LG1983/FalseFlag We would hope Russia has no desires to expandits territory, but Putin's vast Moscow military parades mean we cannot be complacent at all
I think in the long term Russian unification is inevitable and will be as powerful as it's German or Italian equivalents.
Notme Voters are certainly not impressed by rising train fares and gas bills and of course Miliband did not propose to renationalise the railways anyway (a policy even Peter Hitchens supports) so we cannot know what voters would think of such a policy to renationalise key public utilities. Yes, privatisation brought some improvements but the voters are certainly not full of thanks
The only mistake made during (especially rail) privatisations has been omitting to preserve an example of what the service used to be like at the time. People don't appreciate that what they have is an unbelievably huge improvement over what I endured as a child in the UK.
Anyone who complains even obliquely about the railways now should be forced to undergo re-education at a 1970's British Rail themed railway station complete with rolling stock and staff acting in character.
Yes!!! The total miserable soul draining experience of using British Rail seems to be lost in the nostalgia for the past. Misery on all levels. The only people it served were those that worked for it.
Ive heard some remarkable things about how Royal Mail are now operating and the efforts they are making to actually eat into a lot of the market theyve lost over the years.
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
notme Yes, Royal Mail is now making a profit and its shares are trading above the level they were sold, the only problem is they are still held back by the universal service, which the government should either scrap, force all mail companies to comply with or subsidise
FF I am aware of Russia's soviet history and their losses in WW2.That is why it is so pathetic to do what they do...It shows a lack of confidence about who they are...trying to vie with North Korea, a puny nation compared to Russia. Less is more.
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
And some people will tell us how things were in the fifties... How wonderful it was etc. The fact is we are used to our standards of living and the service we get from those we do business with to get better and better. We expect them to respond to our needs, not just when it suits them.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
notm Indeed, and a campaign based on anger rarely wins, but introducing some nostalgia into a manifesto does not necessarily doom that manifesto to failure
notme Yes, Royal Mail is now making a profit and its shares are trading above the level they were sold, the only problem is they are still held back by the universal service, which the government should either scrap, force all mail companies to comply with or subsidise
But the value of the company is factored into that universal service obligation. If you remove it you are giving the shareholders a massive boost.
There is lots of talk about rail privatisation as if people were happy with 20-25 years' eaten bread! But the challenge for Conservatives will be to defend the 2015-20 record, not to bash Miliband, fun as it may be.
notme Yes, Royal Mail is now making a profit and its shares are trading above the level they were sold, the only problem is they are still held back by the universal service, which the government should either scrap, force all mail companies to comply with or subsidise
But the value of the company is factored into that universal service obligation. If you remove it you are giving the shareholders a massive boost.
Governments change the operating conditions and market framework around private companies all the time. Why should the post office be trapped aspic as an exception?
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
And some people will tell us how things were in the fifties... How wonderful it was etc. The fact is we are used to our standards of living and the service we get from those we do business with to get better and better. We expect them to respond to our needs, not just when it suits them.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
I think the same wrong-minded nostalgia also applies to the European Union. The time before EU markets is seen as a golden age, when really Britain spent the sixties wondering if there was any way to revive its uncompetitive industries and keep up with German and French economic growth, before deciding it was by joining the Common Market!
Notme Agree with GeoffM As a wholly private company now, no reason Royal Mail should have to charge the same price to send mail within Inner London as to the Outer Hebrides
On topic: I know some LD insiders who describe team Farron as 'worried' (before this interview). I still think Farron will win - there's a strong sense of needing a grass-roots animator above all else.
The risk is that Farron gets elected then found out as a lightweight, thus getting the worst of both worlds. Every politician has bad interviews though, so as long as this remains a one-off in the run-up he's a safe bet.
Mr. tpfkar, you've got a vote in the Farron/Lamb contest, I take it?
Bad luck on the election result. On the plus side, if the SNP stumble you may be able to recover swiftly in Scotland.
MD , after the lying and cheating the Libdems are finished in Scotland for a long time
I'd be surprised if they weren't back a bit sooner than you think. It won't long before the Nats reveal their feet of clay and turn out to be politicians after all.
NeilVW Incumbency vote counts for 1,00 votes at most, as all those LD incumbent MPs who lost their seats in May will attest
Looking at the 14 Lib Dem seats in the South West which the Tories captured, the three highest swings achieved were in seats where the Lib Dem candidate was not an incumbent:
(The only other non-incumbent Lib Dem, the candidate replacing Annette Brooke in Mid Dorset and North Poole, suffered an 11.6% swing, seventh-highest of the fourteen.)
Perhaps in part due to his unusual expenses problems, David Laws incurred the fourth-highest swing among the fourteen, of 16.1%.
The smallest swing of the 14 lost seats was in my own constituency, St Ives (4.5%), followed by Wells (7.4%), Torbay (7.6%) and Thornbury and Yate (9.0%). Overall average swing in the 14 seats was 11.6%.
Anyway, coming back to your point, the average swing against the ten incumbents was 9.9%, six points lower than the average swing against the four non-incumbents (15.9%).
That six-point differential in swing amounts to approximately 3,000 votes per party, which of course doubles to 6,000 votes in the battle between Con and LD.
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
Car crash time. Surprised that Neil didn't ask Farron about his views on Carmichael, I think this could become a LibDem achilles heel as it does not appear to sit comfortably with "Liberal" values, which these guys constantly spout forth on. Interestingly it appears that the LibDems have not yet decided if they will pick up Carmichaels legal bill:
" Two LibDem media officers spent most of yesterday afternoon trying to find the answer, and last night a spokesman said no decision had been made. “We would expect a decision in the next few days and then it will be made public. But we have no further comment at the moment,” he said. The Scotland Office in Edinburgh, once Carmichael’s workplace, said the costs were nothing to do with them and a spokesman for the House of Commons media office said: “We are not aware of any assistance that could be provided to Mr Carmichael.”
Carmichael dissembling about the timing of his being aware of that memo seems a very, very, very minor lapse in the great scheme of political rough and tumble. From a safe distance here in North Yorkshire, one wonders that his true 'crimes' were (I) embarrassing the SNP leader and (ii) winning.
