Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The opening prices on the GE2015 spread betting markets hav

1246

Comments

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Are Labour spinners here watching the same debate as everyone else?
  • I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)

    Well given there were barely any Kippers in 2009 and I believe the Sun led the criticism of him and it was when the Tory poll lead started sliding before the last election I think your memory is defective!

    Those were Tory voters whose fury you recall........
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Moses_ said:

    In the event that the bill does not pass and the EAW is not established in law, is there any other mechanism in place that would allow someone to be extradited to another EU partner?

    A point was made recently that in the event that we did not have the EAW then we would become a haven for those trying to escape justice. Personally I would find Brazil or even Cuba more preferable in such a circumstance than blighty but who knows? On the other hand given this has the EU stamped all over it I am minded to prefer the US stance where we never extradite. I do also see some issues with that as well.

    The telling failure is the inability to identify at what level the EAW kicks in? This appeared not to have been known. Will it be murder or suspected jaywalking? Not having the definitive answer to that question rather makes the whole thing look totally amateur and the proposer the wrong side of incompetent.

    One things for certain its a gift from both parties to UKIP.

    I'm sure there are existing extradition treaties in place.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Speedy said:

    Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?

    If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.

    What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?

    May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
    May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.

    If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
    Your point is interesting. An opinion totally at variance with the facts has been confected to pursue an anti may agenda.
    There is now it seems a lot of that going on. A fictitious 1.7 billion payment being one. Total fantasies are being invented to keep the believer happy.
  • Scott_P said:

    Are Labour spinners here watching the same debate as everyone else?

    Only May will look bad on news at 10. Nobody will remember anything else.

  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    edited November 2014
    Twitter
    Joey Jones ‏@joeyjonessky now9 seconds ago
    Breaking: Alan Johnson expected to definitively rule himself out from taking on Labour leadership later tonight.

    Joey Jones ‏@joeyjonessky now4 seconds ago
    Labour MP tells me expects AJ intervention will kill mutiny; party will rally behind @Ed_Miliband
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Scott_P said:

    Are Labour spinners here watching the same debate as everyone else?

    Are praetorian Tories living in an anti-matter universe?
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    "One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years"

    Didn't they say the same thing on 'Tomorrow's World' some 30 years ago..?

    I remember when Tomorrow's World predicted that one day you MIGHT be able to control the heating and the entertainment in your home from one small handheld device. Seemed ludicrous at the time.

    *sits here with just his iPhone, wirelessly changing the room temperature with Hive, the TV channel with Sky Go, and the tunes and the sound level on his music system with Sonos*
    As a 10 year old I was obsessed with being able to do things like that. Now I can't be bothered to set any of it up.
    Sky Go is fairly pointless. Clever, but pointless. I still use the remote.

    Hive, however, is jolly useful. I can set my heating when I am abroad! - turn it off if I have forgotten, turn it on before I get home.

    And Sonos? - wow. It is f*cking amazing. You can have brilliant speakers in every room, playing the same tune, or different tunes, streamed from your smartphone, iPad or laptop. The sound quality is phenomenal. Best I've ever heard from a home audio system. And you get rid of so much clutter and wiring. You just need the rather lovely speakers.

    Look at the reviews:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sonos-PLAY-Black-Wireless-Hi-Fi/dp/B00FMS1KO0

    I have been sorely tempted by Sonos having friends who have it installed. The only thing that is holding me up is I would really like a system that incorporates my TV and PC (similar to Apple TV) as well so I can easily do all my home entertainment stuff via a single system.
    Sonos will stream or incorporate your PC, wirelessly. You just need to connect your TV to your PC, for that you will need a wire.

    https://ask.sonos.com/sonos/topics/connecting_sonos_to_my_tv
    The hard physics is, of course, that you can't get a quart out of a pint pot, but you can do your best.
    Myself, I use two (kit) valve amplifiers, one of which I made as a teenager together with a valve preamp (that can take any input from any source whatever) driving a couple of BBC LS35a speakers designed by the Beeb engineers in the days when their technical prowess was second to none. That was before Mr. Birt got busy on them. The amps & preamps are ever mend-able in the unlikely event that should be necessary. The system sounds great.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Only May will look bad on news at 10. Nobody will remember anything else.

    @paulwaugh: Suspect Lab gonna lose this ambush vote. Euroscep Tories divided, Libs hv now had time for whips to work on em, Tory MPs back from dinner.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Cooper gambled, and looks to have lost.

    Quite how that is bad news for May is unclear...
  • Speedy said:

    Scott_P said:

    Are Labour spinners here watching the same debate as everyone else?

    Are praetorian Tories living in an anti-matter universe?
    I think its called 'the Dark Side'
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Moses

    'The telling failure is the inability to identify at what level the EAW kicks in?'

    For an offence that would result in a minimum prison sentence of 1 year.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Speedy said:

    Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?

    If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.

    What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?

    May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
    May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.

    If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
    Your point is interesting. An opinion totally at variance with the facts has been confected to pursue an anti may agenda.
    There is now it seems a lot of that going on. A fictitious 1.7 billion payment being one. Total fantasies are being invented to keep the believer happy.

    Speedy said:

    Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?

    If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.

    What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?

    May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
    May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.

    If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
    Your point is interesting. An opinion totally at variance with the facts has been confected to pursue an anti may agenda.
    There is now it seems a lot of that going on. A fictitious 1.7 billion payment being one. Total fantasies are being invented to keep the believer happy.
    There's nothing fictitious about the £1.7 billion payment.
  • Scott_P said:

    Only May will look bad on news at 10. Nobody will remember anything else.

    @paulwaugh: Suspect Lab gonna lose this ambush vote. Euroscep Tories divided, Libs hv now had time for whips to work on em, Tory MPs back from dinner.
    And yet May will still look like a prize pudding on the news.

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)

    Well given there were barely any Kippers in 2009 and I believe the Sun led the criticism of him and it was when the Tory poll lead started sliding before the last election I think your memory is defective!

    Those were Tory voters whose fury you recall........
    16.5% of voters went UKIP in the 2009 euros. Barely any indeed...
  • Scott_P said:

    Cooper gambled, and looks to have lost.

