telephone calls can all be and are used. Impersonation and forgery are not unknown either. Generally speaking the more communication that is going on the higher quality the game.
Hope that helps.
y thanks sounds intriguing I will have a look for interest's sake.
True, but it remained in force long after the Axis powers were defeated.
It did to our shame. Until at last the courts struck it down! I can't remember the name of the case off the top of my head by the essence of it was that a copper demanded to see the identity card of a member of the public going about his lawful business. Said member of public told the copper to bugger off. The case came before the courts and it was held that, absent a national emergency, such as a fight for a our very survival, HMG has no right to run such a scheme and the member of the public was quite within his rights to tell the copper to bugger off. End of the national identity card scheme shortly afterwards.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
You believe that driving licences aren't on a database?
Don't be daft. Of course the DVLA keeps a DB of us all. The proposed one was not even close in scale, scope or intended purpose.
Mr Dancer again I think we will have to agree to disagree.
I never really understand why working class Tories defend the super rich rights to keep more of their money and to pay lower marginal rates of tax than their cleaners and don't appear to care that more people than ever do not have sufficient food for their kids.
What size of cake could we get if Letwin gets his way
And there is the left wing in a nutshell.
You don't understand how people are aspirational and want to achieve for themselves and their family. Such people don't want to think that the ladder will be pulled away from beneath them if and when they get to the top.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
You believe that driving licences aren't on a database?
Don't be daft. Of course the DVLA keeps a DB of us all. The proposed one was not even close in scale, scope or intended purpose.
Sheesh!
Not like the last government allowed companies access to the DVLA database was it.
With UKPR's average polling numbers unchanged over the past week (Lab 36 - Con 32 - LD 8), it's hardly surprising that Stephen Fisher's GE Seats projection this morning is similarly unchanged. That said, under their table of poll results, updated to 30 July, I don't see the most recent figures from ICM which indicated a Tory lead of 1%. If these have been omitted, then clearly that would impact on the overall average, albeit modestly.
Mr. Foxinsox, I always feel a bit bad (well, both times) about immediately attacking Austria, but if you're playing as Russia it seems almost inevitable.
Then in a later post you say difficult it was to attack Turkey as Russia. I think the lesson there is if as Russia you want to attack Turkey then don't start by attacking Austria, because that will just allow Turkey time and space to grown stronger.
Sorry to butt in but how does it work? Do you get to make your countries strong or do you have them as they are/were. eg. for Turkey would you be in charge of the Ottoman Third Army, amongst others, and somehow have to make it less insanely incompetent?
Mr. Topping, the game is really very simple. An army is and army with equal combat value no matter who it belongs to. The Map is a stylised version of Europe in 1900. The rules take about half an hour to learn, you can find them here:
The key to the game is its essential paradox. There are seven players each wants to win. However, the structure of the game is that it is impossible to win on your own, you need the help of other players. Why should other players help you to win when they want to win themselves?
Enter diplomacy, the communication between players to persuade, bribe, blackmail, whatever, to get them to do what you want. There are no rules and no restrictions in this part of the game. Normally these days the communication is done by email, but it doesn't have to be. Face to face meetings are quite common (and I have a had a few in some unlikely places), letters, fax, telephone calls can all be and are used. Impersonation and forgery are not unknown either. Generally speaking the more communication that is going on the higher quality the game.
Hope that helps.
y thanks sounds intriguing I will have a look for interest's sake.
I quite recommend Diplomacy. Like politics, the fun and interest is in the backroom deals and plotting, what is visible on the surface is only a very superficial experience.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
You believe that driving licences aren't on a database?
Don't be daft. Of course the DVLA keeps a DB of us all. The proposed one was not even close in scale, scope or intended purpose.
Sheesh!
Not like the last government allowed companies access to the DVLA database was it.
You can see why we're wary.
Oh and the last Gov had such a good record at delivering Huge IT Systems... (this one doesn't seem to be much better at that either, but not on the same scale a the NHS NPfIT Clusterf*ck)
It did to our shame. Until at last the courts struck it down! I can't remember the name of the case off the top of my head by the essence of it was that a copper demanded to see the identity card of a member of the public going about his lawful business. Said member of public told the copper to bugger off. The case came before the courts and it was held that, absent a national emergency, such as a fight for a our very survival, HMG has no right to run such a scheme and the member of the public was quite within his rights to tell the copper to bugger off. End of the national identity card scheme shortly afterwards.