Lying to try and keep his seat , and as a government minister, you seem to have very few principles or morals.
Well, I guess it's a good job there isn't an offence of lying about the existence or not of documents in the course of s referendum campaign...
Wiggins 54.526km. Adding 1.7km to the distance. I think the word for that is "Obliterated"!
Out of reach for Cancellara and Contador
Probably out of reach for Dowsett.
Well within Tony Martin's ability.
Still, if he had done the Hour in 2012 he would have set a mark around 58km and never seen it touched for 20 years or more.
Aslo, who could have imagined 20 years ago that there would ever be a day where 6000 people would pay to watch an Hour attempt in the UK.
Contador would struggle to make 50, even if he was interested. Cancellara should've gone earlier; he could've claimed it for a bit, but his injury was unfortunate (ultimately though I think he's more interested in winning another classic).
I wouldn't discount Dowsett, but agree on Tony Martin. I hope he goes for it.
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
Er presumably there was no majority for a bill, if it was defeated.
Should religious people not count towards a democratic majority?
Who is Barack Obama to intervene in the UK domestic debate on our EU membership? Perhaps he has a leg to stand once the US accepts a pan-American legislature with primacy over Congress and unlimited immigration from Latin America.
Wiggins 54.526km. Adding 1.7km to the distance. I think the word for that is "Obliterated"!
Out of reach for Cancellara and Contador
Probably out of reach for Dowsett.
Well within Tony Martin's ability.
Still, if he had done the Hour in 2012 he would have set a mark around 58km and never seen it touched for 20 years or more.
Aslo, who could have imagined 20 years ago that there would ever be a day where 6000 people would pay to watch an Hour attempt in the UK.
Contador would struggle to make 50, even if he was interested. Cancellara should've gone earlier; he could've claimed it for a bit, but his injury was unfortunate (ultimately though I think he's more interested in winning another classic).
I wouldn't discount Dowsett, but agree on Tony Martin. I hope he goes for it.
Great for the sport if there's two or three guys pushing each other for a record like that. The atmosphere in the London Velodrome looked absolutely electric tonight, it would be great if someone was to attempt this classic endurance record every couple of months, pushing each other towards the old Boardman record with the magic bike.
The problem with most of the pro-railway privatisation people is that they're choosing the solution before they've defined the problem. There are many issues with privatisation, but almost all of the people who cry 'nationalisation' have no concerns about these issues.
In fact, many wouldn't care if the services were worse after nationalisation, because it'd be 'their' railways and no-one would be making a profit out of it. In fact, it's remarkably similar to some people's views on the NHS: what matters is the NHS rather than the patients.
There are one or two honourable critics of railway privatisation, one of whom wants to be London Mayor. Labour would be wise to offer Wolmar some official position when (if) he does not win Labour's nomination. I don't agree with him, but at least he argues from a position of depth of knowledge. A good man, and not an ordinary politico.
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
He's 'religious', not a 'religious nutter'. That accolade is restricted to people who fly 'planes into buildings, carry bombs in backpacks, or cut your head off and post the video on youtube.
LuckyGuy1983 Unless the Russians invade Alaska I would suggest we have more to worry about Putin than the US, given present defence cuts the Russian army could probably invade half of Europe without too much opposition at the moment before NATO got its act together and launched a response
This is an utterly ridiculous hypothetical argument. I thought Kippers were meant to be tinfoil hat wearers, but when it comes to Russia realpolitik seems to abandon most here and the batshit tendency completely takes over. Putin to invade the UK? Um, why exactly? Russia's defence doctrine hasn't changed. It has always sought a buffer of dependent states between itself and NATO, and recent events have shown it to be a sensible precaution. When has Russia recently flown halfway across the world to drop bombs on another country? They deal with their own backyard only - something that we would do well to take note of.
Do the proposed buffer states get a say in whether they are to be reduced to Russian dependencies or not? The Russian side in this debate seems to treat them as mere chips to be divided up between the great powers.
NeilVW So even the incumbents saw a huge almost 10% swing against them and all lost their seats,some like Laws did even worse. The key factor in the LD defeat was tactical unwind from Labour voters, yes incumbents normally get a bit of a boost, but it is national trend which normally determines their fate
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
Er presumably there was no majority for a bill, if it was defeated.
Should religious people not count towards a democratic majority?
Scotland is a non-religious country where No Religion is consistently over 50% of the population. That is not reflected in Holyrood. In the UK as a whole I believe No Religion isn't quite an absolute majority yet but Parliament seems to have a much higher proportion of religious nuts than the general population.
This is a problem in a representative democracy - the representatives have to reflect the aspirations and beliefs of the population. Religious nuts don't represent non religious people.
LuckyGuy1983 Unless the Russians invade Alaska I would suggest we have more to worry about Putin than the US, given present defence cuts the Russian army could probably invade half of Europe without too much opposition at the moment before NATO got its act together and launched a response
This is an utterly ridiculous hypothetical argument. I thought Kippers were meant to be tinfoil hat wearers, but when it comes to Russia realpolitik seems to abandon most here and the batshit tendency completely takes over. Putin to invade the UK? Um, why exactly? Russia's defence doctrine hasn't changed. It has always sought a buffer of dependent states between itself and NATO, and recent events have shown it to be a sensible precaution. When has Russia recently flown halfway across the world to drop bombs on another country? They deal with their own backyard only - something that we would do well to take note of.
Do the proposed buffer states get a say in whether they are to be reduced to Russian dependencies or not? The Russian side in this debate seems to treat them as mere chips to be divided up between the great powers.
From the British perspective I don't think what Georgia does is of any interest to us, they certainly shouldn't be entered into a defence agreement with.
Are we to get a fair say in our membership of the EU or are we just a dependency of the US?
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
He's 'religious', not a 'religious nutter'. That accolade is restricted to people who fly 'planes into buildings, carry bombs in backpacks, or cut your head off and post the video on youtube.