    Quite how that is bad news for May is unclear...

    Unclear, just like the Home Sec today.
    Boris is laughing all the way to the leadership.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    edited November 2014
    OT but in answer to SeanT.

    I think for factual books what you are suggesting is absolutely correct. I have long been trying to get a book finished looking at the British fighting in the Caucasus at the end of WW1. As I wanted it to be more than just a British narrative I have been trying to get hold of Russian, Turkish, German and Armenian sources as well. Getting the sources is not that difficult in this day and age. Getting them translated on the other hand is a complete nightmare.

    However it is a nightmare that is rapidly coming to an end for me thanks to simple systems like Google that can allow me to get a rough translation of documents and then concentrate on more detailed accurate translations of the bits I am really interested in. It has so far saved me thousands in translation costs which would have been wasted had I had to translate papers and documents wholesale.

    That said I do not envisage a time where the translations of great works of literature are done by computer with the finesse and interpretation shown by human translators.

    Using one of the oldest known narratives as an example,The Iliad is a case in point. Both the E.V. Rieu and the Robert Fagles versions stand out as exemplary translations, far ahead of anything else so far. They use the same source material as the dozens of other examples but they have the poetic insight to give us both the feeling of the work as well as the underlying bare text.

    "Rage—Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, / murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, / hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls…"
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    Brought to you by I am Always Right Incorporated:



    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/10/rise_of_the_robot_workforce_theyre_after_your_job/

    "One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years, according to a new study carried out the University of Oxford
    With constantly improving machine translation, foreign language skills also take a hit."

    Computers can't do automatic translation. In that they can often do decent enough stabs at conversational stuff but they fall over immediately at any language task that requires precision.

    You'll never be able to translate a legal document or a scientific paper from one language to another and unambiguously retain meaning.
    Who could have guessed that apps and computers would replace maps, and the Knowledge, rendering trained London taxi drivers entirely pointless?

    Computers are now better than humans at chess. Up to the 1980s this was considered impossible. And computers surpassed humans mainly by sheer brute force, the increasing speed and power of their calculations, not any major technological innovation.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess


    Computers are now threatening the lower levels of journalism: they can churn out decent copy if you're not too fussed about style.

    The idea computers won't be able to tackle language coz it's just too uniquely hard is nuts. And any 8 year old who is now contemplating a career as a translator or interpreter is very badly advised.

    Would you tell your infant kids to aim for these professions? I doubt it. Et voila.
    Mr T: you have a touching faith in computers. I give you in return the City of London where lots of apparently clever people put their faith in computers and their clever programmes which would minimise, nay, eliminate risk. And look where that has got us? In the end, computer programmes are an aid to not a substitute for human judgment.

    If newspapers are, as you say, using computers to churn out basic copy without any style it's little wonder no-one is buying this stuff.

    I have worked as a translator in the legal sphere. Trying to understand legal concepts and express them in a way that makes sense to another lawyer and is useful is not an easy job. It does not pay well. But when I have needed a real translation - as opposed to a rough and ready idea - I still go to a qualified and expert translator.

    I would not suggest to your child to aim to be a translator only. But I do think that learning other languages is a useful skill. It doesn't just teach you a language but another way of thinking and that is, in all too many contexts, worthwhile. I have found my in-depth knowledge of one European language (one not shared by many across the globe) of surprising use when investigating financial fraud.

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Scott_P said:

    Cooper gambled, and looks to have lost.

    Quite how that is bad news for May is unclear...

    May's reputation is destroyed.
  • Scott_P said:

    Cooper gambled, and looks to have lost.

    Quite how that is bad news for May is unclear...

    Who forms the electorate for the first phase of a Tory leadership election?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    SeanT said:


    Who could have guessed that apps and computers would replace maps, and the Knowledge, rendering trained London taxi drivers entirely pointless?

    Computers have been doing routing algorithms from almost the moment there were computers. Graph traversal is just a branch of maths. Computers are maths machines. It is pretty much the most straight forward and obvious application of computers ever.
    SeanT said:


    Computers are now better than humans at chess. Up to the 1980s this was considered impossible. And computers surpassed humans mainly by sheer brute force, the increasing speed and power of their calculations, not any major technological innovation.

    It was not considered impossible - it was cosidered impossible for the horsepwoer of the time not forever. Moore's Law meant that everyone knew it was just a matter of time. The biggest disappointment about computers crushing advantage at chess is that they've over come humans just by brute power alone. they are using (pretty much) exactly the same algorithms as 50 years ago.
    SeanT said:


    The idea computers won't be able to tackle language coz it's just too uniquely hard is nuts. And any 8 year old who is now contemplating a career as a translator or interpreter is very badly advised.

    You seem to have no idea about what the problems of machine translation are. Trust me as a Phd in Computer Science (and I consulted with my wife and her degree in English Langauge - she did computational language stuff) it is a hard problem for numerous reasons It's a hard problem and 20 years till machines are doing all the translation" has been promised for the last 50 years.

    Machine Translation is not something you can just throw more power at to get better results.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @manofkent2014

    'What did we do previously? Surely the obvious answer would be to reinstate that.'

    Don't think that would be possible as the other 27 EU countries are now part of the EAW,we would have to negotiate individual agreements with the other 27 countries and would probably have something in place by 2020 ?
  • manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited November 2014

    I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)

    Well given there were barely any Kippers in 2009 and I believe the Sun led the criticism of him and it was when the Tory poll lead started sliding before the last election I think your memory is defective!

    Those were Tory voters whose fury you recall........
    16.5% of voters went UKIP in the 2009 euros. Barely any indeed...
    The announcement about there being no retrospective vote was after the Euros in the November. It had no impact on Euro voters. Only 3% voted UKIP in the general election. But still if you want to twist it to fit your preferred anti-UKIP narrative rewriting history however perverse it is by all means do so.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Lets put some perspective:
    Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 15m 15 minutes ago
    So @JakeReesMogg now backing the motion by @YvetteCooperMP for full debate on European Arrest Warrant tomorrow "much to be commended"

    Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 13m 13 minutes ago
    And David Davies said the government approach is a "travesty of democracy"...
  • Speedy said:

    Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?