A seven judge Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, including the Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls, held that the emergency remained extant, and that the conviction was valid, but expressed grave disquiet about the scheme. The National Registration Act 1939 was doomed from then on.
Oh and the last Gov had such a good record at delivering Huge IT Systems... (this one doesn't seem to be much better at that either, but not on the same scale a the NHS NPfIT Clusterf*ck)
Industry sources say that Fujitsu is likely to be awarded about £400 million in compensation in addition to £250 million already paid when the scheme, called the NHS National Programme for IT, began to falter.
The government will also have to foot Fujitsu’s legal bill of nearly £50 million, in addition to its own legal costs of £31.5 million.
We eventually decided it was just too controversial to be worth pursuing for the modest benefits that it would bring. I never felt particularly passionately in favour myself, just thought they'd be useful and it was interesting to discuss the pros and cons. As a curiosity, the original PMB debate was deliberately rigged - it looked as though it would sail through to committee and die there, like most PMBs, so I got a friend, Roger Casale, who actually had no strong views on it either way, to oppose it so we could have a debate and a vote. He made a jolly good speech and won!
The ID cards proposal was a classic case of trying to push through authoritarianism under the scream of "terrorism". The push through was attempted just after 9/11 even though it clearly wouldn't have done anything to stop similar attacks. They then tried a clear "salami slice" strategy targeting foreigners, then airport workers, then young people opening bank accounts, then new passport applications, to weaken opposition. The whole thing was highly cynical and a clear example of how New Labour's leadership believed in manipulating things as necessary to get what they wanted done (similar to opening the floodgates in immigration on the quiet). The idea of fining British citizens for not giving information on where they moved to the government was completely against traditional British liberties, and more like something out of continental statism. And the keeping on file of every time your ID was checked against the database built up detailed information about innocent people's livelihoods. It was truly an appalling bill.
With UKPR's average polling numbers unchanged over the past week (Lab 36 - Con 32 - LD 8), it's hardly surprising that Stephen Fisher's GE Seats projection this morning is similarly unchanged. That said, under their table of poll results, updated to 30 July, I don't see the most recent figures from ICM which indicated a Tory lead of 1%. If these have been omitted, then clearly that would impact on the overall average, albeit modestly.
Click on the ...MORE under the headline average to see the polls used and their weighting. The ICM +1 Con is there but it's so old now that it's very lightly weighted.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
You believe that driving licences aren't on a database?
As the MP who first proposed ID cards (in a private member's bill, with substantial support from Tories and LibDems, including the later LibDem spokesman), I always felt that the main reason was simply to have a universal form of ID that people could use, instead of the ridiculous faffing about with two utility bills etc. It wasn't proposed to make it compulsory to carry them - as with a passport, it'd simply be something you could produce if you wanted to show you were who you said you were.
The arguments against were generally of the "slippery slope" type - once we all have cards, the database could be linked up to this and that and suddenly The Authorities would know All About Us, whereas now they have no idea about us and are incapable of linking up their records (ahem). Much of the public was in two minds about that - they were uneasy about some monstrous all-encompassing data base developing, but also felt cheesed off that they had to enter the same personal details all over again for two different public services.
We eventually decided it was just too controversial to be worth pursuing for the modest benefits that it would bring. I never felt particularly passionately in favour myself, just thought they'd be useful and it was interesting to discuss the pros and cons. As a curiosity, the original PMB debate was deliberately rigged - it looked as though it would sail through to committee and die there, like most PMBs, so I got a friend, Roger Casale, who actually had no strong views on it either way, to oppose it so we could have a debate and a vote. He made a jolly good speech and won!
No doubt you had good intentions for the scheme, but others would have seen a ball and ran into the distance with it.
With a bit of Excel work, you can also see that the headline 36-32 conceals an actual lead of only 3.3 (35.6 v 32.3). Then again, that's with rounded inputs (i.e. each individual poll is only reported in integer form).
I think today's Populus (and last night's YouGov) will have moved the headline needle back to 36-33.
I do remember being very against ID cards - but what may I ask would the difference have been between an ID card and a passport ?
It wasn't the ID Card that I objected to, it was the database behind it. I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
You believe that driving licences aren't on a database?
As the MP who first proposed ID cards (in a private member's bill, with substantial support from Tories and LibDems, including the later LibDem spokesman), I always felt that the main reason was simply to have a universal form of ID that people could use, instead of the ridiculous faffing about with two utility bills etc. It wasn't proposed to make it compulsory to carry them - as with a passport, it'd simply be something you could produce if you wanted to show you were who you said you were.