Religion is a mental illness, anyone who believes in a great all powerful sky person or people with no rational thought or evidence is delusional. It has no place in modern society and certainly not in the political process.
JEO The US is part of NAFTA. He intervened on the Union too
NAFTA does not have lawmaking powers nor free movement of labour. In fact it's the sort of arrangement the eurosceptics are arguing for.
Actually, NAFTA contains a lot of things that we would find unacceptable. Here are two:
1. Under NAFTA rules, it is illegal for a country to have product standards that act as a trade barrier to products from other NAFTA countries. The effect of this is that the Canadian and Mexican product and safety standards bodies have been utterly denuded of power, as everything in NAFTA is now made solely to US standards.
2. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA there are something called the ISDS provisions - aka the Investor State Dispute Settlement, which gives certain extraterritorial power to courts to over-rule countries' own laws. An example of the dangers of the NAFTA ISDS provisions was when the Quebec government banned certain lawn pesticides in 2008, and DowAgroSciences sued the Canadian government. The Canadian government was forced to back down - even though there was nothing specific in the NAFTA provisions regarding the ability of countries or states to ban harmful pesticides.
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
Er presumably there was no majority for a bill, if it was defeated.
Should religious people not count towards a democratic majority?
Scotland is a non-religious country where No Religion is consistently over 50% of the population. That is not reflected in Holyrood. In the UK as a whole I believe No Religion isn't quite an absolute majority yet but Parliament seems to have a much higher proportion of religious nuts than the general population.
This is a problem in a representative democracy - the representatives have to reflect the aspirations and beliefs of the population. Religious nuts don't represent non religious people.
I'm agnostic, but in the past I've had sympathy with what some other people define as the ravings of a 'religious nut'. Deriving a position on a religious basis is no different from deriving it from any other basis. For instance, dare I say it, a nationalist basis?
Besides, everyone posting on PB is a nut in some way or the other. Including myself. ;-)
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
He's 'religious', not a 'religious nutter'. That accolade is restricted to people who fly 'planes into buildings, carry bombs in backpacks, or cut your head
LuckyGuy1983 Unless the Russians invade Alaska I would suggest we have more to worry about Putin than the US, given present defence cuts the Russian army could probably invade half of Europe without too much opposition at the moment before NATO got its act together and launched a response
This is an utterly ridiculous hypothetical argument. I thought Kippers were meant to be tinfoil hat wearers, but when it comes to Russia realpolitik seems to abandon most here and the batshit tendency completely takes over. Putin to invade the UK? Um, why exactly? Russia's defence doctrine hasn't changed. It has always sought a buffer of dependent states between itself and NATO, and recent events have shown it to be a sensible precaution. When has Russia recently flown halfway across the world to drop bombs on another country? They deal with their own backyard only - something that we would do well to take note of.
Do the proposed buffer states get a say in whether they are to be reduced to Russian dependencies or not? The Russian side in this debate seems to treat them as mere chips to be divided up between the great powers.
From the British perspective I don't think what Georgia does is of any interest to us, they certainly shouldn't be entered into a defence agreement with.
Are we to get a fair say in our membership of the EU or are we just a dependency of the US?
I find the 'keep your head down' mindset when you see the powerful bullying the weak is as immoral on a national level as it is on an individual basis.
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
He's 'religious', not a 'religious nutter'. That accolade is restricted to people who fly 'planes into buildings, carry bombs in backpacks, or cut your head off and post the video on youtube.
Religion is a mental illness, anyone who believes in a great all powerful sky person or people with no rational thought or evidence is delusional. It has no place in modern society and certainly not in the political process.
Let me correct that for you:
"Nationalism is a mental illness, anyone who is a nationalist is delusional. It has no place in modern society and certainly not in the political process."
That's the problem with many delusional people: they don't recognise the delusion in themselves ;-)
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
Er presumably there was no majority for a bill, if it was defeated.
Should religious people not count towards a democratic majority?
Scotland is a non-religious country where No Religion is consistently over 50% of the population. That is not reflected in Holyrood. In the UK as a whole I believe No Religion isn't quite an absolute majority yet but Parliament seems to have a much higher proportion of religious nuts than the general population.
This is a problem in a representative democracy - the representatives have to reflect the aspirations and beliefs of the population. Religious nuts don't represent non religious people.
If we want to start banging on about any group being over-represented then I suggest that we start with lawyers, rather than religious people.
P.S. You are not doing yourself any favours with your intemperate language in knocking people who have faith, and who adopt highly civilized behaviour because of it.
JEO NAFTA is basically a North American Common Market, but there were arguments against even that and of course around 30% voted against Britain joining the Common Market
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
And some people will tell us how things were in the fifties... How wonderful it was etc. The fact is we are used to our standards of living and the service we get from those we do business with to get better and better. We expect them to respond to our needs, not just when it suits them.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
I think the same wrong-minded nostalgia also applies to the European Union. The time before EU markets is seen as a golden age, when really Britain spent the sixties wondering if there was any way to revive its uncompetitive industries and keep up with German and French economic growth, before deciding it was by joining the Common Market!
At which point we found that didn't work either and our balance of trade collapsed to add to all our other woes. It would take Thatcher to finally revive our fortunes. Membership of the EEC/ EU had nothing to do with it and has held us back as a country both economically and politically.
The Middle East needs a democratic Turkey. With Erdogan and the AKP in charge it's getting more autocratic/islamic, as well as turning it's back on the Islamic State problem.
Dair The 2011 Census had 54% of Scots claiming a Christian faith, 37% no faith, 32% claimed an affinity to the Church of Scotland, 19% the Catholic Church. In the Western Isles shops are still shut on Sundays.The Churches have their problems but they also man the foodbanks and soup kitchens, operate homeless hostels run schools, founded hospitals etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#Religion
JEO The US is part of NAFTA. He intervened on the Union too
NAFTA does not have lawmaking powers nor free movement of labour. In fact it's the sort of arrangement the eurosceptics are arguing for.