    If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.

    What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?

    May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
    May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.

    If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
    Your point is interesting. An opinion totally at variance with the facts has been confected to pursue an anti may agenda.
    There is now it seems a lot of that going on. A fictitious 1.7 billion payment being one. Total fantasies are being invented to keep the believer happy.
    So now you are accusing Cameron and the Treasury of making stuff up about the £1.7 billion? Its a point of view I suppose but not one that will endear you to your political masters in the Tory party.
  • Scott_P said:

    Only May will look bad on news at 10. Nobody will remember anything else.

    @paulwaugh: Suspect Lab gonna lose this ambush vote. Euroscep Tories divided, Libs hv now had time for whips to work on em, Tory MPs back from dinner.
    Labour started off supporting the Home Sec against the Tory rebels. The Home Sec and Chief Whip have contrived to drive the opposition to vote against the Home Sec. The Lib Dem Chief Whip looks to be having trouble with some Lib Dems based on the first vote which the Gov't lost.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Speedy said:



    David Davis throwing the bucket on Theresa May.


    Scott_P Posts:
    7:54PM
    David Davis now criticising Cooper.

    She has managed to turn the Tories worst rebels into supporters of May.

    Outstanding work


    Are you two watching the same programme here or what?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Moses_ said:

    Are you two watching the same programme here or what?

    Apparently not
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)

    Well given there were barely any Kippers in 2009 and I believe the Sun led the criticism of him and it was when the Tory poll lead started sliding before the last election I think your memory is defective!

    Those were Tory voters whose fury you recall........
    16.5% of voters went UKIP in the 2009 euros. Barely any indeed...
    The announcement about there being no retrospective vote was after the Euros it had no impact on Euro voters. Only 3% voted UKIP in the general election. But still if you want to twist everything to fit your UKIP attacks by all means do so.
    You said there were barely any kippers in 2009. 2.5m voted UKIP in the euro election. Were less than one fifth of them kippers?

    And the fact that Cameron admitted he was unable to time travel AFTER 2.5m voted UKIP is relevant how exactly?
  • SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    I reckon that for 95% of translation tasks, computers will be doing the job just fine, within 15-20 years (the time scale of the original article, and the time my daughters will be starting careers).

    I do agree computers will never be able to satisfactorily translate foreign poetry. But then, neither can humans.

    Maybe there is already an app for this, but for the translation task one needs on a typical foreign holiday something like google translate is probably better than a phrasebook already.

    I'm not sure when I'd be willing to sign a contract that had been machine-translated, though. Also, if brought before a foreign court, would you want a human or a machine translator? Likewise, I remember my Uncle, who is a tunnelling engineer, bringing some technical German documents to my Grandad for translation. Would you trust a multi-million pound engineering project to the accuracy of machine translation?

    Some sorts of translation tasks will no doubt be automated. Maybe they already are? Things like ingredient lists on the very multi-lingual packaging of a European supermarket like Lidl. But most translation tasks where people are currently prepared to pay whatever barmy rates per hour that Nick Palmer charges are just going to be too important to be automated in any sort of timeframe.

    Also, for a lot of business partnerships, human contact and relationships will prove surprisingly important. For that you need a shared language - which gives any employee with good language skills a career advantage, because they will be able to build a human relationship with the client.
    Would you trust a computer to fly a plane, or drive a train? If they get this wrong, you don't just lose lots of money - you crash and die.

    Yet we trust computers to do these jobs every day, around the world.

    Ditto, translating.

    And now I really am off out. Au wiedersehen and auf revoir.
    You're a funny chap Sean, but your example simply illustrates the differences between humans and computers. Languages are one of the things that humans are really good at. Computers much prefer flying. Oh, and we still have a pair of expensively trained and paid pilots for every flight, just in case. So perhaps we don't trust those computers all that much.

    Come back to me when a transatlantic flight takes off without a trained pilot on board.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    I reckon that for 95% of translation tasks, computers will be doing the job just fine, within 15-20 years (the time scale of the original article, and the time my daughters will be starting careers).

    I do agree computers will never be able to satisfactorily translate foreign poetry. But then, neither can humans.

    Maybe there is already an app for this, but for the translation task one needs on a typical foreign holiday something like google translate is probably better than a phrasebook already.

    I'm not sure when I'd be willing to sign a contract that had been machine-translated, though. Also, if brought before a foreign court, would you want a human or a machine translator? Likewise, I remember my Uncle, who is a tunnelling engineer, bringing some technical German documents to my Grandad for translation. Would you trust a multi-million pound engineering project to the accuracy of machine translation?

    Some sorts of translation tasks will no doubt be automated. Maybe they already are? Things like ingredient lists on the very multi-lingual packaging of a European supermarket like Lidl. But most translation tasks where people are currently prepared to pay whatever barmy rates per hour that Nick Palmer charges are just going to be too important to be automated in any sort of timeframe.

    Also, for a lot of business partnerships, human contact and relationships will prove surprisingly important. For that you need a shared language - which gives any employee with good language skills a career advantage, because they will be able to build a human relationship with the client.
    Would you trust a computer to fly a plane, or drive a train? If they get this wrong, you don't just lose lots of money - you crash and die.

    Yet we trust computers to do these jobs every day, around the world.

    Ditto, translating.

    And now I really am off out. Au wiedersehen and auf revoir.
    Airlines still have pilots. Thank God, for instance, for that pilot who managed to land his stricken plane in the Hudson without losing any of the passengers.

    And trains can have lunatics who override the computers - as in that Spanish driver who apparently overrode the speed controls.

    Research what goes on in banks' computer systems before you put so much faith in computers.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Labour started off supporting the Home Sec against the Tory rebels. The Home Sec and Chief Whip have contrived to drive the opposition to vote against the Home Sec. The Lib Dem Chief Whip looks to be having trouble with some Lib Dems based on the first vote which the Gov't lost.

    The Shadow Home Secretary has persuaded the rebels to vote with the Government

    Outstanding work

    May wins, Cooper loses (round 1)
  • antifrank said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    So the kipper line on "ting tong" is that the BBC were racist and so it's ok for UKIP candidates to be racist too, and that their Parliamentary candidate should be excused for using it because she is a bit thick.