The arguments against were generally of the "slippery slope" type - once we all have cards, the database could be linked up to this and that and suddenly The Authorities would know All About Us, whereas now they have no idea about us and are incapable of linking up their records (ahem). Much of the public was in two minds about that - they were uneasy about some monstrous all-encompassing data base developing, but also felt cheesed off that they had to enter the same personal details all over again for two different public services.
We eventually decided it was just too controversial to be worth pursuing for the modest benefits that it would bring. I never felt particularly passionately in favour myself, just thought they'd be useful and it was interesting to discuss the pros and cons. As a curiosity, the original PMB debate was deliberately rigged - it looked as though it would sail through to committee and die there, like most PMBs, so I got a friend, Roger Casale, who actually had no strong views on it either way, to oppose it so we could have a debate and a vote. He made a jolly good speech and won!
No doubt you had good intentions for the scheme, but others would have seen a ball and ran into the distance with it.
Take RIPA as an example. It was originally spun about tackling serious crime and ended up to do with dog fouling and school catchment areas. The extreme porn bill is another good case.
With a bit of Excel work, you can also see that the headline 36-32 conceals an actual lead of only 3.3 (35.6 v 32.3). Then again, that's with rounded inputs (i.e. each individual poll is only reported in integer form).
I think today's Populus (and last night's YouGov) will have moved the headline needle back to 36-33.
Thanks for that, obviouslymy mistake, I had thought we had seen an ICM poll much more recently than is evidently the case.
Comments
No? Nor can I.
But the real point is this:
Europe: We are members - we make the law
Immigration: We're in Europe and Dave's pledge like his whole premiership was idiotic
ECHR: We make the law
They are not "the Other".
Italy however has very few strategic options and consequently very little it can offer in early negotiations and it can never prosper if Turkey stays in the game - Turkey has to get sufficient forces to the West and Italy stands in the way. Italy is I think the one flaw in the balance of the game. One of Italy's major problems is that it starts with two armies and one fleet but there is little it can do with two armies (especially if Germany has a good player). If that were changed to two fleets and one army then Italy would become a much more viable country to play.
If anyone is up for another game I'll set one up.
I perhaps got a bit fancy dandy with Turkey this time, convoying to Spain before conquering Italy was quite amusing though
Surely must be easy for PB Tories to list the freedoms given back.
In short, supply has always been exceeded by demand, and they began during the boom years under Blair. It's not a party political issue and we don't know what the ceiling is because it's never yet been reached.
As for cutting the top rate of tax: it's better to have a marginally smaller slice of a larger pie than the reverse. Taxation is there to provide funds for the state, not as a weapon to punish people for having money.
Mr. Neil, if a lower rate provides more income then that's good for the deficit.
Russia Loss; 7 way draw
Italy 4 way draw; Loss
Turkey Solo win; Loss
Italy - Loss
France - Loss
France 1900 - Annihilated, fast
I never really understand why working class Tories defend the super rich rights to keep more of their money and to pay lower marginal rates of tax than their cleaners and don't appear to care that more people than ever do not have sufficient food for their kids.
What size of cake could we get if Letwin gets his way
Unfortunately in our last game, Germany was completely AWOL.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28603599
@FoxInSox
"I like the variation where get to choose the armies and fleets ..."
I am not sure that variant is available on PlayDiplomacy.com. Even if it is I would hesitate because I think it could give too big an advantage to experienced players.
I have heard its nastier than Ebola but the chances of me catching it are about the same. Unless I holiday in Tunisia of course
It'll soon be a national holiday
1) have a passport
2) have it on your person at all times
Certainly as critical of Ed lately as DH
The Juggernaut has to be met early by a united response, when Germany and Italy actually join it the result is inevitable.
Mr. Pulpstar, the ID card would be mandatory, it would have a very secure (ahem) massive database full of personal information, and it would allow the police to ask wo sind deine Papieren, bitte?
WILL CONSERVATIVES APPLY ALL-WOMEN SHORTLISTS FOR A GENERAL ELECTION BY THE END OF 2022?
Yes 7/4
No 2/5
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1835901
I can make a mean YP even from Derbyshire whereas my only attempt to make a Bakewell Pudding ended in disaster.
Still ate it though!!
There were plans for fines of 1k for not immediately informing of any changes or losing your card.
Point 2, that's what would have happened.
I think they've got their figures wrong. The 2011 census showed the population was 87% white.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2014/jul/31/parliament-failing-represent-uk-diversity
We know the Duke of Wellington's reputed view on the former...