Actually, NAFTA contains a lot of things that we would find unacceptable. Here are two:
1. Under NAFTA rules, it is illegal for a country to have product standards that act as a trade barrier to products from other NAFTA countries. The effect of this is that the Canadian and Mexican product and safety standards bodies have been utterly denuded of power, as everything in NAFTA is now made solely to US standards.
2. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA there are something called the ISDS provisions - aka the Investor State Dispute Settlement, which gives certain extraterritorial power to courts to over-rule countries' own laws. An example of the dangers of the NAFTA ISDS provisions was when the Quebec government banned certain lawn pesticides in 2008, and DowAgroSciences sued the Canadian government. The Canadian government was forced to back down - even though there was nothing specific in the NAFTA provisions regarding the ability of countries or states to ban harmful pesticides.
Are they going to tell us how many hours a week we can work? That we must allow people with no intention of work to come and live here and receive benefits?
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
Er presumably there was no majority for a bill, if it was defeated.
Should religious people not count towards a democratic majority?
Scotland is a non-religious country where No Religion is consistently over 50% of the population. That is not reflected in Holyrood. In the UK as a whole I believe No Religion isn't quite an absolute majority yet but Parliament seems to have a much higher proportion of religious nuts than the general population.
This is a problem in a representative democracy - the representatives have to reflect the aspirations and beliefs of the population. Religious nuts don't represent non religious people.
I'm agnostic, but in the past I've had sympathy with what some other people define as the ravings of a 'religious nut'. Deriving a position on a religious basis is no different from deriving it from any other basis. For instance, dare I say it, a nationalist basis?
Besides, everyone posting on PB is a nut in some way or the other. Including myself. ;-)
Being compassionate, empathetic or socially minded is not a religious concept, it is easily reflected in non-religious social constructs like Humanism.
Unlike religion and the belief in sky fairies, there are plenty of arguable rational reasons for a belief in nationalism of any form, the benefits of a closer, smaller state, the benefits of a hegemonic ethnic, linguistic or cultural demographic, smaller scale policy focus, wealth concentration, etc, etc. (I'm not advocating any specific example in this post btw).
These are arguable and rational viewpoints. Religion is not.
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
And some people will tell us how things were in the fifties... How wonderful it was etc. The fact is we are used to our standards of living and the service we get from those we do business with to get better and better. We expect them to respond to our needs, not just when it suits them.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
I think the same wrong-minded nostalgia also applies to the European Union. The time before EU markets is seen as a golden age, when really Britain spent the sixties wondering if there was any way to revive its uncompetitive industries and keep up with German and French economic growth, before deciding it was by joining the Common Market!
At which point we found that didn't work either and our balance of trade collapsed to add to all our other woes. It would take Thatcher to finally revive our fortunes. Membership of the EEC/ EU had nothing to do with it and has held us back as a country both economically and politically.
Yes, we recovered because we discovered supply side economics: notably labour market and tax reform.
Freeing up markets does wonders for countries generally. (The Greeks should try it.)
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
He's 'religious', not a 'religious nutter'. That accolade is restricted to people who fly 'planes into buildings, carry bombs in backpacks, or cut your head off and post the video on youtube.
Religion is a mental illness, anyone who believes in a great all powerful sky person or people with no rational thought or evidence is delusional. It has no place in modern society and certainly not in the political process.
Your one-eyed and fundamentalist approach rather rules out any rational discussion of whether religion can have a positive or a negative impact. So I will leave it there.
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
Er presumably there was no majority for a bill, if it was defeated.
Should religious people not count towards a democratic majority?
Scotland is a non-religious country where No Religion is consistently over 50% of the population. That is not reflected in Holyrood. In the UK as a whole I believe No Religion isn't quite an absolute majority yet but Parliament seems to have a much higher proportion of religious nuts than the general population.
This is a problem in a representative democracy - the representatives have to reflect the aspirations and beliefs of the population. Religious nuts don't represent non religious people.
There are parts of it are riddled with sectarianism.
JEO The US is part of NAFTA. He intervened on the Union too
NAFTA does not have lawmaking powers nor free movement of labour. In fact it's the sort of arrangement the eurosceptics are arguing for.
Actually, NAFTA contains a lot of things that we would find unacceptable. Here are two:
1. Under NAFTA rules, it is illegal for a country to have product standards that act as a trade barrier to products from other NAFTA countries. The effect of this is that the Canadian and Mexican product and safety standards bodies have been utterly denuded of power, as everything in NAFTA is now made solely to US standards.
2. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA there are something called the ISDS provisions - aka the Investor State Dispute Settlement, which gives certain extraterritorial power to courts to over-rule countries' own laws. An example of the dangers of the NAFTA ISDS provisions was when the Quebec government banned certain lawn pesticides in 2008, and DowAgroSciences sued the Canadian government. The Canadian government was forced to back down - even though there was nothing specific in the NAFTA provisions regarding the ability of countries or states to ban harmful pesticides.
Are they going to tell us how many hours a week we can work? That we must allow people with no intention of work to come and live here and receive benefits?
I'm not defending the EU. I'm just pointing out that joining NAFTA involves giving up a degree of sovereignty.
Given the ISDS provisions, I'd put it as slightly more invasive than EFTA/EEA but a lot less invasive than being a member of the EU.
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
And some people will tell us how things were in the fifties... How wonderful it was etc. The fact is we are used to our standards of living and the service we get from those we do business with to get better and better. We expect them to respond to our needs, not just when it suits them.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
I think the same wrong-minded nostalgia also applies to the European Union. The time before EU markets is seen as a golden age, when really Britain spent the sixties wondering if there was any way to revive its uncompetitive industries and keep up with German and French economic growth, before deciding it was by joining the Common Market!
At which point we found that didn't work either and our balance of trade collapsed to add to all our other woes. It would take Thatcher to finally revive our fortunes. Membership of the EEC/ EU had nothing to do with it and has held us back as a country both economically and politically.
Regarding balance of trade: I think that is largely a function of the amount of money flowing into the UK as it is seen as a global safe haven (like the US). It's hard to run a trade surplus when so much hot money is coming into - for example - the UK property market.