    OK.

    She is a bit thick, not very nice and it's borderline whether she should have been excused. There are people like that in all parties. There were disproportionately more of them in ukip when it was a small fringe party. But your "Ooooh, racism n xenophobia" card just isn't the ace of trumps you seem to think it is.

    It was a relatively minor incident. But one of those relatively minor incidents that's very telling.

    I'm particularly interested in the desperate attempts by the kippers to defend the indefensible. I don't think the bulk of UKIP supporters are racist. But I do think they are too tolerant of casual racism and they probably would not be if they did not have the impassioned zeal of converts.

    It's useful when assessing the likely behaviour of kippers and kipper-flirters in the coming months.
    Out of curiosity how many times have you mentioned John Prescott calling Chuka Umunna 'Chumbawamba' ?

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/24/john-prescott-labour-chuka-umunna-chumbawamba
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited November 2014
    @IsabelHardman: The question shall be put. Government wins.

    @politicshome: Yvette Cooper loses in her attempt to get this evening's debate abandoned. Ayes 229 – Noes 272

    Cooper will vote with the Government. May wins again.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Moses_ said:

    Speedy said:



    David Davis throwing the bucket on Theresa May.


    Scott_P Posts:
    7:54PM
    David Davis now criticising Cooper.

    She has managed to turn the Tories worst rebels into supporters of May.

    Outstanding work


    Are you two watching the same programme here or what?
    I'm watching BBC parliament.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Speedy said:

    Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?

    If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.

    What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?

    May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
    May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.

    If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
    Your point is interesting. An opinion totally at variance with the facts has been confected to pursue an anti may agenda.
    There is now it seems a lot of that going on. A fictitious 1.7 billion payment being one. Total fantasies are being invented to keep the believer happy.
    So now you are accusing Cameron and the Treasury of making stuff up about the £1.7 billion? Its a point of view I suppose but not one that will endear you to your political masters in the Tory party.
    Did you entirely miss the fact that the UK's rebate will b applied to the £1.7bn BEFORE we pay it, leaving a balance of £850m? And that this will not affect any future rebate amount?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Now May is probably going to win the main vote because Cooper stopped the debate.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Scott_P said:

    Now May is probably going to win the main vote because Cooper stopped the debate.

    May's reputation is in tatters.
  • SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:

    Brought to you by I am Always Right Incorporated:

    some pb-ers will remember a big debate we had on here about the robotisation of work. My thesis was that a load of jobs were at risk from robots and digital technology (obviously true) and that one of them was translater/interpreter, so I would no longer be advising my 8 year old daughters to learn Mandarin.

    At the time many fiercely objected, saying computers could never be translators, blah blah, the Lib Dem Switchers are crucial, yada yada, you're a Nazi whoremongering pedo, etc etc

    Here ya go:


    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/10/rise_of_the_robot_workforce_theyre_after_your_job/

    "One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years, according to a new study carried out the University of Oxford and Deloitte...

    With constantly improving machine translation, foreign language skills also take a hit."

    Computers can't do automatic translation. In that they can often do decent enough stabs at conversational stuff but they fall over immediately at any language task that requires precision.

    You'll never be able to translate a legal document or a scientific paper from one language to another and unambiguously retain meaning.
    Who could have guessed that apps and computers would replace maps, and the Knowledge, rendering trained London taxi drivers entirely pointless?

    Computers are now better than humans at chess. Up to the 1980s this was considered impossible. And computers surpassed humans mainly by sheer brute force, the increasing speed and power of their calculations, not any major technological innovation.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess

    ....
    The point about taxi drivers is absolutely right; the point about chess isn't. Alan Turing was programming conceptual computer programmes in 1941 - before the first true computer had even been built. He certainly foresaw a time when computers would not only be better than humans at chess but were genuinely intelligent (which they're still not really - they just have immense memories and computing power, which isn't the same thing).
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Speedy said:

    May's reputation is in tatters.

    For winning votes?

    For spanking Yvette at the despatch box?

    For strong Law and Order legislation?
  • SeanT said:

    Would you tell your infant kids to aim for these professions? I doubt it. Et voila.

    Translation as a *career* has always been pretty niche, but it's a massively useful secondary skill to have, and that will increasingly be the case.

    Telling any young child to concentrate on just one skill is probably nuts in the modern world. It's combinations of skills that are really valuable.
  • Scott_P said:

    @IsabelHardman: The question shall be put. Government wins.

    @politicshome: Yvette Cooper loses in her attempt to get this evening's debate abandoned. Ayes 229 – Noes 272

    Cooper will vote with the Government. May wins again.

    Well that's that then. No more will be said about it.

  • "One in three UK jobs will be performed by machine in as little as 20 years"

    Didn't they say the same thing on 'Tomorrow's World' some 30 years ago..?

    And they were right.

    Probably one in three jobs of 1980 are now done by machines.

    But there's new jobs which have replaced them.

    In some cases work done by machines 30 years ago is now done by people - the hand carwash 'industry' as an example.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Speedy said:

    Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?

    If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.

    What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?

    May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
    May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.

    If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
    Your point is interesting. An opinion totally at variance with the facts has been confected to pursue an anti may agenda.
    There is now it seems a lot of that going on. A fictitious 1.7 billion payment being one. Total fantasies are being invented to keep the believer happy.
    So now you are accusing Cameron and the Treasury of making stuff up about the £1.7 billion? Its a point of view I suppose but not one that will endear you to your political masters in the Tory party.
    Er, no. You are truly desperate if you think I have any masters.
    Its you who again display an incompetent grasp of reality. It was Balls amongst others who regularly claimed the demand was for 1.7 billion and still try to say we are paying 1.7 billion when we are paying £850 million.
  • I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)

    Well given there were barely any Kippers in 2009 and I believe the Sun led the criticism of him and it was when the Tory poll lead started sliding before the last election I think your memory is defective!