I also think they would seek to curtail freedom of speech by implementing Leveson and the loss will be ours.
I already carry an ID card, my driver's licence. And indeed if the national ID card were a similar/replacement for that then I would have no objections.
Paddy should be something like 9-4 and 4-6 on this market given the time-frame.
Personal data on every child in the country and national insurance numbers and bank account details of parents and carers claiming child benefit have gone missing after the government sent two password-protected CDs through the post.
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240084015/UK-government-loses-data-on-25-million-Britons
What attracted you the Red Rose I presume?
Was a way of getting priority tickets to the tests.
Agree about the DB though
I say this because Gov't and Police never abuse anti-terrorism laws. Since they understand that powers so important should be rarely and critically used.
Poor analogy.
One was introduced at the beginning of a war.
One was introduced at the beginning of a war.
We are fighting a war right now, Mr TSE - the war on Terror.
Are you with us, or against us ?
Are you with us, or against us ?
Both.
#crossoverfriday
http://www.playdiplomacy.com/help.php
The key to the game is its essential paradox. There are seven players each wants to win. However, the structure of the game is that it is impossible to win on your own, you need the help of other players. Why should other players help you to win when they want to win themselves?
Enter diplomacy, the communication between players to persuade, bribe, blackmail, whatever, to get them to do what you want. There are no rules and no restrictions in this part of the game. Normally these days the communication is done by email, but it doesn't have to be. Face to face meetings are quite common (and I have a had a few in some unlikely places), letters, fax, telephone calls can all be and are used. Impersonation and forgery are not unknown either. Generally speaking the more communication that is going on the higher quality the game.
Hope that helps.
I agree that stopping ID cards was very important, but I hardly see how the government accessing the communications between husband and wives as being "insignificant". In many ways, being able to observe our written thoughts to love ones and our private web browsing is a far greater infringement on our privacy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/infographics/2014-07-31/falling-euro-wages.html
No wonder so many of them are heading to the UK. The EU is broken.
But that Friday boost for the Tories still is happening.
Are you with us, or against us ?
I think the people of the world are generally fighting a war against their own governments for proper freedom. The state is not your friend and every sensible person's default setting should be towards limiting the powers of the state to interfere in and regulate their lives. Unfortunately this is a war we have been losing.
As the MP who first proposed ID cards (in a private member's bill, with substantial support from Tories and LibDems, including the later LibDem spokesman), I always felt that the main reason was simply to have a universal form of ID that people could use, instead of the ridiculous faffing about with two utility bills etc. It wasn't proposed to make it compulsory to carry them - as with a passport, it'd simply be something you could produce if you wanted to show you were who you said you were.
The arguments against were generally of the "slippery slope" type - once we all have cards, the database could be linked up to this and that and suddenly The Authorities would know All About Us, whereas now they have no idea about us and are incapable of linking up their records (ahem). Much of the public was in two minds about that - they were uneasy about some monstrous all-encompassing data base developing, but also felt cheesed off that they had to enter the same personal details all over again for two different public services.
We eventually decided it was just too controversial to be worth pursuing for the modest benefits that it would bring. I never felt particularly passionately in favour myself, just thought they'd be useful and it was interesting to discuss the pros and cons. As a curiosity, the original PMB debate was deliberately rigged - it looked as though it would sail through to committee and die there, like most PMBs, so I got a friend, Roger Casale, who actually had no strong views on it either way, to oppose it so we could have a debate and a vote. He made a jolly good speech and won!
http://www.scotsman.com/news/john-mcternan-we-always-knew-ed-balls-was-bright-1-3495748
Of course the DVLA keeps a DB of us all.
The proposed one was not even close in scale, scope or intended purpose.
Sheesh!
You don't understand how people are aspirational and want to achieve for themselves and their family. Such people don't want to think that the ladder will be pulled away from beneath them if and when they get to the top.
You can see why we're wary.
*Wonders if it means over 300 respondents... *
Also wondering if 8% for the Lib Dems means sub 100.
That said, under their table of poll results, updated to 30 July, I don't see the most recent figures from ICM which indicated a Tory lead of 1%. If these have been omitted, then clearly that would impact on the overall average, albeit modestly.
(this one doesn't seem to be much better at that either, but not on the same scale a the NHS NPfIT Clusterf*ck)
I think today's Populus (and last night's YouGov) will have moved the headline needle back to 36-33.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10998437/Jihadist-books-on-sale-in-French-supermarkets.html
The extreme porn bill is another good case.