The problem with most of the pro-railway privatisation people is that they're choosing the solution before they've defined the problem. There are many issues with privatisation, but almost all of the people who cry 'nationalisation' have no concerns about these issues.
In fact, many wouldn't care if the services were worse after nationalisation, because it'd be 'their' railways and no-one would be making a profit out of it. In fact, it's remarkably similar to some people's views on the NHS: what matters is the NHS rather than the patients.
There are one or two honourable critics of railway privatisation, one of whom wants to be London Mayor. Labour would be wise to offer Wolmar some official position when (if) he does not win Labour's nomination. I don't agree with him, but at least he argues from a position of depth of knowledge. A good man, and not an ordinary politico.
Absolutely, the privatisation process was horrendous. I understand the separation of track and operating company was a necessity of european competition requirements (but such excuses are always handy). Railtrack were never operated as a fit and proper company, but like the very worst asset strippers.
What is fascinating is that not matter how bodged the process was, that what we have ended up with in the end is a railways that is substantially better. An industry in a fifty year decline now at a fifty year high.
The arguments now arent about which lines are getting closed, but how to open new ones to cope with the demand.
Sorry for going off topic, but can someone tell me if there is a way to re-order the comments so that the oldest ones display at the top of the thread?
Sorry for going off topic, but can someone tell me if there is a way to re-order the comments so that the oldest ones display at the top of the thread?
If you go to politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com you can view the discussions in that way. The thread headers aren't shown in full there though.
Sorry for going off topic, but can someone tell me if there is a way to re-order the comments so that the oldest ones display at the top of the thread?
Sorry for going off topic, but can someone tell me if there is a way to re-order the comments so that the oldest ones display at the top of the thread?
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
And some people will tell us how things were in the fifties... How wonderful it was etc. The fact is we are used to our standards of living and the service we get from those we do business with to get better and better. We expect them to respond to our needs, not just when it suits them.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
I think the same wrong-minded nostalgia also applies to the European Union. The time before EU markets is seen as a golden age, when really Britain spent the sixties wondering if there was any way to revive its uncompetitive industries and keep up with German and French economic growth, before deciding it was by joining the Common Market!
At which point we found that didn't work either and our balance of trade collapsed to add to all our other woes. It would take Thatcher to finally revive our fortunes. Membership of the EEC/ EU had nothing to do with it and has held us back as a country both economically and politically.
Yes, we recovered because we discovered supply side economics: notably labour market and tax reform.
Freeing up markets does wonders for countries generally. (The Greeks should try it.)
It is utterly remarkable what can happen when you make even modest reforms. What seems to happen is when times are good the temptation to meddle and regulate is irresistible. When the juggernaut is flying down the tracks, new regulation, new obligations make little difference, like throwing a peanut at a stampeding rhino. However the accumulative effect when the juggernaut is on an incline and slowed down substantially is much more evident.
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
And some people will tell us how things were in the fifties... How wonderful it was etc. The fact is we are used to our standards of living and the service we get from those we do business with to get better and better. We expect them to respond to our needs, not just when it suits them.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
I think the same wrong-minded nostalgia also applies to the European Union. The time before EU markets is seen as a golden age, when really Britain spent the sixties wondering if there was any way to revive its uncompetitive industries and keep up with German and French economic growth, before deciding it was by joining the Common Market!
At which point we found that didn't work either and our balance of trade collapsed to add to all our other woes. It would take Thatcher to finally revive our fortunes. Membership of the EEC/ EU had nothing to do with it and has held us back as a country both economically and politically.
Yes, we recovered because we discovered supply side economics: notably labour market and tax reform.
Freeing up markets does wonders for countries generally. (The Greeks should try it.)
It is utterly remarkable what can happen when you make even modest reforms. What seems to happen is when times are good the temptation to meddle and regulate is irresistible. When the juggernaut is flying down the tracks, new regulation, new obligations make little difference, like throwing a peanut at a stampeding rhino. However the accumulative effect when the juggernaut is on an incline and slowed down substantially is much more evident.
I think that's a fabulous analogy; may I steal it?
Absolutely, the privatisation process was horrendous. I understand the separation of track and operating company was a necessity of european competition requirements (but such excuses are always handy). Railtrack were never operated as a fit and proper company, but like the very worst asset strippers.
What is fascinating is that not matter how bodged the process was, that what we have ended up with in the end is a railways that is substantially better. An industry in a fifty year decline now at a fifty year high.
The arguments now arent about which lines are getting closed, but how to open new ones to cope with the demand.
I was lucky enough to know (in an utterly non-professional way) people at several levels when privatisation was going through. One, a mid-level manager, hated the fact that BR's attitude was to continually rationalise and manage a shrinking network. It was their mindset; expansion was not on the cards. And because it was not their mindset, it was hard to get approval for expansion (or even decent new rolling stock).
A typical example of this was single-tracking: taking a route that had double tracks and reducing them to single to reduce maintenance costs, with consequent loss of service capacity. Some of these are being reversed now at great cost, with the second line being put down.
Worse was the way they costed private sidings off the network, reducing the sources of freight.
That is not to say BR did not do well given the constraints. But it could be argued that a significant reason privatisation has been so successful is that people believed it could be, and looked to the stars rather than the gutter.
As an aside, Railtrack was just continuing BR's attitude to infrastructure; i.e. they were trying to become a property company. The success of the Broad Street closure and conversion in the late 1980s, and the redevelopment of the adjacent Liverpool Street a few years later, convinced BR that they could get some much-needed income from their property.
I see the BBC have a piece entitled 'Was this England's most boring match ever?' with regards the Ireland match. Given some past efforts, that is truly frightening if it is a possibility.
(snip) Absolutely, the privatisation process was horrendous. I understand the separation of track and operating company was a necessity of european competition requirements (but such excuses are always handy). Railtrack were never operated as a fit and proper company, but like the very worst asset strippers.
As an aside, I should have said that asset stripping is exactly what BR had been doing since nationalisation. The humiliating failure of the 1955 modernisation program accelerated the process. By the 1980s it was in BR's DNA.