    Those were Tory voters whose fury you recall........
    16.5% of voters went UKIP in the 2009 euros. Barely any indeed...
    The announcement about there being no retrospective vote was after the Euros it had no impact on Euro voters. Only 3% voted UKIP in the general election. But still if you want to twist everything to fit your UKIP attacks by all means do so.
    You said there were barely any kippers in 2009. 2.5m voted UKIP in the euro election. Were less than one fifth of them kippers?

    And the fact that Cameron admitted he was unable to time travel AFTER 2.5m voted UKIP is relevant how exactly?
    So you are claiming that anyone who voted UKIP once is a Kipper? I can think of a few Tories on here who might refute such a claim (but probably far fewer today than in 2009.

    As for the relevance of the announcement you were the one that brought it up. Personally I think the whole of your claim is a load of bollocks so if you are now confirming that then I agree!
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)


    Yup ! they only quote the bit that does them the most benefit and leave out the very important part to ensure the Tories sustain maximum damage. I always take the view that anyone who spouts about the cast iron guarantee is a muppet and forgets the act of treachery that took place when Labour sneaked in through the back door and signed Lisbon.

    It equated to Brown increasing the highest rate of tax for the last 30 days of his government . A wicked move the political equivalent of a scorched earth policy and to hell with the good of the country as a whole. Ever since Labour have claimed tax cuts for millionaires of course despite having a lower rate for as good as the entire length of their tenure. Labour is only interested in Labour.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Scott_P said:

    Speedy said:

    May's reputation is in tatters.

    For winning votes?

    For spanking Yvette at the despatch box?

    For strong Law and Order legislation?
    For making a mess, embarrassing the government, making MP's furious and making a travesty of democracy.
  • Speedy said:

    Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?

    If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.

    What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?

    May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
    May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.

    If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
    Your point is interesting. An opinion totally at variance with the facts has been confected to pursue an anti may agenda.
    There is now it seems a lot of that going on. A fictitious 1.7 billion payment being one. Total fantasies are being invented to keep the believer happy.
    So now you are accusing Cameron and the Treasury of making stuff up about the £1.7 billion? Its a point of view I suppose but not one that will endear you to your political masters in the Tory party.
    Did you entirely miss the fact that the UK's rebate will b applied to the £1.7bn BEFORE we pay it, leaving a balance of £850m? And that this will not affect any future rebate amount?
    Nope. I was answering Flightpaths claims that the £1.7 billion was fictitious. Given that the claim about it came from the treasury via the Financial Times and that it was a number repeated on numerous occasions by Cameron then if he is saying it is fictitious then he is clearly accusing Cameron and the Treasury of making it up.

    Oh and the rebate is a red herring - unless you are suggesting that the EU was intending on changing the rules which have existed for almost 30 years just to exclude this one single payment.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    First reaction:
    Nick Robinson ‏@bbcnickrobinson 4m4 minutes ago
    Govt wins comfortably but will pay heavy price with own MPs for trying to railroad them & not giving them a vote on Euro arrest warrant
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Speedy said:

    Will there or will there not be a vote on this package of 35 measures, including the EAW?

    If there will then surely MPs will have the chance to reject the entire package if they feel strongly enough about the EAW.

    What am I missing that's pissing so many people off?

    May's refused to hold a vote, and interpreting ad-hoc the will of parliament without parliament's say.
    May has not refused to have a vote. Cooper has proposed that the question not be put which (probably) means debate would stop tonight allowing them to reconvene tomorrow when the government have worked out how to extricate themselves from the procedural mess.

    If May's original motion is pushed through tonight, as thigs stand it seems unlikely the EAW would survive a challenge in court.
    Your point is interesting. An opinion totally at variance with the facts has been confected to pursue an anti may agenda.
    There is now it seems a lot of that going on. A fictitious 1.7 billion payment being one. Total fantasies are being invented to keep the believer happy.
    There's nothing fictitious about the £1.7 billion payment.

    Except it does not exist. You prove my point again. But you're happy. Bless.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Speedy said:

    Lets put some perspective:

    Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 13m 13 minutes ago
    And David Davies said the government approach is a "travesty of democracy"...

    @faisalislam: Correction: we misheard the Davis comments.. Tweet now deleted...

    I told you he was criticising Cooper.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @JonnyJimmy

    'Did you entirely miss the fact that the UK's rebate will b applied to the £1.7bn BEFORE we pay it, leaving a balance of £850m? And that this will not affect any future rebate amount?'

    He doesn't like embarrassing facts to get in the way.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2014
    Is David Cameron going to vote, will he make it in time?
    Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 10m 10 minutes ago
    As predicted on this feed... The PM is apparently en route from The Lord Mayors banquet to vote on labours motion...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Douglas Carswell MP ‏@DouglasCarswell 10m10 minutes ago
    PM promised vote on EAW in PMQs. Tonight he rushes back in white tie to quash it
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    For Cooper to put David Davis on the same side as May is impressive, as noted upthread by people actually watching the debate
  • john_zims said:

    @JonnyJimmy

    'Did you entirely miss the fact that the UK's rebate will b applied to the £1.7bn BEFORE we pay it, leaving a balance of £850m? And that this will not affect any future rebate amount?'

    He doesn't like embarrassing facts to get in the way.

    No I just like pointing out how little you morons actually understand about the way the EU works.
  • Alistair said:

    SeanT said:


    Who could have guessed that apps and computers would replace maps, and the Knowledge, rendering trained London taxi drivers entirely pointless?

    Computers have been doing routing algorithms from almost the moment there were computers. Graph traversal is just a branch of maths. Computers are maths machines. It is pretty much the most straight forward and obvious application of computers ever.
    SeanT said:


    Computers are now better than humans at chess. Up to the 1980s this was considered impossible. And computers surpassed humans mainly by sheer brute force, the increasing speed and power of their calculations, not any major technological innovation.

    It was not considered impossible - it was cosidered impossible for the horsepwoer of the time not forever. Moore's Law meant that everyone knew it was just a matter of time. The biggest disappointment about computers crushing advantage at chess is that they've over come humans just by brute power alone. they are using (pretty much) exactly the same algorithms as 50 years ago.
    SeanT said:


    The idea computers won't be able to tackle language coz it's just too uniquely hard is nuts. And any 8 year old who is now contemplating a career as a translator or interpreter is very badly advised.