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
And some people will tell us how things were in the fifties... How wonderful it was etc. The fact is we are used to our standards of living and the service we get from those we do business with to get better and better. We expect them to respond to our needs, not just when it suits them.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
I think the same wrong-minded nostalgia also applies to the European Union. The time before EU markets is seen as a golden age, when really Britain spent the sixties wondering if there was any way to revive its uncompetitive industries and keep up with German and French economic growth, before deciding it was by joining the Common Market!
At which point we found that didn't work either and our balance of trade collapsed to add to all our other woes. It would take Thatcher to finally revive our fortunes. Membership of the EEC/ EU had nothing to do with it and has held us back as a country both economically and politically.
Regarding balance of trade: I think that is largely a function of the amount of money flowing into the UK as it is seen as a global safe haven (like the US). It's hard to run a trade surplus when so much hot money is coming into - for example - the UK property market.
Except that the balance of trade deficit - particularly with the various countries of the EEC/EU started long before we became a global safe haven and is not only a function of investment but also of trade in goods.
If that is true it is a sign that even if he gets no deal at all then Cameron is intending campaigning for 'In'. So much for a decision based on the results of the negotiation.
Not that I don't trust it, but do you have any source for Cameron's 'quote' that's not on a UKIP blog? Most of the media are leading with the PMs comments on military spending, and IMHO if he did say that he'll be splitting his party in half.
GeoffM Agree on Russia. On the railways they should also be offered a BR sandwich but misguided or not there is no doubt there is nostalgia for BR amongst a large segment of the population
And some people will tell us how things were in the fifties... How wonderful it was etc. The fact is we are used to our standards of living and the service we get from those we do business with to get better and better. We expect them to respond to our needs, not just when it suits them.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
I think the same wrong-minded nostalgia also applies to the European Union. The time before EU markets is seen as a golden age, when really Britain spent the sixties wondering if there was any way to revive its uncompetitive industries and keep up with German and French economic growth, before deciding it was by joining the Common Market!
At which point we found that didn't work either and our balance of trade collapsed to add to all our other woes. It would take Thatcher to finally revive our fortunes. Membership of the EEC/ EU had nothing to do with it and has held us back as a country both economically and politically.
Yes, we recovered because we discovered supply side economics: notably labour market and tax reform.
Freeing up markets does wonders for countries generally. (The Greeks should try it.)
It is utterly remarkable what can happen when you make even modest reforms. What seems to happen is when times are good the temptation to meddle and regulate is irresistible. When the juggernaut is flying down the tracks, new regulation, new obligations make little difference, like throwing a peanut at a stampeding rhino. However the accumulative effect when the juggernaut is on an incline and slowed down substantially is much more evident.
I think that's a fabulous analogy; may I steal it?
The stampeding rhino might have been the late Patrick Moore's...
Very insightful article, thanks. Interesting to hear more of those who shun the limelight but play just as big a part in everything behind the scenes.
You have all the commentators, all the think tanks, the bloggers, the institutes... They can self flagellate, criticise, rip apart, tell us how to do it. But here is the job that someone who is doing that. Changing the system literally from within.
Everyone else is like a spectator at a football match. But here is the man who decides which players we need to buy, what defensive strategy we should be playing and how much to charge for the gate tickets.
Not that I don't trust it, but do you have any source for Cameron's 'quote' that's not on a UKIP blog? Most of the media are leading with the PMs comments on military spending, and IMHO if he did say that he'll be splitting his party in half.
Even the UKIP blog doesn't say that. The whole article is based on that well-known Tory insider David Campbell Bannerman saying that some Tories could resign if forced to campaign for Yes.
Who is Barack Obama to intervene in the UK domestic debate on our EU membership? Perhaps he has a leg to stand once the US accepts a pan-American legislature with primacy over Congress and unlimited immigration from Latin America.
I suppose the same way the US Justice Department and the FBI is looking into FIFA Corruption. Strictly speaking, Blazer is fair enough and correct. But if one country gave a bribe to a person in another country , none of which is the US, what business is it of theirs ?
Would we allow the Chinese or the Russians to do the same ? What would happen if Russia issued a warrant for Salazar's arrest ?
Not that I don't trust it, but do you have any source for Cameron's 'quote' that's not on a UKIP blog? Most of the media are leading with the PMs comments on military spending, and IMHO if he did say that he'll be splitting his party in half.
Even the UKIP blog doesn't say that. The whole article is based on that well-known Tory insider David Campbell Bannerman saying that some Tories could resign if forced to campaign for Yes.
The article says:
Speaking at the G7 meeting in Germany today, Cameron said that ministers would be expected to vote in line with their manifesto commitment of keeping the UK in the EU.
Yet no-one else is reporting that the PM said anything of the sort - and I'm pretty sure the manifesto didn't say what the author says it said. In other words, it's bollocks until proven otherwise.
Regarding Cameron's edict to Tory Ministers on the EU - I think that is going a bit too far. Labour cabinet members campaigned on opposite sides and so did the Tory shadow team. I don't think that was why Labour lost in 1979. If I recall the EC was hardly mentioned. It was the Unions........
Ultimately, the gang of four formed the SDP but most of the formidable Europhiles stayed with Labour. Healey, Smith, Hattersley etc.. The root of the split may have been Europe but the main reason of the split was a left wing Union based takeover of the party.
Who is Barack Obama to intervene in the UK domestic debate on our EU membership? Perhaps he has a leg to stand once the US accepts a pan-American legislature with primacy over Congress and unlimited immigration from Latin America.
I suppose the same way the US Justice Department and the FBI is looking into FIFA Corruption. Strictly speaking, Blazer is fair enough and correct. But if one country gave a bribe to a person in another country , none of which is the US, what business is it of theirs ?
(snip)
I think the problem is if the money in some way touches America or its banks, then the US can get involved. Which seems fair enough, if unfair due to the global reach of US banks. If they uncover information about corruption during their investigation that is not relevant to them, they can pass it onto the relevant authorities. For instance this might happen with some of Blazer's testimony.
Farron is pretty superficial and indeed Burnham-esque it seems in his style of answering questions.
But that wasn't a car crash interview in my opinion.
I think he handled it pretty well. I think Farron is a better candidate than Lamb, despite being closer myself to Lamb politically.
I think the Libs will do well to sacrifice Lamb to save themselves. They have already sacrificed themselves at their Tory Gods who really scr**ed them royally !
Regarding Cameron's edict to Tory Ministers on the EU - I think that is going a bit too far. Labour cabinet members campaigned on opposite sides and so did the Tory shadow team. I don't think that was why Labour lost in 1979. If I recall the EC was hardly mentioned. It was the Unions........
Ultimately, the gang of four formed the SDP but most of the formidable Europhiles stayed with Labour. Healey, Smith, Hattersley etc.. The root of the split may have been Europe but the main reason of the split was a left wing Union based takeover of the party.
The infamous Labour Manifesto of 1983 called for an exit from the EU (and incidentally NATO too). The SDP were solidly Europhile at that time, as was Mrs Thatchers Conservative party.
Regarding Cameron's edict to Tory Ministers on the EU - I think that is going a bit too far. Labour cabinet members campaigned on opposite sides and so did the Tory shadow team. I don't think that was why Labour lost in 1979. If I recall the EC was hardly mentioned. It was the Unions........
Ultimately, the gang of four formed the SDP but most of the formidable Europhiles stayed with Labour. Healey, Smith, Hattersley etc.. The root of the split may have been Europe but the main reason of the split was a left wing Union based takeover of the party.
The infamous Labour Manifesto of 1983 called for an exit from the EU (and incidentally NATO too). The SDP were solidly Europhile at that time, as was Mrs Thatchers Conservative party.
The SDP had already broken away. In fact, the by-election victories took place in 1982.
Regarding Cameron's edict to Tory Ministers on the EU - I think that is going a bit too far. Labour cabinet members campaigned on opposite sides and so did the Tory shadow team. I don't think that was why Labour lost in 1979. If I recall the EC was hardly mentioned. It was the Unions........
Ultimately, the gang of four formed the SDP but most of the formidable Europhiles stayed with Labour. Healey, Smith, Hattersley etc.. The root of the split may have been Europe but the main reason of the split was a left wing Union based takeover of the party.
The infamous Labour Manifesto of 1983 called for an exit from the EU (and incidentally NATO too). The SDP were solidly Europhile at that time, as was Mrs Thatchers Conservative party.
The SDP had already broken away. In fact, the by-election victories took place in 1982.
Yes. I remember it well. Labour were the anti-Europe party at the time, and in the Seventies too.
Indeed Wilson's EEC referendum was a sign of a disunited party on the subject, and the result failed to unite the party. Tories take note!
Of course there were many other reasons beside isolationism that made Labour unelectable in 83.
Regarding Cameron's edict to Tory Ministers on the EU - I think that is going a bit too far. Labour cabinet members campaigned on opposite sides and so did the Tory shadow team. I don't think that was why Labour lost in 1979. If I recall the EC was hardly mentioned. It was the Unions........
Ultimately, the gang of four formed the SDP but most of the formidable Europhiles stayed with Labour. Healey, Smith, Hattersley etc.. The root of the split may have been Europe but the main reason of the split was a left wing Union based takeover of the party.
The infamous Labour Manifesto of 1983 called for an exit from the EU (and incidentally NATO too). The SDP were solidly Europhile at that time, as was Mrs Thatchers Conservative party.
The SDP had already broken away. In fact, the by-election victories took place in 1982.
This may be factually accurate but as it's surbiton saying it I instinctively disbelieve. Could someone credible please confirm, cheers.
Not quite what he said, but then its the Mirror reporting. In fact he is dodging the question like any diplomat would. The cabinet like all the party campaigned on renegotiations, the intention of which is to be successful. If being in the EU is so terrible, how come these don't wannabe's are in government now?
Regarding Cameron's edict to Tory Ministers on the EU - I think that is going a bit too far. Labour cabinet members campaigned on opposite sides and so did the Tory shadow team. I don't think that was why Labour lost in 1979. If I recall the EC was hardly mentioned. It was the Unions........
Ultimately, the gang of four formed the SDP but most of the formidable Europhiles stayed with Labour. Healey, Smith, Hattersley etc.. The root of the split may have been Europe but the main reason of the split was a left wing Union based takeover of the party.
What Cameron edict? Do you have a link to this edict? Or an unbiased source with it?
Comments
Sturgeon and Salmond are just unthinking nationalists. By which I mean that everything is less important than independence. You can't get past that,
Pre-2015 Scottish MPs though were backs-to-the-wall characters.
A claim for principles and morals could very well be made by the Scottish people. Recently though it's less good.
He's boring and sanctimonious, admittedly, but I wouldn't have thought that was a disadvantage in this contest.
However, surely we need to see a Norman Lamb equivalent before deciding if we need to adjust our betting positions?
Ive heard some remarkable things about how Royal Mail are now operating and the efforts they are making to actually eat into a lot of the market theyve lost over the years.
In blow to Erdogan, AKP may fall short of majority in Turkish election http://dlvr.it/B7Y5gb
Looks like the Kurds have given a jolt to Erdogan and the AKP.
The angry at things in life do not necessarily equate into electability though.
The Middle East and the world needs a stable Turkey, now more than ever.
Edit: apparently the AKP are going for minority government and an early election:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33042284
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/07/tim-farron-defends-lgbt-voting-record-peter-tatchell-was-on-the-same-side-as-me/
The risk is that Farron gets elected then found out as a lightweight, thus getting the worst of both worlds. Every politician has bad interviews though, so as long as this remains a one-off in the run-up he's a safe bet.
Lamb is the better choice though IMHO.
1. 18.3% swing - Somerton and Frome (David Heath stood down)
2. 16.8% swing - Taunton Deane (Jeremy Browne stood down)
3. 16.7% swing - Bath (Don Foster stood down)
(The only other non-incumbent Lib Dem, the candidate replacing Annette Brooke in Mid Dorset and North Poole, suffered an 11.6% swing, seventh-highest of the fourteen.)