    You seem to have no idea about what the problems of machine translation are. Trust me as a Phd in Computer Science (and I consulted with my wife and her degree in English Langauge - she did computational language stuff) it is a hard problem for numerous reasons It's a hard problem and 20 years till machines are doing all the translation" has been promised for the last 50 years.

    Machine Translation is not something you can just throw more power at to get better results.
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
    Out of sight, out of mind. = Invisible Idiot.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2014
    Scott_P said:

    Speedy said:

    Lets put some perspective:

    Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 13m 13 minutes ago
    And David Davies said the government approach is a "travesty of democracy"...

    @faisalislam: Correction: we misheard the Davis comments.. Tweet now deleted...

    I told you he was criticising Cooper.
    He was criticizing May, the travesty bit was Bill Cash I think.
  • Can anyone explain why Home Secretary Theresa May and Policing Minister Mike Penning have taken no action against the South Yorkshire police:

    " Police in Rotherham tore up paperwork relating to one child sex abuse victim and stopped another from being medically examined, the BBC has been told.

    One woman claimed a policeman called her a liar after she reported being abused aged 15, and the other alleges police prevented her being examined after she was abused aged 13. "

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29957511
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    john_zims said:

    @Moses

    'The telling failure is the inability to identify at what level the EAW kicks in?'

    For an offence that would result in a minimum prison sentence of 1 year.

    Thanks Mr Zims

    Rather unfortunate that the Home Secretary was apparently unable to clarify a little earlier?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited November 2014
    Fake sheikh has got Panorama programme pulled again. His lawyers must be on for a Christmas bonus, thats two weeks in a row.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    The Sun is having a take:
    steve hawkes @steve_hawkes · 11m 11 minutes ago
    Theresa May defeats emergency motion tabled by Labour 272-229... but the long-term damage from all this could last an age
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Douglas Carswell MP ‏@DouglasCarswell 10m10 minutes ago
    PM promised vote on EAW in PMQs. Tonight he rushes back in white tie to quash it

    Carswell really is getting over excited

    There was to be a vote. Labour attempted to quash the vote.

    The PM came back to quash labour's attempt to quash the vote...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Speedy said:

    He was criticizing May

    Still wrong. You can read about it in Hansard tomorrow if you don't trust the reporter you were relying on earlier
  • Moses_ said:

    I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)


    Yup ! they only quote the bit that does them the most benefit and leave out the very important part to ensure the Tories sustain maximum damage. I always take the view that anyone who spouts about the cast iron guarantee is a muppet and forgets the act of treachery that took place when Labour sneaked in through the back door and signed Lisbon.

    It equated to Brown increasing the highest rate of tax for the last 30 days of his government . A wicked move the political equivalent of a scorched earth policy and to hell with the good of the country as a whole. Ever since Labour have claimed tax cuts for millionaires of course despite having a lower rate for as good as the entire length of their tenure. Labour is only interested in Labour.
    Here is a simple question for you. If Brown and co committed such a vile act of treachery why did Cameron decide to do nothing about it?
  • Am I the only person who thinks that Little Britain is a very nasty, unpleasant program ?
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)

    Well given there were barely any Kippers in 2009 and I believe the Sun led the criticism of him and it was when the Tory poll lead started sliding before the last election I think your memory is defective!

    Those were Tory voters whose fury you recall........
    16.5% of voters went UKIP in the 2009 euros. Barely any indeed...
    The announcement about there being no retrospective vote was after the Euros it had no impact on Euro voters. Only 3% voted UKIP in the general election. But still if you want to twist everything to fit your UKIP attacks by all means do so.
    You said there were barely any kippers in 2009. 2.5m voted UKIP in the euro election. Were less than one fifth of them kippers?

    And the fact that Cameron admitted he was unable to time travel AFTER 2.5m voted UKIP is relevant how exactly?
    So you are claiming that anyone who voted UKIP once is a Kipper? I can think of a few Tories on here who might refute such a claim (but probably far fewer today than in 2009.

    As for the relevance of the announcement you were the one that brought it up. Personally I think the whole of your claim is a load of bollocks so if you are now confirming that then I agree!
    Anyone who votes for a party is, at that time, a supporter of that party [FACT]. "Kipper" is the commonly used term for a supporter of UKIP [FACT]. There were 2.5m kippers at the 2009 euro election [FACT]

    For some reason earlier you stated that there were barely any kippers in 2009 [not fact].

    You also, somewhat irrelevantly, stated that they'd voted kipper before Cameron admitted he had no ability to time travel. As though that would support your case about there being barely any kippers in 2009.

    Have you got anything factual or relevant to say?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    Am I the only person who thinks that Little Britain is a very nasty, unpleasant program ?

    Hard to say - the little I saw of it was certainly very crap.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,507
    edited November 2014
    I’ve never sought the Labour leadership – and I never will

    Ed Miliband deserves our loyalty. I will do what I can to put him in No 10, from the backbenches

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/10/alan-johnson-labour-leadership-ed-miliband-loyalty

    Looks like Ed is definitely safe (if there was any real doubt that he would get shoved)
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    The Telegraph's first take:
    Telegraph Politics ‏@TelePolitics 1m1 minute ago
    Commons chaos over European Arrest Warrant vote http://tgr.ph/10N2WnG
  • Scott_P said:

    Speedy said:

    May's reputation is in tatters.

    For winning votes?

    For spanking Yvette at the despatch box?

    For strong Law and Order legislation?
    For tolerating the police collaborating with child rapists ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BethRigby: so govt gets result - 464 back the package, 38 rebels #eaw
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    edited November 2014
    It will be interesting to scan the rebels list for possible UKIP defectors. Hollobone was one of the tellers for no.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    john_zims said:

    @JonnyJimmy

    'Did you entirely miss the fact that the UK's rebate will b applied to the £1.7bn BEFORE we pay it, leaving a balance of £850m? And that this will not affect any future rebate amount?'

    He doesn't like embarrassing facts to get in the way.

    No I just like pointing out how little you morons actually understand about the way the EU works.
    So just an insult and a smug bit of intellectual self confidence? Are you a special blend of Malc & Miliband?