Perhaps in part due to his unusual expenses problems, David Laws incurred the fourth-highest swing among the fourteen, of 16.1%.
The smallest swing of the 14 lost seats was in my own constituency, St Ives (4.5%), followed by Wells (7.4%), Torbay (7.6%) and Thornbury and Yate (9.0%). Overall average swing in the 14 seats was 11.6%.
Anyway, coming back to your point, the average swing against the ten incumbents was 9.9%, six points lower than the average swing against the four non-incumbents (15.9%).
That six-point differential in swing amounts to approximately 3,000 votes per party, which of course doubles to 6,000 votes in the battle between Con and LD.
Probably out of reach for Dowsett.
Well within Tony Martin's ability.
Still, if he had done the Hour in 2012 he would have set a mark around 58km and never seen it touched for 20 years or more.
Aslo, who could have imagined 20 years ago that there would ever be a day where 6000 people would pay to watch an Hour attempt in the UK.
One thing discussions about diversity in UK politics seems to ignore is the absolute dominance of religious nutters in power. The recent Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood was defeated because, according to reports, there was overwhelming opposition due to religious MSPs. It also seems to me that most of the problems with B Liar stemmed from his religious nuttiness.
I wouldn't discount Dowsett, but agree on Tony Martin. I hope he goes for it.
Should religious people not count towards a democratic majority?
In fact, many wouldn't care if the services were worse after nationalisation, because it'd be 'their' railways and no-one would be making a profit out of it. In fact, it's remarkably similar to some people's views on the NHS: what matters is the NHS rather than the patients.
There are one or two honourable critics of railway privatisation, one of whom wants to be London Mayor. Labour would be wise to offer Wolmar some official position when (if) he does not win Labour's nomination. I don't agree with him, but at least he argues from a position of depth of knowledge. A good man, and not an ordinary politico.
This is a problem in a representative democracy - the representatives have to reflect the aspirations and beliefs of the population. Religious nuts don't represent non religious people.
Are we to get a fair say in our membership of the EU or are we just a dependency of the US?
1. Under NAFTA rules, it is illegal for a country to have product standards that act as a trade barrier to products from other NAFTA countries. The effect of this is that the Canadian and Mexican product and safety standards bodies have been utterly denuded of power, as everything in NAFTA is now made solely to US standards.
2. Under Chapter 11 of NAFTA there are something called the ISDS provisions - aka the Investor State Dispute Settlement, which gives certain extraterritorial power to courts to over-rule countries' own laws. An example of the dangers of the NAFTA ISDS provisions was when the Quebec government banned certain lawn pesticides in 2008, and DowAgroSciences sued the Canadian government. The Canadian government was forced to back down - even though there was nothing specific in the NAFTA provisions regarding the ability of countries or states to ban harmful pesticides.
Besides, everyone posting on PB is a nut in some way or the other. Including myself. ;-)
"Nationalism is a mental illness, anyone who is a nationalist is delusional. It has no place in modern society and certainly not in the political process."
That's the problem with many delusional people: they don't recognise the delusion in themselves ;-)
P.S. You are not doing yourself any favours with your intemperate language in knocking people who have faith, and who adopt highly civilized behaviour because of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#Religion
Unlike religion and the belief in sky fairies, there are plenty of arguable rational reasons for a belief in nationalism of any form, the benefits of a closer, smaller state, the benefits of a hegemonic ethnic, linguistic or cultural demographic, smaller scale policy focus, wealth concentration, etc, etc. (I'm not advocating any specific example in this post btw).
These are arguable and rational viewpoints. Religion is not.
Freeing up markets does wonders for countries generally. (The Greeks should try it.)
Given the ISDS provisions, I'd put it as slightly more invasive than EFTA/EEA but a lot less invasive than being a member of the EU.
Cameron will sack ministers who campaign to leave the EU http://fb.me/6F87xe2UX
What is fascinating is that not matter how bodged the process was, that what we have ended up with in the end is a railways that is substantially better. An industry in a fifty year decline now at a fifty year high.
The arguments now arent about which lines are getting closed, but how to open new ones to cope with the demand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY
You can do it by going to the Vanilla forums...
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussions
Then choose the discussion you are interested in, and the comments are oldest first.
But that wasn't a car crash interview in my opinion.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/oliver-letwin-is-the-pms-i-need-you-with-me-every-day-man-10302335.html
A typical example of this was single-tracking: taking a route that had double tracks and reducing them to single to reduce maintenance costs, with consequent loss of service capacity. Some of these are being reversed now at great cost, with the second line being put down.
Worse was the way they costed private sidings off the network, reducing the sources of freight.
That is not to say BR did not do well given the constraints. But it could be argued that a significant reason privatisation has been so successful is that people believed it could be, and looked to the stars rather than the gutter.
As an aside, Railtrack was just continuing BR's attitude to infrastructure; i.e. they were trying to become a property company. The success of the Broad Street closure and conversion in the late 1980s, and the redevelopment of the adjacent Liverpool Street a few years later, convinced BR that they could get some much-needed income from their property.
Everyone else is like a spectator at a football match. But here is the man who decides which players we need to buy, what defensive strategy we should be playing and how much to charge for the gate tickets.
Would we allow the Chinese or the Russians to do the same ? What would happen if Russia issued a warrant for Salazar's arrest ?
In other words, it's bollocks until proven otherwise.
Ultimately, the gang of four formed the SDP but most of the formidable Europhiles stayed with Labour. Healey, Smith, Hattersley etc.. The root of the split may have been Europe but the main reason of the split was a left wing Union based takeover of the party.
But IANAL ...
I think Wolmar has now reached the 5th nomination required to be longlisted for shortlisting interview.
Indeed Wilson's EEC referendum was a sign of a disunited party on the subject, and the result failed to unite the party. Tories take note!
Of course there were many other reasons beside isolationism that made Labour unelectable in 83.
Could someone credible please confirm, cheers.