    How about detailing exactly how we're paying £1.7bn with some sources to back it up?
  • kle4 said:

    Am I the only person who thinks that Little Britain is a very nasty, unpleasant program ?

    Hard to say - the little I saw of it was certainly very crap.
    It is crap and gets its laughs from exploiting the nastiness.

  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Richard_Tyndall

    'No I just like pointing out how little you morons actually understand about the way the EU works.'

    Get real,you haven't got a clue,despite your pontificating..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014
    So voters who are concerned that Ed does not have a grip and is not capable of dealing with the real world.....decide to vote Green instead.

    Right.

    Universal suffrage is a good thing, yes?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 5,034
    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:


    Who could have guessed that apps and computers would replace maps, and the Knowledge, rendering trained London taxi drivers entirely pointless?

    Computers have been doing routing algorithms from almost the moment there were computers. Graph traversal is just a branch of maths. Computers are maths machines. It is pretty much the most straight forward and obvious application of computers ever.
    SeanT said:


    Computers are now better than humans at chess. Up to the 1980s this was considered impossible. And computers surpassed humans mainly by sheer brute force, the increasing speed and power of their calculations, not any major technological innovation.

    It was not considered impossible - it was cosidered impossible for the horsepwoer of the time not forever. Moore's Law meant that everyone knew it was just a matter of time. The biggest disappointment about computers crushing advantage at chess is that they've over come humans just by brute power alone. they are using (pretty much) exactly the same algorithms as 50 years ago.
    SeanT said:


    The idea computers won't be able to tackle language coz it's just too uniquely hard is nuts. And any 8 year old who is now contemplating a career as a translator or interpreter is very badly advised.

    You seem to have no idea about what the problems of machine translation are. Trust me as a Phd in Computer Science (and I consulted with my wife and her degree in English Langauge - she did computational language stuff) it is a hard problem for numerous reasons It's a hard problem and 20 years till machines are doing all the translation" has been promised for the last 50 years.

    Machine Translation is not something you can just throw more power at to get better results.
    Xkcd has a take on this sort of thing: http://xkcd.com/1425/image
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Artist said:

    It will be interesting to scan the rebels list for possible UKIP defectors. Hollobone was one of the tellers for no.

    The other teller was Carswell.
  • I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)

    Well given there were barely any Kippers in 2009 and I believe the Sun led the criticism of him and it was when the Tory poll lead started sliding before the last election I think your memory is defective!

    Those were Tory voters whose fury you recall........
    16.5% of voters went UKIP in the 2009 euros. Barely any indeed...
    The announcement about there being no retrospective vote was after the Euros it had no impact on Euro voters. Only 3% voted UKIP in the general election. But still if you want to twist everything to fit your UKIP attacks by all means do so.
    You said there were barely any kippers in 2009. 2.5m voted UKIP in the euro election. Were less than one fifth of them kippers?

    And the fact that Cameron admitted he was unable to time travel AFTER 2.5m voted UKIP is relevant how exactly?
    So you are claiming that anyone who voted UKIP once is a Kipper? I can think of a few Tories on here who might refute such a claim (but probably far fewer today than in 2009.

    As for the relevance of the announcement you were the one that brought it up. Personally I think the whole of your claim is a load of bollocks so if you are now confirming that then I agree!
    Anyone who votes for a party is, at that time, a supporter of that party [FACT]. "Kipper" is the commonly used term for a supporter of UKIP [FACT]. There were 2.5m kippers at the 2009 euro election [FACT]

    For some reason earlier you stated that there were barely any kippers in 2009 [not fact].

    You also, somewhat irrelevantly, stated that they'd voted kipper before Cameron admitted he had no ability to time travel. As though that would support your case about there being barely any kippers in 2009.

    Have you got anything factual or relevant to say?
    Surely there's a difference between supporting a party and voting for it. It is possible to vote on the grounds they are all crap, but one is slightly less crap than the others. Or you quite like the candidate. And plenty of people vote UKIP in Euro elections but don't at a GE - what does this make them? A "supporter" is more someone who probably supports the majority of a party's policies, thinks its leaders are the best ones to run the country, whose family going back seventeen generations voted for them, etc, so much more of a positive attitude.

  • Artist said:

    It will be interesting to scan the rebels list for possible UKIP defectors. Hollobone was one of the tellers for no.

    Yep, definitely a few more Tories considering defecting after that machiavellian display by the government.
  • DavidL said:

    So voters who are concerned that Ed does not have a grip and is not capable of dealing with the real world.....decide to vote Green instead.

    Right.

    Universal suffrage is a good thing, yes?

    Are you still planning on voting for SLAB next year ?

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    A great day for UKIP:
    Faisal Islam @faisalislam · 2m 2 minutes ago
    EAW story done now... Government wins a battle... But not a great day in long war over Europe... Ukip will use as exhibit 1 in campaigning
  • Moses_ said:

    john_zims said:

    @Moses

    'The telling failure is the inability to identify at what level the EAW kicks in?'

    For an offence that would result in a minimum prison sentence of 1 year.

    Thanks Mr Zims

    Rather unfortunate that the Home Secretary was apparently unable to clarify a little earlier?
    An offence that would result in a one-year prison sentence in the UK, or in whatever benighted patch of the former Soviet bloc you are being extradited to?

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: I think a large part of tonight's mayhem was down to the intervention of The Speaker. And that's not what The Speaker is there for.

    Yup. He derailed the whole process before it got going. If he had not made his statement, and May had made her speech, none of this would have happened.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Tonight's farce in the House of Commons reminds me of 80's student politics and attempts at NUS-disaffilition.

    And about as edifying.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2014
    Here comes Nigel:
    steve hawkes @steve_hawkes · 37s 37 seconds ago
    Nigel Farage immediately out: "The Government has treated British democracy with customary contempt."
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Moses

    'Rather unfortunate that the Home Secretary was apparently unable to clarify a little earlier?'

    She did mention it in the early part of her speech.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Moses_ said:

    I'm reminded this evening of the kipper fury at Cameron's inability to time travel to back before Brown signed the Lisbon treaty (that, or their inability to understand his "cast-iron" guarantee)


    Yup ! they only quote the bit that does them the most benefit and leave out the very important part to ensure the Tories sustain maximum damage. I always take the view that anyone who spouts about the cast iron guarantee is a muppet and forgets the act of treachery that took place when Labour sneaked in through the back door and signed Lisbon.

    It equated to Brown increasing the highest rate of tax for the last 30 days of his government . A wicked move the political equivalent of a scorched earth policy and to hell with the good of the country as a whole. Ever since Labour have claimed tax cuts for millionaires of course despite having a lower rate for as good as the entire length of their tenure. Labour is only interested in Labour.
    Here is a simple question for you. If Brown and co committed such a vile act of treachery why did Cameron decide to do nothing about it?
    Such as? Be careful here you are likely to fall into the big elephant trap Brown left behind.

    (Yes I am aware of the principle that one parliament cannot bind the next. )
  • john_zims said:

    @Richard_Tyndall

    'No I just like pointing out how little you morons actually understand about the way the EU works.'

    Get real,you haven't got a clue,despite your pontificating..

    Well clearly you don't have the first idea about how the budget rebate works. I could explain it to you if you like but to be honest I doubt you would understand it even then so I won't bother.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    I'm no fan of the Speaker, but it was entirely right he drew attention to the fact that the government claiming voting on one set of measures was a proxy for another set is entirely unprecedented. It was a shameful abuse of parliamentary behaviour by the Tories today.
  • kle4 said:

    Am I the only person who thinks that Little Britain is a very nasty, unpleasant program ?

    Hard to say - the little I saw of it was certainly very crap.
    Little Britain was one of the two headline launch shows for BBC Three. The other was Monkey Dust - which was an entire order of magnitude more dark and sick and unpleasant, but actually was all the better for being so discomforting. The problem with Little Britain as far as I can see, was that it just wasn't very funny. Or funny at all. Yet the kids all seemed to love it and it got a transfer to the bigger channels. The moral of the story, I reckon, is that you can make a fortune out of catchphrases.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    john_zims said:

    @JonnyJimmy

    'Did you entirely miss the fact that the UK's rebate will b applied to the £1.7bn BEFORE we pay it, leaving a balance of £850m? And that this will not affect any future rebate amount?'

    He doesn't like embarrassing facts to get in the way.

    No I just like pointing out how little you morons actually understand about the way the EU works.
    So just an insult and a smug bit of intellectual self confidence? Are you a special blend of Malc & Miliband?

    How about detailing exactly how we're paying £1.7bn with some sources to back it up?
    I'll do it for him:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/about-that-eu-bill-heres-what-george-osborne-didnt-mention/

    The deal is due to be finalised later this month or next. On the phone from Brussels, a commission aide told me that Osborne will

    ‘pay first and then get the rebate.’

    This implies that Osborne will, despite his protestations, pay the full £1.7 billion – albeit with a chunky refund to follow shortly, which Britain was always going to receive.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited November 2014
    john_zims said:

    @Moses

    'Rather unfortunate that the Home Secretary was apparently unable to clarify a little earlier?'

    She did mention it in the early part of her speech.

    Moses_ said:
    » show previous quotes
    Thanks Mr Zims

    John Lilburne

    Rather unfortunate that the Home Secretary was apparently unable to clarify a little earlier?

    An offence that would result in a one-year prison sentence in the UK, or in whatever benighted patch of the former Soviet bloc you are being extradited to?


    Ok stand corrected .

    I was following a comment down thread which inferred the question was not answered with the words " I don't have that information"
  • Socrates said:

    I'm no fan of the Speaker, but it was entirely right he drew attention to the fact that the government claiming voting on one set of measures was a proxy for another set is entirely unprecedented. It was a shameful abuse of parliamentary behaviour by the Tories today.

    The cheerleaders supporting the government today would be all fury if a Labour government did likewise.

    ' The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. '
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Surely there's a difference between supporting a party and voting for it. It is possible to vote on the grounds they are all crap, but one is slightly less crap than the others. Or you quite like the candidate. And plenty of people vote UKIP in Euro elections but don't at a GE - what does this make them? A "supporter" is more someone who probably supports the majority of a party's policies, thinks its leaders are the best ones to run the country, whose family going back seventeen generations voted for them, etc, so much more of a positive attitude.

    If you vote for a party/candidate in an election you are supporting them, which makes you a supporter, whether you like it or not. The votes aren't differentiated into piles of "love this guy" and "voting him because I hate all the rest".
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    May's incompetence over the EAW has overshadowed her backhanded downgrading of the net immigration target to an 'objective':

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/net-migration-target-becomes-an-aim-or-objective/

    Presumably, the "objective" will now mutate into an "aim", and by the general election it will be an "aspiration".
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Does anyone know if David Cameron made it in time to vote?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I'm going to watch Sky News now:
    Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 3m3 minutes ago
    Jacob Rees mogg accuses Theresa May of "sophistry" on #skynewstonight with @adamboultonSKY
  • john_zims said:

    @JonnyJimmy

    'Did you entirely miss the fact that the UK's rebate will b applied to the £1.7bn BEFORE we pay it, leaving a balance of £850m? And that this will not affect any future rebate amount?'

    He doesn't like embarrassing facts to get in the way.

    No I just like pointing out how little you morons actually understand about the way the EU works.
    So just an insult and a smug bit of intellectual self confidence? Are you a special blend of Malc & Miliband?

    How about detailing exactly how we're paying £1.7bn with some sources to back it up?
    The £1.7 billion stands. It is how much we are due to pay. This would always have been subject to the rebate since the rebate is calculated based on the difference between our net and gross contributions. No one knows how much of the rebate will apply in real money terms since it is based on grants we have not yet received and that we do not yet know the amounts of.

    If, for example, we choose to take EU money to help with events such as a repeat of the the floods last year then the amount of rebate we get in real money terms will be reduced accordingly.

    So the claim that we are getting our contribution reduced by £850 million is simply speculation.

    In the first place we will pay £1.7 billion. How much of that comes back as rebate is currently unknown.
This discussion has been closed.